Quid

Well, AMRAAM wasn't being pushed because of the AIM-54 (the AIM-54 was actually one of the reasons the F-14 community eventually stopped pursuing the AMRAAM and pursued LANTIRN instead - no need for the cost), it was because of the limitations of the AIM-7 and the objective was to bring "Phoenix-like ability" into a missile the size of a Sparrow, and Phoenix did "out-stick" AMRAAM for its entire service life. As to your comment about waiting until 22nm to fire - 22nm is long range for an engagement that low. I wouldn't fire an AIM-120 on the deck at 22nm and expect it to make the intercept point against a maneuvering target, and as Draconus said, I wouldn't expect it to climb up 24,000 feet from 50ft (or up to 30K from 10K) at 22nm and have an advantage, either. Missile launch zones and no-escape zones are highly dynamic and highly dependent on altitude, launch conditions, target closure, etc., and no missile is immune to those effects.

I'd assume somewhat close (but we all know about assumptions). The reason being the US apparently sold Iran 32 F-4Ds in 1972, 36 F-4Es in 1974, and 12 RF-4Es in 1975.1 I don't know the peculiarities of the export models compared to the US models, but HB indicated that the "early" F-4E will be: "a “classic era” F-4E (blocks 36-45 with updates retrofitted in 1974 and before, including new slats, DSCG and AGM-65) ."2 This is right around the same time as when Iran received theirs through the FMS program. So, there might be some differences, but I'd assume they'd be more similar than different, akin to the F-14As sold to Iran compared to their USN counterparts of the same era. References: 1. Tom Gervasi, Arsenal of Democracy II (New York, Grove Press Inc., 1981), 111. 2.

There are two instances of early Phoenix tests I've seen in open-source documents against sea-skimming cruise missiles. The first is in Gillcrist's Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story, page 41-42. The test occurred on 8 June 1973. The setup used a QT-33 drone cruising at 0.72M and 50 feet. The F-14 was at a cruising altitude of 24,000 feet and 0.92M. Launch range of the AIM-54A was 22 nautical miles with a successful intercept. The second is in The Great Book of Modern Warplanes (1987 ed) on page 631-633, which indicates a test against a Ryan BQM-34A at 50 feet, flying at 0.75M, with the F-14 at 10,000 feet and 0.72M. Launch range of the AIM-54A was again 22 nautical miles with a successful intercept. You could always set up a test and try under these conditions and see if your missile successfully intercepts your target. Of note, the targets in the real-world tests were not maneuvering, so if you go back over the track/tacview and find the missile maybe just makes the intercept due to all that low-altitude drag, then you have an idea that against a defending fighter at such low altitude, even from a higher launch altitude, 22NM might be too far for a successful intercept. You might need to go faster to give the missile a better start, or wait longer before pulling the trigger. In the end, just experiment with it - you don't have a limited budget or supply of missiles or drones; fire as many missiles as you want under as many scenarios as you want.

I'm sorry, but no. I have no idea where you're getting this information. The F-14 was flown to and through its g-limit all the way until the end. There was no "5.5g peacetime limit" to the plane, unless it was loaded so heavily as to reduce the limit to 5.5g or less, or were carrying munitions or pods that lowered the limit to this (in which case, a similarly loaded F-16 would have the same limit). The only time there was a 5.5g symmetrical limit was in the early days for the maneuver flaps and slats (this can be found in the 1975 NATOPS). This was revised by 1980 so that regardless of maneuver flaps/slats the limit was 6.5g symmetrical (again, unless you're talking above combat weight, in which the limit lowers as weight increases, as is true of every aircraft). Even the last two Tomcat crews who qualified (Jay "Faceshot" Consalvi and Megan "Slick" Flannigan) both admitted to overstressing the jet during training and real-world operations (IIRC, Faceshot put more than 9g on his jet during a MANPADS defense, and Vargas did 7.5g+ during training to win, neither aircraft broke anything critical), and HUD footage of F-14Bs in 2004-5 show maximum g loads on their Sparrowhawk HUDs around 10g. No Tomcat EVER broke its wings under any circumstance whatsoever in the real world, and the wing box was considered the strongest part of the aircraft. The only thing I'm aware of that caused a temporary reduction in allowable "g" due to the wings was that metal shavings were showing up in the joints in the 1970s and again in the mid-1990s, but in both cases, it wasn't a long lasting problem. If there were any reason F-14 crews became less proficient at air-to-air combat into the late 1990s/early 2000s, it was because they trained less for it; they went from being entirely air-to-air assets to multi-role with heavy focus on strike. I recall "Okie" Nance actually talking about the difference going against Aggressor F-16s and line F-16s and the night-and-day difference because aggressors did nothing but fly the Viper in air-to-air and BFM, while line guys would do strike and practice BFM per their syllabus. He considered the latter not much of a challenge and the former difficult. This goes back a little to my comment about boasting and whatnot, but think about it from what I said about how it's all about the pilot/aircrew: a pilot who does nothing but BFM all day is going to be exceptional at that. A pilot who does strike, FAC(A), some intercepts and some BFM is going to be a much different person to go against. As to the speed limits, all F-14s were eventually limited to 1.88M, even if they were rated for a higher speed. Victory 205 talked about the reason, I'd have to search for his answer, but all F-14s could physically break 2.0M and both had a similar top speed, but it is as Spurts explained - the TF-30 is a "dumb" engine that just takes air and fuel and turns it into thrust while the F110 is a "smart" engine that governs the thrust for wear and life considerations, and the TF-30 at extreme high speeds eventually overtakes the F110. At any tactically significant speed, the F110 is the more powerful of the two.

