Quid

Man, if the F-14's that bad, then your pilots must really suck to end up on the receiving end of its 20mm... Third "Trigger Down" on a Mirage 2000 with witness mark in upper left corner indicating trigger is pulled. Or, you can take what your pilots say with an entire barrel of salt. When comparing their own aircraft to others, pilots have a tendency to speak in hyperbole. I can't count the times I've heard or read about plane X's pilot being able to mop the floor with the other guy's airframe, and vice versa, just as a lot of other people have posted here. It's frankly little more than prideful bullsh*t.

Hear hear! Thank you very much to the team for all your hard work on this.

I'm not sure that's correct; Forrestal didn't participate directly in ODS, but she did participate in Operation Southern Watch (her last fleet deployment). She embarked with 2x F/A-18A squadrons, VFA-132 and VFA-137. Gonavy.jp has the bureau numbers; they're comprised of A models from production lot 8 (Blocks 18 and 19). Saratoga, however, did deploy to ODS and did have 2x F/A-18C squadrons embarked (VFA-81 and VFA-83), comprised of production lot 10 aircraft (Blocks 23-25). So a Forrestal-Class carrier did participate in ODS with F/A-18Cs, it just wasn't Forrestal herself.

You are correct. Both "Tomcat Alley" and "Hoser Here, Shoot!" have pictures of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL F-14s with VTAS installed for both front and back seat. Tomcat Alley shows them on pg. 74 and 75, Hoser here has one on the back cover and the same shot in black and white on pg 92. I recall Hoser mentioning something about the RIO using it during testing, but it was on Tomcat-Sunset years ago so I can't point to a source anymore on that.

The FM does indicate installed. The PTO says: "At sea level static conditions, each engine develops 10,500 pounds installed thrust at military and 1700[0] pounds thrust at maximum afterburner." (1-28) The 1975 revision removed this section, then mentioned the thrust in a later part specifically for afterburner augmentation (Zone 1 through 5), which says: "Thrust augmentation can be modulated between 11,700 pounds and 17,000 pounds installed net thrust at static sea level conditions." (1-39) From 1981 and until 2004, the thrust section is quoted as: "The installed engine thrust at military and maximum afterburner power is 10,875 and 17,077 pounds, respectively." (1-13; 1981, 1984, 2-10; 1997, 2-9; 2004). That said, I could still see where there is potential for confusion, because it also says in the early manual both "static" and "installed." I take this to mean installed thrust at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed, such as with the aircraft on the catapult in Zone 5. When the number is quoted as just "static" and showing 20,800 pounds, it would be uninstalled (i.e., 0 altitude, 0 airspeed, mounted for a test).

I've heard this a number of times, but based on the various NATOPS entries, it doesn't seem to be right. It has to do with what SgtPappy mentions - installed thrust vs. static uninstalled thrust. Even the PTO from 1972 lists the installed thrust as 17,000 lbs (it's actually a typo that says "1700" - pg. 1-28). The 1975 NATOPS, which also predates engine updates, also provides 17,000lbs installed static thrust for maximum AB, and 11,700 for min for the TF-30P-412 (pg. 1-39). The 1981 and beyond versions, which list the TF-30P-414 or 414A, provide 17,077lbs installed thrust (a negligible increase, rather than a decrease in thrust, pg. 1-13 for the 1984 Change 1). As SgtPappy points out, the 20,800lbs value is uninstalled. It shouldn't need to be said, but because every time anyone leaves out any detail, it seems as though the "ackshually" army (of which I admit I am sometimes a part) gets a notification: this is of course at 0 altitude and airspeed installed. Yes, the TF-30 will achieve 28,000lbs per engine at .9M at sea level according to open-source publications (e.g., Stevenson's Grumman F-14), and thrust is highly dynamic dependent on altitude and airspeed (dynamic pressure), etc., etc.

Source is the book "Hoser Here, Shoot!," by the Tomcat-Sunset staff, page 86 (originally part of a longer conversation at T-S). In the end, Hoser never said how he got to that number. As you all at HB has been modelling the plane to a high degree of fidelity, and looking into these kinds of things from an engineering standpoint, it's entirely possible that he miscalculated how much he was getting out of it.

It's good, I didn't really take it as a slight - that last part of my own response was a critique at myself because I realized "holy s&*+, this is a nitpick." I also understand the frustration, and agree with you that this really should not be a priority in any regard.

No, not new I used it before as you linked, but the specific question came up, and it was relevant. Also, that's not a story of Hoser, that was actually Hoser explaining that. The main reason I even posted it again is because there's quotes in here talking about how it either did nothing, or was never done, or whatever. It was done. It did affect the available thrust going out the back of the jet. As Victory explained, there were significant ramifications for doing so, and like I said in my original post, even Hoser had a very, very narrow use for it, and frankly, there isn't any data as to how much more likely someone was to get out of the 9L envelope in ACE/AIM based on using "Zone 6" or not. I wouldn't expect any pilot to use it in a real-world combat scenario; ACE/AIM, by admission of several of its participants, basically turned into a Kill-to-Loss competition, so any advantage that could be taken was. The fact that you could fry electronics beyond the radar doing this makes its practical application in combat operations even less likely. That doesn't change the fact that people did it under specific circumstances. I don't know, call me just another nit-picking ass; there's plenty of them to go around in these parts...

