Quid

Okay, so I just took about 6 stabs at this, and you probably could keep the nose high like in that video if you practice it a bit. The thing is, it isn't my typical landing form in the Tomcat so it felt unnatural. This part will sound "Holy Grail-ish": The first attempt was just a flat out landing because I was trying to figure out how to do it. The second attempt, I had the nose come down and contact the deck before rising back up and holding for a while akin to the video, then it came back down (but again, it contacted the ground initially). This told me it could be done. The third attempt was another bounce. The fourth, the angle was too high and I lost too much speed, the fifth was a bounce and the jet took back off, came around for the sixth, and on the sixth, with judicious use of DLC for the final few feet, I held the nose up for a few seconds before decelerating enough that it dropped. Here's the thing: like I mentioned above, this is not a normal landing technique for me, but in six flights I got the nose to hold up briefly (about three seconds before dipping and about five before being solidly on the deck), and I know that if I modulated the throttles a bit and adjusted back pressure on the stick with more precision, I could probably get the jet to do what the video shows. Technique takes practice. I think it can be done. EDIT: Configuration of the jet: full flaps, DLC, clean, 30% fuel. EDIT 2: Excessive ground friction could indeed be at play, as you mention. If that's the case, then it might not be as easy, or require the engines to be at a higher setting, which makes the aircraft more liable to take off. I can't be sure of that, though.

Flaps unnecessary, but the hook...absolutely! Kidding aside, OP, have you tried to test it at all? Something I've noticed recently in a number of sub-forums (F/A-18, F-16) is a lot of questions being asked without anyone actually trying to test what they're asking about. "Can x, y, z be done?" If you want to know, get the aircraft into some configurations and see if you can do it. If you can't, then maybe ask and someone else might try and let you know if they succeed, then they can give you what they did to make it so.

I wasn't going to list everything HB already said. It is going to be mostly the same.

I think Victory 205's point is that the F110 was not a flawless engine. For all the improvements in performance and safety (and they were significant when you look at the total number of jets and aircrews lost to engine problems comparatively), there were still fatalities that were directly caused by faults with the F110 engine, and it did need to be fixed - at least two material solutions were required, both with respect to the afterburner section. For that matter, the TF-30 didn't just stall if you looked at it wrong. What he says about the TF-30 reflects what I've heard from plenty of other Tomcat drivers - plug it in afterburner and it's generally fine. One of them called it the Ronco Engine: "Set It, And Forget It!" It's when you start trying to move the throttles while actively maneuvering that it gets temperamental.

No, they actually have drag value.

The lengthened afterburner section of the -400 version of the F110 caused certain "hot spots" in the engine liner which in several instances led to catastrophic failure of the engine, an explosion or fire, and loss of the flight crews in two instances (one F-14B and one F-14D(R )). There was an engineering solution which modified the afterburner section, and afterburner limitations in place in the mid-1990s. By 1997, there is no time limit to afterburner operations in the NATOPS for F110 powered F-14s. Some hearings on the scourge of mishaps during the mid-1990s can be found on Google Books: "Accident Investigations of Recent F-14 and AV-8B Mishaps: Hearing Before the Military Procurement Subcommittee of the Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held April 16, 1996, Volume 4"

Okay, trolling is one thing, but now you're moving towards Stolen Valor. I'd suggest stopping right there. That said, this has gotten completely off topic. My hope is OP was able to figure out getting the jet above 2.0M. Any word?

Reading that document, it's about a test proposal of how a FADEC could benefit the TF-30P-414 engine's stability. It talks about AICS (ramp) scheduling, the benefits of a FADEC, and proposed testing. Pages 4-5 focus on what a FADEC could help with, and indicate an improvement to thrust, not a loss. As it stands, the TF-30 never got a FADEC, so it doesn't seem relevant to me. That said, maybe there was a change at some point, maybe the engine doesn't make as much thrust at a given airspeed and altitude in an attempt to improve stability; I know the AICS was reprogrammed and implemented in 1976, but frankly have no idea how much of an impact that would have had, and that's specific to the ramps scheduling, not the engine. BUT! That's just a maybe; the documentation I've seen so far points to the contrary.

