DCS: F-14A/A+/B by Heatblur Simulations coming to DCS World!

[QuiGon]

Why so?

 

Because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

The question is of course how reliable those claims are, but they should be true to a certain degree at least.

 

And if you may have forgotten, the F-14 is still in service today. Only the USN isn't using it anymore

 

 

You gotta love the MiG-21 kill by an AH-1 Cobra helicopter using it's 20mm :D

Edited September 23, 2015 by QuiGon

[Tirak]

 

You gotta love the MiG-21 kill by an AH-1 Cobra helicopter using it's 20mm :D

 

On that note, the US Air Force and Army did a joint study on planes attacking helicopters. Turns out, helicopters are really dangerous to planes that go after them.

[Dahlbeck]

When flying A-10C quick missions, I've often been hit and crippled by Mi-24 gunfire and/or missiles. Might have more to do with DCS AI sniper gunners than anything else though... ;-)

[QuiGon]

On that note, the US Air Force and Army did a joint study on planes attacking helicopters. Turns out, helicopters are really dangerous to planes that go after them.

 

Were the helicopters in that study armed with A-A missiles (AIM-9/Stinger) or does this result apply to guns only helicopters?

[shagrat]

Secretly, the Aim-54 is a cruise missile with 5000km range, but nobody ever told you and they all made you believe the Phoenix missile is what it looks like. The missiles you see in the pictures are actually fake and just made to fool you :o

 

Why so?

...and the AIM-9P can pull 58G for about 5min sustained, they just kept it secret ;)

 

No, honestly. The AIM-54C was developed for the US military. I guess like most military, they do not buy weapons just because they get shiny marketing presentations.

Somebody had to prove the capabilities if that missile to quite a few people.

 

So , though not any detail if this missile will be declassified, I guess enough reliable information from the Tests may be available.

Same as for the AIM-120B/C or other missiles. We actually do not know where ED gets the data from, but I guess that is the same for performance parameters for most weapons... So we should simply trust in ED to model something that can represent it, as close as possible to what info is available.

 

BTW an F-14 firing all(!) its Phoenix missiles on a single target may sure get a kill, but is pretty much dead fish in the Water for all the other aircraft in the air, don't you think? ;)

[SkateZilla]

the AIM-54As weren't exactly a reliable missile..

[SNAFU]

AFAIK F-14 pilots were instructed and trained to use the AIM-54 only on bombers. Against fighters the AIM-7/9/guns were the weapons of choice. I guess an AIM-54 was to expensive to be used on a low budget fighter like a MiG-21. So why should it be a "dead fish in the Water"?

Edited September 23, 2015 by SNAFU

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

AIM-54Cs received vastly improved accuracy over the A model. It could be used to down ASMs, even.

 

 

BTW an F-14 firing all(!) its Phoenix missiles on a single target may sure get a kill, but is pretty much dead fish in the Water for all the other aircraft in the air, don't you think? ;)

They also carried Sparrows and 'winders.

 

It was rare to see a Tomcat scramble with more than 4 Phoenix missiles.

Edited September 23, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[QuiGon]

AFAIK F-14 pilots were instructed and trained to use the AIM-54 only on bombers. Against fighters the AIM-7/9/guns were the weapons of choice. I guess an AIM-54 was to expensive to be used on a low budget fighter like a MiG-21. So why should it be a "dead fish in the Water"?

The AIM-54s hit probability against agile fighters is of course pretty limited, because that's not what it has been build for. It was designed as a long range missile in a fleet defense role to protect a Carrier Strike Group from attacking soviet long range bombers like the Badger or the Backfire and their missiles. Because of the long range (300+nm) and high speed (mach 4+) a missile with similar capabilities was needed to intercept them. High maneuvarability was not important, since bombers and anti-ship missiles missiles don't maneuver much.

This kind of task is also the reason for the long range radar of the F-14 and it's ability to provide firing solutions for up to 6 targets simultaneously. It's almost useless against fighters, but if you face a swarm of bombers or their cruise missiles it gets pretty effective.

 

That's what the AIM-54 is made for. If used against fighters, it's not that effective, since they can outturn it pretty easy.

Edited September 23, 2015 by QuiGon

[SNAFU]

Yes, my point was more in the direction, that the F-14 without AIM-54 is a "dead fish". I think an F-14 would never go into an Intercept or merge without AIM-7 or AIM-9.

