Quid

For the part on the IRST, that's absolutely possible, but I was specifically responding to WolfHound's question on if a Block 95 could mount a TCS. For Iran, no because the system became available after the revolution, for the USN, yes.

It depends on what you mean by Block 95; if you mean the planned Iranian Tomcats for DCS, then no: the TCS wasn't introduced to the fleet until 1981, after the revolution. It was experimental equipment tested during ACEVAL/AIMVAL, and those VX-4 Tomcats had both TCS (as "TVSU") and VTAS, but the system wasn't acquired immediately afterwards and even got killed for a short period before its funding was restored (RADM Gillcrist was involved in saving the TCS) in 1981. It then was introduced to the fleet over the span of a few years. The long and short of it is that IRIAF F-14s wouldn't carry it. If you mean could a Block 95 have been equipped with the TCS in the USN at any point in time, then yes, as kits became available, earlier block Tomcats could have a TCS installed.

If you're stuck in landing mode, it is kind of jerky. As TLTeo said, switch to A/A, or A/G, or Cruise and it's smooth.

There was apparently more than one way to do it - at least 4 other Tomcat pilots mentioned using the 16th stage bypass to get more thrust out of the TF-30 years ago at Tomcat-Sunset ("Hoser" Satrapa and "Turk" Pentecost both tested it during ACEVAL/AIMVAL workups). It's also in Hoser's book, but he specifically states it was used for a bugout at low altitude. He also doesn't mention a need to pull a circuit breaker. Rather, the RIO switches the AWG-9 to standby, and the pilot changes the Air Source to OFF. Per the NATOPS, this inhibits firing the gun, pressurization and air conditioning, so it is something you'd only do at low altitude to disengage, because you're essentially turning off all of your weapon systems and a life support system for a short burst of increased thrust to get out of combat. He described it thus: "Zone 6: On command, the RO [sic] would go to standby on the AWG-9 as the pilot would punch "Air Source Off". This produces 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 [flaps] 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." ("Hoser Here, Shoot!," pg. 86) I'd assume the circuit breaker is doing essentially the same thing, and if so, it should also have the same ramifications, so I'm not sure how you'd use it while still intending to engage an enemy. As it stands, it's impractical under most circumstances, so if it stays as a very basic button interaction, great. If it goes away, I'm not sure how many people would miss it.

Ah, understood. Thank you for the further amplification.

The Block 135 should not be representative of the F-14 in the late 1970s/early 1980s because the first Block 135s were not delivered until April 1985, and the last March 1986. Based on its feature list, the Block 135 Early would be representative of an F-14A from about 1985-~1995. The TCS was introduced in 1981 to the fleet after testing in the 1970s through ACEVAL/AIMVAL, so it pre-dates even the earliest Block 135 Tomcat; this doesn't mean it was always installed, always up, always needed, etc. so yes, there are plenty of pictures of F-14s with bullet fairings installed after the mid-1980s, but unless it was broken, unneeded, not enough available, etc., it would have been standard equipment by the time the 135 was around.

PTID won't happen and there was an entire discussion thread about why. IRST won't happen because we're not getting an F-14D, and the IRST in the F-14A (unrelated to the much later one used in the "D") wasn't used outside of limited testing with extremely early blocks (60-75) after which point it was decided it did not have useful tactical utility and was abandoned. I wouldn't count on DFCS either.

Not sure what you mean by old style beaver tail; if you mean either the one with the fairings, or the squared off version with them removed, that wouldn't be representative of a Block 135. The new design was already in place by Block 75, so unless there are rebuilds which didn't include that airframe change, you won't see a Block 135 with the older beaver tail.

Nothing to the degree of the near-1000pg tomes by Gordon and Komissarov exist for the F-14 in spite of its popularity. There are a few that do get into some decent details, however, one of the more affordable being "TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story" by Paul T. Gillcrist, a retired Rear Admiral who was directly involved in the Tomcat programmatically during his time at the Pentagon, so he has some good insights and background (~$40USD). Another, if you can find it, is Grumman F-14 Tomcat Shipborne Superfighter edited by Jon Lake, but its current asking price is over $760 on Amazon. While it has a lot of good data, it isn't worth $700; you can find much of what is contained in it across multiple other books and spend a hell of a lot less; I got my copy well over 20 years ago when it was about $30. Both books date to the late 1990s, so the plane was only just getting into the strike role then, and the details on the strike capabilities of the plane are relatively little compared to its other roles. Another one that has good data on the F-14 out to the Mid-1980s is the Great Book of Modern Warplanes First Edition from 1988 (the Tomcat is covered in the last chapter, and it covers several other aircraft as well). Hope this helps.