I've heard this and I can find no source other than people saying "I heard they were de-tuned." Here's the thing: the Preliminary Technical Order from June 1972 indicates an installed thrust of the TF-30P-412 (0 altitude, 0 airspeed) as 10,500lbs at military power and 17,000 pounds in max afterburner. Later NATOPS manuals refined the numbers for the -414/414A; the 1981, 1984, 1995 and 2004 manuals all show 10,875lbs military and 17,077lbs in max afterburner installed thrust (again at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed). That tells me the engine wasn't de-tuned. The aircraft did get heavier, though, so the thrust-to-weight ratio got worse on account of the jet itself, not the motors.

From the time I broke 1.0M to the time Tacview showed me reliably holding at 2.0M, it was 3 minutes 47 seconds. I dropped back below 2.0M at 5 minutes, 32 seconds after breaking 1.0M.

Are you flying it clean? The instant you hang rails on it, it's going to increase the drag and you'll wind up with a lower top speed. I hit 2.01M at about 35,800 feet ASL and held it for over a minute before throttling back with clean wings (wingtip rails) and the fuel tank rail on the belly no problem.

Asking what changed from back in the 1970s to the 1990s is a lot. Swordsman422 summed it up well for what you should care about, but with the sticklers for accuracy who play DCS, understand that the changes during the 1970s were coming incredibly quickly. Just looking at a non-exhaustive list of the changes a player would find noticeable in the cockpit and external model from the first production block to the end of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL trials (1978 ): Block 60 (FY71): Original production block; aircraft gross weight 37,781lbs. Block 65 (FY71): Introduced TF-30P-412A turbofan, window defog (pilot cockpit). Block 70 (FY72): Changed Master Caution Advisory Panel (pilot cockpit), changed tone volume control panel. Changed air start button to air start switch (pilot cockpit). Changed Detail Data Display layout; more dials and adjusted switch positions (RIO cockpit). Block 75 (FY72-73): Changed Master Caution Advisory Panel (pilot cockpit) – again. Block 80 (FY73): Modified airbrake and boat tail, moved position light from boat tail to tip of port vertical fin. (Certain sources say this is Block 75, but photographic evidence shows to the contrary). Block 85 (FY74): Replaced AN/ARC-51/A UHF with AN/ARC-159. AFC 561: Installation of ALR-45/50 and ALE-39 ECM suite. Changed ECM panels 32, 36, and 38 in RIO cockpit. Aircraft gross weight 38,188lbs. Block 90 (FY75): CADC-controlled (“automatic”) maneuver flaps and slats. Addition of AoA probe on the nose. AFC 338: Dual UHF installed, radio panels changed (pilot and RIO cockpit). AFC 365: Integrated Trip advisory light added to MCAP. Block 95 (FY76): AFC 410: Wing Sweep Emergency Handle Interlocks. Active AFCS, ACLS, PCD and Vector Modes: Mach position deleted from AFCS control panel. Block 100 (FY77): Aircraft gross weight: 39,037lbs. Added “Sidewinder Cannot be Jettisoned” decal to LAU-7. Modified aircraft's multi-purpose pylon. Changed pilot’s Airspeed Mach Indicator to the same as the RIO’s (pilot cockpit). So, depending on the year and airframe change, you'd have multiple cockpits to model with different panels and functionality in the span of the first three years. The 1980s saw some more significant changes. The "L STALL" and "R STALL" warning lights on either side of the center windscreen were an addition in 1982. They aren't on IRIAF F-14s. Nor is the Sidewinder seekerhead position on the HUD. That was added in 1985. TARPS, further changes to the ECM suite, corresponding cockpit panel replacements, etc. The jet continued to gain weight until 1984, from whence it is always listed as 42,000lbs (in 1981 it was 41,587). Suffice to say, a LOT changed from the 1970s to the 1990s!