 

Concerning the capabilities of the AIM-54... the Iranian Air Force seem to get along with the AIM-54 against small nimble targets quite well. But, still USN doctrine was to use them only against bombers afaik. :book:

[BlackLion213]

Yes, my point was more in the direction, that the F-14 without AIM-54 is a "dead fish". I think an F-14 would never go into an Intercept or merge without AIM-7 or AIM-9.

 

Concerning the capabilities of the AIM-54... the Iranian Air Force seem to get along with the AIM-54 against small nimble targets quite well. But, still USN doctrine was to use them only against bombers afaik. :book:

 

Not true, the Phoenix was specifically designed to have superior accuracy against maneuvering targets and was actually much better at this than the Sparrow. It was the first missile to hit a drone pulling more than 6 gs in testing. The sparrow couldn't follow a target pulling 4gs or more - remember the contemporary sparrow to the AIM-54A was the AIM-7E-2 (followed shortly by the AIM-7F). These are much less capable than the AIM-7M in DCS.

 

The AIM-54A wasn't very reliable, but still better than contemporary options from the early-70s (listen to the Vietnam experience with AIM-7s and AIM-9s - not so reliable either). The Tomcat as a whole was not reliable - truly it's achilles heel. The USN packed so many different capabilities into one platform, all with analogue tech. Plus, she was an aircraft of many mechanical firsts (1st high-pressure hydraulic system, first afterburning turbofans, first fast-sweeping variable geometry wings for a fighter, etc) In the era of digital avionics, it's easy to forget how troublesome these older systems were to keep working.

 

The standard loadout for the F-14 in combat was 2 phoenix, 3 sparrows, and 2 sidewinders (CVW-11 in the mid-80s frequently used 2 phoenix, 2 sparrows, and 3 sidewinders as well). The phoenix was heavy and the Tomcat performed better in ACM without it, they didn't carry 4 phoenix for battling fighters - because it was unlikely that they would find themselves in a situation where a pair of Tomcat's would fire 8 phoenix at long range prior to the merge (that would be 2-v-8-12 situation...a bit extreme for a pair of US fighters).

 

The Tomcat was no deadfish without the phoenix either - it had plenty of talents for post-merge ACM. US testing showed it could outmaneuver the MiG-21 and had MUCH better sustained turning capability than the MiG-21. Monroe Smith's book details these encounters in the early 70s, quite interesting and it's a great book overall.

 

-Nick

Edited September 23, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Stealth_HR]

First variable geometry wings? Not by a longshot. There were the Bell X-5 and Grumman XF10F Jaguar as prototypes, and the General Dynamics F-111A Aardvark. However, it was the first to have a completely automatic sweep computer.

[BlackLion213]

First variable geometry wings? Not by a longshot. There were the Bell X-5 and Grumman XF10F Jaguar as prototypes, and the General Dynamics F-111A Aardvark. However, it was the first to have a completely automatic sweep computer.

 

Your right, second operational variable geometry, but first with a high sweep rate that could operate under G-load. The others could only change their sweep angle with less than 2 Gs applied. The Bell X-5 and XF10F were prototypes, which I can exclude. Though I forgot about the F-111 :)(MiG-23 was also operational around the same time as the Tomcat), but both had much smaller demands on the actuators and could not sweep their wings during maneuvers - which was a major advantage of the F-14s versions.

 

-Nick

[Dudikoff]

The AIM-54A wasn't very reliable, but still better than contemporary options from the early-70s (listen to the Vietnam experience with AIM-7s and AIM-9s - not so reliable either).

 

I feel it needs to be noted that AIM-9's reliability greatly improved with subsequent models during the rather prolonged conflict, especially with the Navy variants. So, by the end of the war some models were pretty reliable IIRC.

[otester]

Some videos...

 

 

 

 

(The guy in the Su-27 is cheating (labels/over g etc.), but notice how much warning he would have had without cheats.)

[BlackLion213]

I feel it needs to be noted that AIM-9's reliability greatly improved with subsequent models during the rather prolonged conflict, especially with the Navy variants. So, by the end of the war some models were pretty reliable IIRC.

 

I've heard the same, I think the AIM-9G in particular was a pretty good missile by the early 70s. That said, all is relative and none of the missiles from that area would compare favorably with current hardware. It would be a little disappointing if the current sidewinder was only slightly improved upon in the last 40 years. But in fact, current missiles are much better than those available back then.