Well, that's the thing, I know pilots IRL who considered it a great BFM platform, so "anyone in the real world" is beyond a stretch. I turned my sarcasm up to 11 in that post above because what you posted is the kind of hyperbole that I hear from every aircrew of every platform. So, I posted a Tomcat pilot's own thoughts about the Viper as it was relevant to the thread and was an example of both an alternate opinion, and that it tells me next to nothing about the two, yet I can take it and run with it as if now the F-14's supposed to come out on top every time. Every single fighter apparently kicks the living snot out of the other guy every time, or has something it can do that the other guy can't. "Like shooting fish in a barrel," "eat them for lunch," "not really a challenge, but their plane looks nice," "is a grape," "is a big fat target," etc. It's all a bunch of BS. It comes down to the pilot/aircrew, not the crate, and anyone who has said one of those things has also probably gotten their proverbial brains drilled out by the pilot/aircrew of plane they are making fun of, they just don't like to admit it.

Oh, cool! Random opinion bullsh*t because my platform is the best and above all! I happen to know a Tomcat pilot whose opinion was that, against the B, the Viper "made a nice lunch after its first 9g vapor/Viper ball" turn! That's all I need to know. F-14B>F-16 in a gunfight! Seriously.

Only HB can really tell you, so I'd defer to them for truth data, but based on what they have said in other threads, I wouldn't expect the "original" beaver tail, and might expect dumb bombs. The reason for the former is that the beaver tail was revised during the production of Block 75 (there are early photos showing some Block 75 birds with the old config and others with the new)1, which were delivered between March and October 1974.2 The earliest model Heatblur is working is the Block 95 IIAF/IRIAF Turkey which would have had the revised beaver tail, automatic maneuver flaps and slats, etc. The reason I might expect dumb bombs is that F-14 squadrons did begin experimenting with them even by the late 1980s (to say nothing of the early experiments from the get-go), but they weren't cleared for operational use until the 1990s. So it's possible, but we'll see. References: 1. Brown, Tomcat Alley, 35-44 2. Gillcrist, TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story, 198.

Yes, this is a bug. Have a report in here: The fix action at this time is to engage/disengage autopilot.

Definitely possible - it may be that the engines were tweaked to output less thrust in motion (vice at static) to improve the stall margin or lessen wear. Interesting to read about an up-rated engine years later. Thanks for the further discussion.

I hear that a lot, but can't find any documentation backing it. Going through the NATOPS manuals (including 1972, 1975, 1981, 1984, 1997 and 2004) the thrust appears to have negligibly increased, rather than decreased at least at static installed thrust going from the baseline -412 to the -414A. It was discussed here: What I am aware of are the steel containment cases built around the TF-30's fan blade sections to contain them if they should fail that increased the gross weight of the aircraft, and therefore decreased the thrust to weight at any given point in the envelope. Every model HB is doing would have had either the -414 or -414A, with the engine introduced in Block 95. For the sake of completeness, I'm sure -412s got installed in some of those aircraft at certain points since they were likely still common at that time.

Noticed this as well; I put a post into the Bug Report section on the subject.