It was discussed in a different location, but it will basically be the same USN F-14 in IRIAF liveries and apparently loadout limitations.

If you own the F-14B, you get the F-14A when it's ready anyhow, so there isn't something else to buy. The full package is the F-14A, B, AI A-6E and USS Forrestal. As to why you'd want to use the A when you have the B available - if you're a stickler for historical accuracy and want to do missions prior to 1989, or any mission where the F-14A was involved, then you'd use the F-14A. Also, as REDFOR for the IRIAF, you'd use the F-14A, though the version HB is releasing will be more modern than the variants the IRIAF has, it will still be closer than an F-14B. That's about it; from a performance standpoint, you'd pick the F-14B any day of the week.

Finally got around to testing the F-14B for clean max speed. I hit 2.34-2.35M (rapidly fluctuating between the two on Tacview) at 35,000 feet, clean on a standard day (15deg C, 29.92 Hg). The jet was still trying to accelerate, but I pulled the throttles back with only 2000lbs of fuel left so I could land the jet at Al Dhafra. So, it took around 13,500-14,200lbs of internal fuel to get there from the start of the supersonic run (I was in the vicinity of 2.34M for about 30 seconds at the end), but indeed, the HB F-14 can hit (and exceed) the placard Mach number for the F-14B.

The GAO report is GAO Report B-260367 (GAO/NSIAD-96-98 ) "F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost" from June 1996. It includes a few references on the performance of both the -402 powered F/A-18C and the F/A-18E/F. Charts include samples of installed engine thrust for the F404-GE-400, -402, and F414-GE-400 engines, the 1g flight envelope of the F/A-18C and the F/A-18E/F in a 2-2-gun, 60% fuel configuration, as well as a couple doghouses in different combat configurations. It is Unclassified, publicly released 18 June 1996, and is available through the US GAO's website. For your pylon drag, yes, carrying 5 pylons does incur a drag penalty; it's actually worse than clean wings and belly with two fuselage Sparrow/AMRAAM and two wingtip sidewinders, so you're actually in a higher drag configuration than the chart provided in that report.

F-14B is about 35,000 feet, F-14A is about 38,000.

Considering how limited the MiG-29 and Su-27's IRSTs are, I doubt the MiG-23's could see anything useful at that range. Gordon and Komissarov's books on the two newer fighters list the following performance: For the MiG-29's KOLS-29: "Detection Range (fighter-type target), 15km (9.3 miles) Steady tracking range, 12 km (7 miles) Laser ranger operating range, 200-6500m (660-21,325 ft) Scan time: large field of view, 3.5 seconds, small field of view, 2.0 seconds"[1] For the Su-27's OLS-27: "Detection Range of 50km (31.25 miles) in pursuit mode and 15km (9.3 miles) in head-on mode. (Some press reports state that the OPES-27 can detect a small incoming target, such as a fighter, at 40km (24.8 miles) and an outbound target at 90-100km (56-62 miles); this may apply to late models of the system.) Laser rangefinding is possible within 0.3-3 km (0.18-1.8 miles), with a measurement accuracy of 10m (32 ft 10 in) in range and 5 angle seconds in azimuth; target tracking speed is in excess of 25 deg/sec."[2] Given what was written in the article AeriaGloria posted, I'm guessing the longer range figures are for a later model of the system for the FLANKER family (as Gordon and Komissarov surmise), and/or probably against a very high flying contact in afterburner against a cold space background (like Harlikwin's SR-71 or maybe a MiG-25 or -31). In that case, it would be a white dot against black, running at very high speed, and not really useful for engaging or identifying what it is the IRST is tracking. PIRATE is significantly newer, and based on published material more capable. That said, I'm not holding my breath for an accurate modeling of it in DCS, being a current, state of the art IRST system. Source: Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov, Famous Russian Aircraft, Mikoyan MiG-29 & MiG-35 (England: Crecy Publishing, 2019), 161. Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov, Famous Russian Aircraft, Sukhoi Su-27 & 30/33/35/37 (England, Crecy Publishing, 2019), 231.