Direct from Hoser: "Zone 6: On command, the RO [sic] would go to standby on the AWG-9 as the pilot would punch "Air Source Off". This produced between 850 to 1125 pounds of additional thrusties: cutting off the TF-30 16th stage bleed air used for AWG-9 cooling, pressurization, and a/c. Simultaneously, the pilot would unload, roll in the droops and manually sweep the wings to 68 degrees. Why wait to let the wings blow back (drag) and the lifties were certainly not needed. And of course, since the task at hand was getting the hell outta Dodge post haste and getting on the deck (thereby shrinking the 9L envelope), the radar was not in the equation since it did not look aft. 'Turk' Pentecost and I discussed these unique Turkey procedures with Monroe "Hawk" Smith (then CO of TOPGUN) and it was mutually decided that although it works, we should keep it close to the vest on a "need to know" level." So, Hoser may not have explained it precisely (reclaiming 850-1125lbs of thrust, rather than producing it), but also note that he specified he would use it as a bug out assist, not going into or already being in the middle of a fight.

Damn, that's a shame. May he rest in peace.

Probably not a definitive answer, but the V-N charts for the B/D show a projected structural limit out to 7.5g for 55,985lbs. Once the aircraft's lift limit reaches 7.5g and flat-lines at the projected structural limit, the line never curves back down to imply a speed where the aircraft cannot at least hit the projected limit of 7.5g in any of the charts, even at 35,000 feet and 2.4M. But, that's just reading a chart; SME input would probably help. At the same time, I'm not sure how many B/D Tomcat crews decided to get the plane to 1.6M and pull to see if they could overshoot their NATOPS limit...

Concur with this. 35 is usually where I'll launch an AIM-54 against a fighter, but depending on RCS, Vc, and altitudes, you can reach out and touch someone. The longest range kill I've got (I had a human RIO for it) was 100NM against an AI bomber on a PvE server about a year ago. Type was a Tu-22, it was traveling extremely fast at high altitude, we got to about 1.6M at 35-40,000-ish and lobbed it just to see if it would work. We were both surprised with the result, but it can happen under the right circumstances. Given the countdown and relative velocities, we probably could have launched a few miles further, but I'm not sure how much further.

The P414 was already standardized by the time the Tomcat was sold to Iran, so the earlier -412 shouldn't be represented (started with Block 95, actually). As to the weights, yes, earlier As were lighter than later As. The 1975 NATOPS gives a gross weight (including trapped fuel, oil, gun, and aircrew) of 40,070lbs. The 1981 NATOPS has a gross weight of 41,587lbs. By 1984 and until 2004, its listed as 42,000lbs.

The Block 135 and 140 were not delivered with the ALR-67, rather, the F-14A received the system in the mid-1990s as part of the upgrade program that saw LANTIRN/PTID integration1. Strangely, even after it became available, it was never added to the NATOPS (even its final 2004 version doesn't mention the ALR-67). The thing is, Heatblur have actually pointed out that the "Block" designation isn't really reflective of a given production block, rather an easier way to bin the aircraft in general of an "earlier" F-14A and a "later" F-14A. See here: Sources: 1. Jon Lake (ed.). F-14 Tomcat Shipborne Superfighter. (London, England: Aerospace Publishing, Ltd., 1998), 83, 196. EDIT: It is also worthy of note that pictures of F-14A cockpits as late as 2001 sometimes show no ALR-67 display, so I'm not sure it went fleet-wide, or only a certain batch received them.

So, this was apparently it. I re-checked my controls again, still had no double binds, but scrolled over and saw "Vive Controller." I disabled it and the problem went away. I can use my VKB stick with the G2 hand controllers now and it works. Thank you very much!

Hello, I've run into a new issue since the 2.7 update which makes DCS practically unplayable using the Gunfighter III by VKB and the HP Reverb G2's hand controllers. Whenever I pick up the hand controller, the stick attempts to re-center itself cyclically and will not stop until I completely exit and restart DCS. I reproduced this several times over the past few days (I haven't been able to play as often recently, but the problem started with the 2.7 update). Here's how it happens: 1. I boot DCS 2. Load a mission (or join a multiplayer session) 3. When I initially load in, if I use my mouse to interact with the menus, nothing wrong happens and I am able to fly. The stick interacts with no problem. 4. The instant I touch the hand controller, the stick freaks out and any directional input I give, it attempts to center itself, as well as read its current position, causing the stick to jerk about in the cockpit and making the aircraft very difficult to control. The problem does not clear itself unless I restart the sim, or alternatively it seems to right itself if the controller shuts down. The rudders and throttle (Thrustmaster Rudders and TM Warthog throttle) have no problems. I have also tried this with the TM Warthog stick, and there is no problem. It only appears to affect my VKB. In the process of troubleshooting, I knew that stick extenders have a tendency to cause problems due to connections, and I disassembled and re-assembled the stick, extender, base, etc. I reset the stick, and ran diagnostics. I then went into DCS and checked the axes, and the stick never jittered, which is why I was still dumbfounded as to why in-game it began jittering. I figured: this is akin to having more than one control bound to the same axis. I went through all of my controls, ensured there were no double-bindings, loaded in, and then decided not to touch the hand controllers and see what happened. The plane handled fine. I touched the hand controller and instantly ran into the jump/jitter/re-center problem. I'm reporting it here because I'm not sure if it's a DCS problem or a hardware problem, but I will say this - until the 2.7 drop, this was no issue. The VKB stick and Reverb G2 handsets had no issues interacting with each other, and no infinite re-center occurred. I updated to 2.7, and ran into the issue. For now, I cannot use the hand controllers and my VKB stick at the same time, but I can do so with the TM Warthog. Cheers.