ALCON, I’ve noticed a possible bug, but what is infuriating about it is its lack of consistency. I’ve tested this against multiple airframes (F-14A/B, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, MiG-19) and only the Tomcat (both A and B) appear to be affected. This happens in both single player and multi-player to me. At random, the F-14 will spawn with a trim setting where the stabs will be offset. They are offset to such an extent that the aircraft will roll itself uncommanded as if the stick were programmed at least 50% to either the left or right. I attempted to trim it out and at full trim, the aircraft still rolled uncommanded. I first encountered the issue in a 1v1 guns vs. AI mission and then found it occurs in both SP and MP. I was fighting uncommanded right roll while trying to dogfight with counter-rudder and counter-stick to try to get the plane to pull straight. The problem is not related to the joystick itself. I tested it on other airframes, ran recalibration, updated the firmware, restarted the computer, restarted DCS, unplugged and replugged the stick into the computer. I also tested the VR hand settings to see if they were interfering (they had been in the past causing the stick to recenter at random), turning off and on the VR grips interaction with the throttle and stick, with no effect. I checked my settings as well to see if there were multiple bindings to the roll axis; there are none. I do not have a track file because the problem is idiosyncratic by the spawn. On a friend’s server, I spawned six times to test. The problem appeared the second time in the second of four Tomcat slots on that server. Slot 1 did not have the problem, nor did 3 or 4. 2 did the first time, but when I tested a second time, it did not. When I tested it on my 1v1 guns only vs. AI mission, it happened repeatedly, but randomly, it would not. A free-flight test resulted in no roll, while an intercept mission had it happen immediately as I left the deck. Eventually I started checking the external view to see if the stabs were deflected differentially, and lo and behold, they were. Please see the attached pictures which show the stab deflection differential with neutral stick and rudder. Again, this happens randomly, for some reason more often in my single player missions, but sometimes in MP. Easiest way I’ve dealt with it in MP is to just respawn until the plane I get has matching stabs. Cheers, Quid

Auto maneuver flaps and slats were introduced in Block 90, so the 95 should have them.

The definition DD_Fenrir provided is the most typical that I see, basically those aircraft designed with the lessons learned from Vietnam especially focusing on increased dogfighting prowess atop the speed/interception capability as hallmarks of 4th Generation fighters, and include the F-14 through 18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 and the like. Pretty much this. The Tomcat was actually the first to have any revolutionary capability from a weapon system/power projection standpoint. The F-15 was hydromechanical like the Tomcat, but had an all-digital radar with MPRF making it better at dealing with maneuvering fighters. The thing is, it was a Sparrow shooter; the weapons it carried were no different than those of an F-4, with one-lock, one-shot for BVR engagements. It took until the early 1990s until the F-15 had either an active homing or multi-target engagement capability and still lacked the datalink until even later. The F-16 could best be considered a 2nd generation fighter on steroids when introduced because in spite of its FBW system, it had no BVR capability, no datalink, and in the earliest days of its initial deployment, not even an all-aspect IR missile; essentially an F-8 with ridiculous power and better visibility. This is not in line with the other 4th generation fighters. The F/A-18 was comparable to the F-15 from a weapons carriage/capability standpoint (AIM-7/AIM-9/gun). The Tomcat also beat these fighters to Link 16 (in the F-14D). So, I don't really agree with Cab's opinion other than to say it is true and valid that fighter generations are not well defined, so there is wiggle room, and you can bin them in different ways. For the Mirage F1, I'd consider it "late gen 3," generally comparable to the F-4 in role, radar, weapons, etc. But, that's just my opinion.

Just got done with some high altitude testing against maneuvering targets - the lethality definitely seems to be back; I succeeded hitting a pair of F-5s at 55NM who were bee-lining it for an E2 (Vc about 1100kts at launch, about 36K ft). When the missiles went active, they each did a hard turn and then a dive, and both missiles had the Schlitz to keep up and make the intercept (~1.7M &1.6M at intercept after maneuvering). Another test at 37NM launch distance achieved the kill under similar circumstances at ~2.0M. The guidance update definitely seems to have helped. Will continue to test at lower altitudes to feel out the envelope. Thanks for your dedication and work, HB!

Dude...it's being taken care of. I guess I should be totally unsurprised; when ED did the incremental update to the AIM-120 which temporarily bent the missile it caused such a flow of tears that I thought the ocean levels would rise by at least an inch before the following update(s) fixed the issue in spite of the fact that ED was completely open about it and literally told everyone it was a multi-part update which would be fixed in time. HB as well has openly stated and shown that there will be a fix to the guidance, which will return much of the lethality of the AIM-54 (not all, because it had been over-performing before) and that it will either be in the next hotfix, or the next patch. Yet, the tears still flow. Please, just be patient. We ALL KNOW that the missile's guidance is being tweaked. Let it be tweaked.

It's been covered in a couple threads including this one, this is part of a multi-stage remodel. The current state is not definitive. "We do not believe the current performance to be realistic due to guidance issues. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a multi-step process and we'll be working hard to rectify this with urgency. "

Man, great to see another legend coming to DCS from HB! I'll definitely be adding this one to my hangar.

It's also exacerbated by weight (as pointed out by FC back in June). We recently had someone lose their tailhook and I asked what their configuration was (we had externals shut off). They were still packing 5 of their 6 AIM-54s and had a good quantity of fuel left. If memory serves they were close to 8000lbs above max trap. I just took a look at your configuration during that landing attempt. If DCS does consider the weights of the pylons, you guys were more than 3000lbs above max trap when the hook broke given your fuel state, remaining missiles, and all attached pylons and stores, which probably didn't help. Suffice to say, yes, the hook still breaks off!