Where does this idea of reprogramming the ramps come from? This isn't the first time I've seen someone write it, but I cannot find any official source. The only thing I've seen about the 1.88M limit was due to SAS and rudder authority in case of engine loss. The manuals out to retirement still provide ramp schedule out to >2.2M - this would have been changed if they were restricted at above 1.88IMN. The characteristics and limitations section would also be changed, and they are not (2.4M is still the airframe limit). Aircrews continued to talk about punching the jet over 2.0M in the late 90s and into the early 2000s. If the ramps weren't scheduled for that speed (Ramp no. 3 is the one that programs out as the jet gets towards/into supersonic), the engines would stall before the jet could hit 2.0M as the shockwave moves back towards the motor, so it can't be the ramps. All I've ever seen is that it was a safety limit due to controllability. As to the physical maximum speeds, the F-14A would theoretically go faster than the F-14B or D because the TF-30 is a "dumb" engine. It just takes air and fuel and produces thrust. The F110 has a computer controller and its thrust is modulated for lifespan like most modern engines. This is going off of memory, but I recall that around 1.6M at high altitude, the TF-30 starts producing more thrust than the F110. As the aircraft speed continues to increase, the TF-30 continues to produce more thrust out to the engine limit, while the F110 modulates it, but the F-14B/D could still break 2.0M, they just might not get quite as fast as an F-14A. When you're going that fast, though, what are you doing of tactical significance? I once got the F-14B to about 2.1M while disengaging and dragging an AI MiG-29 behind me that was splashed by another player on a server, and that was kind of funny. But, I still had enough fuel to do it, was Winchester, had punched off my tanks, and was well within range to land by the end of my "sprint." There are very few situations where you'd want to get that fast other than doing it just for the sake of doing it.

That's the wrong motor (PW-229, not the GE-129). If you have those charts, check them yourself, but the -129 is faster than the -229. If the -229 powered F-16CJ accelerates roughly the same as the MiG-29, then the DCS F-16CJ, which has the -129 motor in it, correctly out-accelerates the MiG-29 at the altitudes highlighted in that post.

Not necessarily. On the deck, thrust-to-drag is more significant than thrust-to-weight for maximum speed. An F-111 is rated for the same speed on the deck as the F-15C in spite of its worse T/W ratio. A clean F-16 is a slick little bastard and it wouldn't surprise me if it was capable of getting as fast as it does in-game on the deck. What I will say is that doing so without any repercussions is where there is an argument. While looking into this further, I ran into some data at F-16.net, including an F-16A which was lost during an eggregious overspeed (1.5M at 2500ft - the pilot was diving to hit that high a speed) that caused the engine to warp and explode. The accident was on 12 February 1986/F-16A 78-0055, the pilot was lost after ejecting - further fidelity about the engine explosion was in the forums. I think, if anything, the aircraft might physically be able to reach a speed like that, but what is nonsense about it is that the plane suffers no ill effect as a result. If it can be modeled, engine damage, airframe damage, or both as a result of overspeeding would be ideal. Just because a plane can overspeed to 1.38M on the deck does not mean it should, or that it won't come apart underneath you if you're dumb enough to push it that hard. I'm not sure why this would be an issue. The F-16C with the big mouth and 110 engine ought to accelerate very quickly assuming it has a light/clean loadout. Not at all, and why should you be? If one jet is faster than another on the deck, then it is an advantage to that jet. Should an F-5 keep up with an AJS-37? No. That's not unfair, that's a realistic performance difference between the two. The playing field is uneven because it is. But, like I said above, being able to do so without any repercussions is what generates the disparity in my mind.