Based on how you opened it, the thread was made to complain to HB about a perceived problem with a different module not made by HB and how that module handles missile warning symbology for whatever a "noob-54" is. Then, you changed the subject to players swapping out jets because they got killed to try to stop themselves from registering on a scoreboard that doesn't matter, and somehow this is also HB's fault. It isn't, and as it stands those other players haven't denied you a kill, you have killed them. They are in another jet because you have rendered their current one inoperable. Their prior ride is now in flames, headed for the earth. Tally one for yourself. You are +3|-| ub3|2 1337 |-|4><0|2!!!!one11!!! roflolcopterzzzzz. Seriously, though, you'd also be credited with a kill if someone crashed their jet against your missile during the defense, or your maneuvering relative to them causes them to auger in (called a "maneuver kill"). The game doesn't tally those, either. In the end, it's only you keeping score, so if someone jumps into a different jet, well, that's kind of bad sportsmanship, but you've bested them, and you knocked them out of the sky, so you get the kill regardless of what the scoreboard says, just as if you forced them into the ocean or a mountain side, or they crashed trying to evade your missile/gun. But, since the game doesn't keep track of your online record (unless something has changed recently), and the scoreboard resets when you leave, the only one keeping track is you.

While glove AIM-9s have a higher DI than fuselage AIM-7s (it got recalculated to 5,5 from 8,8 in the 80s), they won't affect the aircraft to that degree. The F-14A's MaxQ in level flight with a 4x4 loadout (AIM-9 on 1A, 1B, 8A, 8B and 4x fuselage AIM-7s) is 2.15M at 37,000 feet, so if there is a drag problem, it sounds exponentially off. Last night I was online with a 2x2x4 and was able to accelerate to 1.1M before temp spiking and cutting the cans, so I could pass Mach 1, and would have gotten faster were it not for the TF-30s trying to disassemble themselves. This was at ~24,000 feet.

A lot of it was discussed at Tomcat-Sunset well over a decade ago. "Hoser" Satrapa and "Turk" Pentecost (both flew as a section during ACEVAL/AIMVAL) would discuss all sorts of elements about the F-14, air combat, etc., and portions of the tests, what equipment they had, etc. were brought up. That said, I'm not sure how much of that is archived or still around - I haven't been on the site in a long time. Some of it is captured in the book "Hoser Here...Shoot!" by the Tomcat-Sunset staff. Still, there are some other open-source books that are more accessible: Chapter 13 of TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story by "Gator" Gillcrist covers ACEVAL/AIMVAL exclusively and discusses some of the missile proposals (such as AGILE and the AIM-9L), VTAS and how effective it was (over 90% of radar locks occurred with VTAS, something Hoser reiterated years ago), the overall results, other technologies tested (e.g., TVSU/TCS, which is then discussed further in depth in Chapter 14 to include its use in ACEVAL/AIMVAL, acquisition of the system, its funding cut and funding restoral in 1981 and subsequent installation). Some of the other details are in Grumman F-14 Tomcat, Shipborne Superfighter, edited by Jon Lake, Wings of Fury by Robert Wilcox, and some of the REDFOR side is discussed in Roger Ball! The Odyssey of John Monroe "Hawk" Smith by Donald Auten. Photographic data as to when the TVSU was in place is found in Tomcat Alley by David F. Brown, who photographed most of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL Tomcats between early 1976 and late 1977 - all have TVSUs and VTAS boxes installed. "Turk" Pentecost used to have a site with pictures from VF-1 and VX-4, but it's long since been taken down; the VX-4 birds all have TVSU and VTAS boxes in his pictures as well.

Quick note - the F-14s and F-15s were "equipped" (TACTS range) with all-aspect short-range missiles as well as Sparrow and gun, and the Tomcats actually had the TVSU during the trials. They were not installed into the fleet until a few years after the end of the trials, but that is where they were actually tested. The F-15 crews used Weaver rifle scopes. It was also broken into different portions - ACEVAL was the air combat evaluation, AIMVAL was the missile evaluation looking at a variety of proposed short range missiles and engagement parameters. EDIT: Both the F-14 and F-15 were also equipped with VTAS - the Visual Target Acquisition System, a basic HMS (think roughly what wound up in the MiG-29 several years later) which allowed for off-boresight shots with simulated AIM-9s, AGILEs, etc. So, if you were to make a mission like this, you'd use TCS-equipped F-14As with AIM-7Fs and AIM-9Ls (none of the other proposed missiles ever left the experimental phase and are not available in DCS, and Phoenix was not allowed), and F-5Es with AIM-9Ls. No matter what, you're going to have to compromise a bit: we don't have an F-15A, the F-14As used were in an experimental configuration, and VTAS isn't an option in DCS for either aircraft; for the Tomcat, the un-released Block 135 Early and IRIAF Block 95 are the closest representatives to the Block 90s used by VX-4, but given the TVSU/TCS's use for long-range VID, you'd most likely go with the -135 Early when it becomes available.

Apparently as a combination of drag, necessity, and cost savings; "Grumman also proposed a redesign of the beaver tail to reduce drag. It would add 68 lb (31 kg) to the aircraft weight, but could also generate a $15,900 saving per aircraft."[1] The original boat tail fairings were also suffering from fatigue cracking[2] and the dielectric panels were removed (apparently Air Frame Change 301) which increased the drag even further to the original design (+10DI for aircraft with AFC 301)[3]. References: 1. Jon Lake, ed. F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter, (London: Aerospace Publishing, 1998) 35-36. 2. Ibid., 39. 3. NAVAIR NATOPS 01-F14AAA-1, NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-14A Aircraft, (1 November 1975), 11-4.