 

The other issue is that the Tomcat as a whole really hit a low point in the late 70s. Military funding took a huge hit in the wake of the Vietnam war and changing priorities with the Carter administration. Flight hours for aircrew decreased by over 50% and there was high turn over among pilots till the mid-80s (great post about this on the Tomcat Sunset forum by Catmando - former Phantom pilot who transitioned to Tomcats ~1976). Decreased funding mixed with the transition to the highly maintenance intensive Tomcat led to record lows for readiness. It was during this time that Monroe "Hawk" Smith famously stated during a news interview (standing next to the vacant engine compartment of a Tomcat) "when I was growing up in North Carolina I wanted to do two things, run a junkyard and fly fighters - now I get to do both!". Hawk LOVED the Tomcat, but it was starved of resources and only borderline functional back in the late-70s.

 

In the early 80s, the commander of Miramar instituted a new check to ensure combat readiness. They would randomly select a Tomcat from one Miramar squadron and require that aircraft to fire a designated missile from a randomly selected weapon station that day. When they started this program, fewer than 50% of missiles left the rail. This was the same time when Miramar had ~350 NORS (multiple/aircraft - not 350 F-14s) and 20 bare firewalls (a lot of Tomcats sitting around waiting for parts or engines). A lot of the Phoenix problems need to be viewed in the complete context of a complex airplane with a complex missile, both are new, both are very maintenance intensive, and the supply chain can't keep up.

 

By the mid-80s, Reagan was pumping a ton of money into Defense, Secretary of the Navy was trying to create a 600 ship fleet (and started the F110 program for the Tomcat) and things started to roar! Flight hours took off (no pun intended :)) and maintenance issues vastly improved. The mid-late 80s were a great time to be a Tomcat pilot because the USN finally figured things out. Pilots were flying, readiness was much better, and things were looking up. The Tomcat was a much more effective weapon during this time and many of the phoenix issues were sorted. It's important not to judge the aircraft and weapon systems just from early reports. It took the USN a while to figure out how to keep the Tomcat flying. The early 2000s had some of the highest readiness of the Tomcat's career - even with VF-154 and VF-211 flying some airframes that were built in 1974! That was a remarkable feat and there is a story behind that too! (Get the AirForces Monthly Bombcat edition, it spells things out).

 

-Nick

[Alicatt]

First variable geometry wings? Not by a longshot. There were the Bell X-5 and Grumman XF10F Jaguar as prototypes, and the General Dynamics F-111A Aardvark. However, it was the first to have a completely automatic sweep computer.

The SU-17 was in service by 1970 and it had variable geometry wings

[BlackLion213]

The SU-17 was in service by 1970 and it had variable geometry wings

 

So was the MiG-23...

 

I changed my gaff to better reflect what I was thinking. ;)

 

The Tomcat was the only fighter able to sweep it's wings while maneuvering and was also the only one with an automatic sweep computer. All other VG aircraft had to manually sweep the wings when deemed appropriate by the pilot while maneuvering at 2gs or less.

 

The ability to sweep during high-g maneuvers was a big plus for the Tomcat, but also took to time to iron out mechanical issues. The big one was actuator durability. In the mid-late 70s, lots of Tomcats had metal chips in their sweep actuators from functioning under excessive load. For a time, the USN limited the Tomcat to 4g maneuvers and did not allow pilots to manually sweep the wings - trying to avoid excessive loads and excessive cycling of the actuators. It wasn't long till the actuator issue was fixed and these restrictions eliminated.

 

The late-70s was a time when a lot of people questioned the USN decision to buy the Tomcat with all of these issues arising. Luckily, things would be MUCH better in the 80s. Hence I am SO HAPPY that LNS is modeling their F-14A in the Mid-80s, those airplanes were much better sorted and it was a good time to be a Tomcat pilot (some say the best). The only real restrictions at that point were those related to the TF30 - weren't fixed till the F110 versions started arriving in 1986 (fleet squadrons didn't deploy with the F-14A+ till ~88-89).

 

-Nick

[Ohgr]

So was the MiG-23...

 

I changed my gaff to better reflect what I was thinking. ;)

 

The Tomcat was the only fighter able to sweep it's wings while maneuvering and was also the only one with an automatic sweep computer. All other VG aircraft had to manually sweep the wings when deemed appropriate by the pilot while maneuvering at 2gs or less.