Installed thrust for the TF-30 at mil power is 10,875lbs at 0M at SL; Max AB is 17,077lbs at the same, and about 28,000 at 0.9M at SL. Installed thrust for the F110 at mil power is 13,800lbs at 0M at SL; Max AB is 23,600lbs at the same, and about 30,200lbs at 0.9M at SL. EDIT: Bear in mind these are all performance points - thrust is highly dynamic; described by a curve, increasing as speed increases, decreasing as altitude increases, and/or at speeds where the inlet changes, affecting airflow to the engine, etc. Also, an individual engine might be worn, or new, or the weather will affect the dynamic pressure, etc., so it's not going to be exact.

Naquaii already covered the fact that those modes pre-existed AIM/ACEVAL, but just to answer your question on the target designate switch: that switch was also there prior to those exercises. The Preliminary TO from 1972 shows the target designate switch sitting off to the left of the left side console, and all drawings of the pilot cockpit show the same. Same as the operational November 1975 edition, so that wasn't an afterthought or added after those trials.

Limits for zero or negative "g" maneuvers is 10 seconds with AB operating or 20 seconds at mil or less for the F-14A. For the F-14B/D it's "Sustained 0 to -0.5g flight" while in afterburner, or 10 seconds in afterburner between -0.5 and -2.4g. Mil limit is the same 20 seconds.

Completely missed that. Thanks!

No idea if it's correct or not; I'm only aware of lateral (stick) control reversal being highlighted in the NATOPS, nothing with rudder reversal, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen - HB may have learned about this behavior from their SMEs or from some other study; not sure, they'd have to chime in.

I remember testing this close to two years ago; if memory serves, as the plane starts dropping into negative AoA, the rudder roll direction reverses. Try this: maintain positive AoA and start rudder rolling, then, start pushing the stick forward and see as the plane goes to negative if it reverses and starts rolling in the other direction; I thought that was the cause.

I don't think so - I've been friendly-fired enough times, to include by my fellow pilots in the same Discord that it seems to work correctly (i.e. no warning until the missile is active). In one instance, the exchange went something like this: [While turning with a bandit in the Tomcat, one of our other guys in a Hornet approaching] Hornet Pilot: "Okay, I foxed on that bandit." Me: "Wait, were you in TWS?" HP: "Yeah." Me: "Okay, this might go bad." HP: "Are you next to him?" Me: "Yup." HP: "Uh-oh." About 10 seconds later: [Flashing "M" and warning tone as the missile goes active] Me: "Yup, it's on me." HP: "Sorry, man." Splash on me. So, the missile was already off the rail and traveling, then went active on me, and I confirmed the Hornet launched in TWS. I did NOT have a warning when he called his shot. BUT! I haven't tested it properly; maybe I was in the RWR's blind spot, maybe there was server lag (unlikely due to how long between fox and warning), etc. I had another instance last week where something similar happened - I had a "16" on RWR while turning with a bandit (this was a public server), the bandit exploded, then I had the "M" pop up with no prior warning and got to mark up another ejection due to friendly fire while the Viper driver got kicked for being the perpetrator. I can't confirm he fired in TWS, however, so it's just anecdotal. If I get time, I'll see if I can test it with my group.

No telling how Iran modified their Tomcats over the past getting on 5 decades, but when delivered the Iranian F-14s did not have the ILS used by the US Navy. Two books on the subject have the same data regarding some of the systems missing from Iranian F-14s; David F. Brown's book "Legends of Warfare: F-14 Tomcat", and Cooper and Bishops' "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat" both indicate that the Iranian F-14s were missing: AN/ARA-62 Instrument Landing System KIT-1A, KIR-1A, and KY-28 Secure Voice AN/ALR-23 IRST system (abandoned by the USN shortly after the F-14's introduction) APX-81-M1E IFF interrigator could only interrogate Soviet-designed aircraft Export AIM-54A had slightly downgraded ECCM characteristics to those used by the USN Neither book mentions a different ILS installed in the place of the ARA-62, so it may have had no ILS at all when delivered.