Whoops! Got my wires crossed. Thanks.

It's outlined here, first post. In large regard the currently released F-14A "Block 135 Early Late" and F-14B are very similar excepting the engines and related instrumentation.

My question is what techniques are virtual pilots using that are causing the flaps to jam around the boat? Since the update, I haven't jammed the flaps even once on either takeoff or landing from the carrier. Leave the catapult, gear up, about 1-2 seconds later flaps up, no jam. On approach, I drop the gear around 250, flaps at 220, land, no jam. Not once. For what it's worth, the manual includes a CAUTION statement to move the flap handle to up passing 180 KIAS to prevent an over-speed, so maybe try that?

Very much appreciate your commentary. One thing I do have a question on based on the interview: your handle is Victory205; did Shoes damage the gear on "your" jet? (i.e., the jet with your name on the side) He states the side number was 205 on the plane he damaged in the interview. Just curious.

Odds are "Shoes" was in a clean jet with plenty of space; considering Grumman tested it to 2.41 (and accelerating) when clean (and another pilot, all too often brought up here, claims a 2.5M top speed), I think there's little reason to doubt 2.35. The Jolly Rogers started with Block 95s when they transitioned out of F-4s, which were being picked up by the squadron in 1977 (deliveries between April and October of that year), so he was actually picking up the squadron's inaugural batch. He was in Block 60s in VF-101. As to the speed limits, they've been there from the start, and they change with aircraft configuration as one would expect. However, some were actually even more stringent for early aircraft and stores, especially if the early tanks or early Sidewinder pylons were involved. Even clean, the 1975 NATOPS assumes a 1.88IMN Maximum Allowable airspeed, in spite of the fact that the plane could go faster by far (could be the safe operating limit of the Sidewinder "stub" pylons?) So, the plane actually saw expansions, not contractions to its operational envelope as it matured. EDIT: And yes, there are disparities between the NATOPS performance charts and the NATOPS operating limits. As captain_dalan points out, the 1g envelope for a 4x4 loadout is about 2.15M, which is above the maximum allowable airspeed listed in the basic manual. The performance manual calls out 2.4M as the design speed limit with no stores.

Whatever module you can fly your best plane with. For me, I'd say F-14B, but that's because I chunk the most time into it; I own every single fixed-wing plane, so I have points of reference. Sometimes I'll flame a Mirage or a Viper or a Hornet, other times I'm riding the silk down against the same.

A couple quick notes from today: The TF-30s are still blowing up at 1.1M; not every single flight, but it happened on a multiplayer server today while flying back to base, so that's frustrating (was at about 29K feet, 1x AIM-9 and 1x AIM-7 remaining). Surprisingly, I had some decent success with the AIM-54/TWS in BVR, about a 50%Pk (6 missiles fired BVR in TWS over 3 missions, 3 killed their intended targets). I did attempt an STT shot, but the bandit broke my radar lock and the shot went stupid as it was supposed to. I loaded AIM-7Ms based on some of the posts in the forums and did manage a kill and a miss (50%) - the miss went for chaff; did not test the F or MH. Not until ~1.6M+ at higher altitudes, that's why the supersonic performance is also worse, and it takes a longer time to build to that number.

"Hoser Here, Shoot!" most likely. Published by the Tomcat-Sunset.org staff in 2011.

It depends on your weight and aircraft Cg. The charts are in the F/A-18 performance volume and pocket checklist (look at the Takeoff Distance chart and you'll see the Nosewheel Liftoff/Takeoff speeds contained therein). If you don't have those, the nice thing is that DCS is a flight simulator and you can figure it out without risking your life by trial and error. Max tire speed is 190 knots for the nosegear and 210 for the main gear, so if you're keeping the nose on the deck and you're above that, you're risking blowing the tires.

TLTeo posted it, but apparently no one actually read it, so here's the quote that was already posted explicitly regarding the PTID: Naquaii: "we don't have complete info on matters relating to primarily the PTID menus and combat oriented symbology. And even if we did get a hold of that information it would not be a 100% sure thing as it would entail remodelling the RIO pit extensively." So, yes, you are clear, you are talking about the PTID. It is not the SparrowHawk, or GPS, or whatever. It's the PTID. Naquaii, from Heatblur, has explained that they do not have the requisite documentation for the PTID, and if they did get it, it would take significant work to implement so even then it's not 100% that they'd do it. While I'd love to see it, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I found out about it from another flight simming site back around 2009-ish as a follow-on to LOMAC (when it was referred to as "DCS Black Shark"), but it didn't particularly interest me at the time. I picked up the A-10C in 2012 and was on-again-off-again with it over the next few years (I didn't even have a forum profile until 2019), finally really committing to DCS after Heatblur released their Tomcat and building up my hangar from there.