Without a track file showing how much "g" you're loading, or what your control inputs were at the time it's hard to assess, but like all aircraft, the F-5E's rolling limits are lower than its symmetrical limits. Since you're quoting the manual, I assume you have access to it. Read the "In-flight carriage & sequencing limitations" section, which has all of the g-limits including symmetrical and asymmetrical for the F-5E and F by configuration. You're over-stressing the jet if you pull more than +5.8g or -1g with wingtip rails/Sidewinders and otherwise clean. If you have more than 2200lbs of fuel at 0.95-2.0IMN, you've got +5.2/-1g as your asymmetrical envelope. I don't know if the F-5 is modeled against different limits or not, but it's something to bear in mind. Right now, it sounds like several aircraft are too sensitive to overstress and it is being worked on. I flew the F-5 a few times about two weeks ago and could not pull the wings off in symmetrical pulls without ordnance (guns only). I did manage to remove them in a rolling defense at high speed. I'd wait to see how/if ED tweaks the overstress model in the coming patches.

Support for AIM-54As did not stop when production stopped. I'm away for the holidays so my typical sources aren't available, but GlobalSecurity has a run-down: "Performance modifications to the AIM-54A were incorporated during and after production. The Reject Image Device (RID), High Altitude Performance (HAP), and Extended Active Gate (EAG) were incorporated during production. The MK 11 MOD 3 Electronics Assembly (EA) modification was installed by retrofit after production. " "The AIM-54A's MK 11 MOD 3 EA modification upgrades the Targeting Detecting Device (TDD) to improve warhead lethality against short targets." "The AIM-54A's HAP modification improves capabilities against very high and fast targets." Site source is: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54.htm Stockpiles of AIM-54As were not depleted even by the 1990s, so it is unsurprising that the A was still being supported with upgrades by Hughes as the 54C became the standard. How that gets put to values in DCS is something for the devs to figure out, but missiles, like aircraft, are upgraded over their lifetimes. The AIM-54A is no different, and assuming you're facing 1970s technology in a 1990s scenario (for the sake of example) would be foolish, unless a nation is known to have older technology. Iranian AIM-54As, for example, would not have seen the same updates. I don't know if or how that will be addressed when HB releases the 95; we'll have to see.

Dude...that is friggin' incredible!

If I'm reading this right, you're seeing a discrepancy between the ammo indicator and the actual ammo in the gun? If you're cold start, you will have to manually enter the rounds with the indicator knob. If you then fly, fire the gun, land, and request rearming, be sure that ammo is set to 100% on the arming screen, then when you hear "rearming complete," you will have to manually set the ammo indicator with the knob, or it will continue to show whatever your ammo state was prior to your rearming the aircraft. If your gun isn't firing at all, it may be as Draconus said - Air Source switch.

The reason I have read/heard for years for the rarity of 6 Phoenix is the recovery weight and not having enough gas for go-arounds (apart from a lot of drag). Using the weights from the 1975 NATOPS, for example, having only 6x AIM-54As and their supporting rails/launchers on the early F-14A (no tanks, tank rails, Sidewinders or Sidewinder rails/launchers), the jet weighs 48,802lbs, against an (at the time) 51,800lbs max trap, leaving only 2998lbs of fuel max at touch-down. Later, the max trap was expanded to 54,000lbs; the F-14 itself got heavier (as did the AIM-54), but the margin got larger for the A. Using the numbers from 1995, the F-14A, AIM-54 rails/launchers and 6x AIM-54Cs weigh 50,828lbs against a 54,000lbs max trap, leaving 3172lbs of fuel max at touch-down. The margin for the F-14B and D would be smaller; the F-14B would have 1572lbs at max trap, the F-14D would have 1437lbs. Considering the F-14 commonly flew with tanks while deployed from the 1980s onward (though not an absolute truism, and you have a nice picture there of an F-14B without either tanks or rails), as well as Sidewinder rails, the available fuel at max trap would be even less and the drag even greater. Add to this that the plane can't use every last drop and you have a margin for error to build in as well. If we add, for example, the empty tanks, tank rails (856lbs), and sidewinder pylons, (226lbs), your F-14A has 2090lbs of fuel to play with while the F-14B has a scant 490lbs to hit the 54,000lbs max trap weight.

Another possibility is that the trigger got unbound. The recent update has unbound a number of controls, but it's kind of strange that it's not standardized, that is, not all the same controls were unbound for different players. Even in my group, I had to re-bind different controls than another player, who had to re-bind certain different controls than either of us. I'd do a quick check to ensure your second detent is still bound.