I just tested this. The F-15C with 2x wing tanks, 4x AIM-9x and 4x AIM-120s gets to 1.87M/1075KTAS/597KIAS at 35,000ft. The F-16C with 2x wing tanks, 6x AIM-120 gets to 1.55M/984KTAS/498KIAS at 35,000 feet. So, the F-15C is faster at altitude. Something I will say is that the F-16 reached its speed faster than the F-15, so it might accelerate more quickly, but it doesn't achieve as high a maximum speed. The F-16 doesn't go 1000 knots on the deck. I ran three sets of tests, one clean (wingtip rails only), one with 2x wing tanks and 6x AIM-120Cs, and one with 2x wing tanks, 2x AIM-9X, 2x AIM-120C, 6x Snakeye and a TPOD. 100% fuel was taken with full tanks in the tank configurations due to the need to reach VMax. In the clean config, by the time I was sustaining VMax, I was down to about 2500lbs. Velocities were taken at about 100ft - Clean VMax: 1.38M/920KTAS/908KIAS (note: the numbers fluctuate on Tacview, the very highest reading was 1.39/921KTAS before dropping to 1.37/909KTAS) AMRAAM/Tank VMax: 1.05M/696KTAS/690KIAS Bombs etc. VMax: 0.97M/643KTAS/640KIAS Just to see how well the plane would do at altitude, I flew with the bomb/missile loadout at 31,000 feet: VMax: 0.99M/582KTAS/351KIAS. So, with that loadout, it couldn't even break Mach 1 at above 30,000 feet. With respect to clean performance, is that faster than what the jet is rated for? Yes. Could it physically fly that fast? Not sure, but the 800KIAS VMax was a safety/engine limit, not the physical limit of the jet. I cannot speak with any expertise as to what happens when you overspeed the jet that far, or if that's a realistic number. I do know a pair of F-14As hit ~1.4M on the deck, well above the 780KIAS/<1.2M limit with Sidewinder rails installed, so it might not be that far off, but that's just anecdotal.

Is there a source for any of these numbers? For the APG-63 I've got 5.2kW compared to 10.2kW for the AWG-9[1]. Granted, the APG-63 has seen a LOAD of improvements over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got a more powerful transmitter at some point, but I haven't seen any figures to indicate 13kW. Those figures for the Russian radars seem to show an extraordinarily inefficient use of power; I'm wondering if it has to do with the vacuum tube technology used? According to Yefim Gordon's book on the MiG-25 and MiG-31, the S-25 radar in the MiG-25PD "was capable of detecting targets with a radar cross section (RCS) of 16m2 (172.16ft2) at more than 100km (62.5 miles) range."[2] Given the AWG-9's 10.2kW, and TWS capability against a 5m2 target at about 90NM, the S-25 is outputting 59x the power (at peak) for detection of a target over 3x the size at about 2/3rds the range. Then again, power isn't everything, but that is an interesting point of comparison to me at least. References: 1. Jon Lake, ed., Grumman F-14 Tomcat Shipborne Superfighter (London, Aerospace Publishing, 1998 ), 87. 2. Yefim Gordon, Trans. Dimitri Komissarov, MiG-25 'Foxbat' & MiG-31 'Foxbound' Russia's Defensive Front Line (Leicester, Midland Publishing, Ltd., 1997), 24.

It's an infrared guided missile, it has a chance to go for a flare. Even the AIM-9X, in its real-world combat debut against a Su-22 in 2017 took a flare and missed. If there is more than one intense source of heat, even with modern IRCCM, there is a possibility the missile will go after something other than its intended target.

Why were you launching AIM-54s at 75 and 50 miles in ACM mode? The effective range of the missile with that switch up is in the vicinity of 10NM against a fighter-sized target. Firing at 75 or 50 in that mode will absolutely trash the shot. As to TWS and STT, there are more false returns now and I've seen lower success, but haven't been totally unable to use them in MP. I also haven't had much time to play over the last week, so it might be worse on more complex missions than I've been playing.