 

The ability to sweep during high-g maneuvers was a big plus for the Tomcat, but also took to time to iron out mechanical issues. The big one was actuator durability. In the mid-late 70s, lots of Tomcats had metal chips in their sweep actuators from functioning under excessive load. For a time, the USN limited the Tomcat to 4g maneuvers and did not allow pilots to manually sweep the wings - trying to avoid excessive loads and excessive cycling of the actuators. It wasn't long till the actuator issue was fixed and these restrictions eliminated.

 

The late-70s was a time when a lot of people questioned the USN decision to buy the Tomcat with all of these issues arising. Luckily, things would be MUCH better in the 80s. Hence I am SO HAPPY that LNS is modeling their F-14A in the Mid-80s, those airplanes were much better sorted and it was a good time to be a Tomcat pilot (some say the best). The only real restrictions at that point were those related to the TF30 - weren't fixed till the F110 versions started arriving in 1986 (fleet squadrons didn't deploy with the F-14A+ till ~88-89).

 

-Nick

 

I don't think they ever worked out those wing sweep actuators even on the D model and i think that is when my grey hair started :) . On 04 cruise us below decks in AIMD AE shop would see one every day or 2 with burned out motors or stripped gears. VF-11 and VF-143 were with us. They were putting those Lantirn pods to good use back in those days with Iraq in full swing. I did get to touch one ;)

Edited September 24, 2015 by Ohgr

[BlackLion213]

I don't think they ever worked out those wing sweep actuators even on the D model and i think that is when my grey hair started :) . On 04 cruise us below decks in AIMD AE shop would see one every day or 2 with burned out motors or stripped gears. VF-11 and VF-143 were with us. They were putting those Lantirn pods to good use back in those days with Iraq in full swing. I did get to touch one ;)

 

Nice picture!

 

Well...at least they lifted the restrictions. :) Perhaps they simply decided to pretend it wasn't a real problem. ;)

 

It's sort of like a few books I have from the 1980s that state - "problems with the TF30 powerplant were eventually solved with the 414A variant" (paraphrased) - when they were never fully dealt with, except for replacing the TF30 with the F110.

 

-Nick

[Ohgr]

Nice picture!

 

Well...at least they lifted the restrictions. :) Perhaps they simply decided to pretend it wasn't a real problem. ;)

 

It's sort of like a few books I have from the 1980s that state - "problems with the TF30 powerplant were eventually solved with the 414A variant" (paraphrased) - when they were never fully dealt with, except for replacing the TF30 with the F110.

 

-Nick

 

The engine change was a much needed fix for the tomcat with the notable accidents due to compressor stalls. The power added was also a big bonus not having to use burners on cat shots like they used to with the 30. Those damn birds were alot like the SR-71 in that "if it ain't leaking it ain't workin" They had special catch bags under the engines for the fuel leaks and assorted numbers of bowls and pans on the deck below them to catch the Hyd fluid lol. I have a bunch of pictures of them in one of my photo albums somewhere with some wire catches from the tower. If anyone would like more pics just let me know.

[HeadHunter52]

The engine change was a much needed fix for the tomcat with the notable accidents due to compressor stalls. The power added was also a big bonus not having to use burners on cat shots like they used to with the 30. Those damn birds were alot like the SR-71 in that "if it ain't leaking it ain't workin" They had special catch bags under the engines for the fuel leaks and assorted numbers of bowls and pans on the deck below them to catch the Hyd fluid lol. I have a bunch of pictures of them in one of my photo albums somewhere with some wire catches from the tower. If anyone would like more pics just let me know.

 

The Harleys of the flight deck

[captain_dalan]

 

They also carried Sparrows and 'winders.

 

It was rare to see a Tomcat scramble with more than 4 Phoenix missiles.

Indeed it was, unless it was running a very specific fleet defense loadout. As mentioned already, 2/2/2 and 2/3/2 were much more common. Not to mention some loads never included the Phoenix at all. After all this was way before Fulcrums and Flankers came around and long range fire and forget was still not that much of an issue. Many flight i've read about, packed more A-A "friendly" loads like 4/2 and 2/2 (sparrows/sidewinders). Probably 4/4 weren't all that odd either.

 

P.S. Sorry for the late tune in. The last month was a weird mishmash of work, surfing, more work and then some generic flu/cold :doh:

 

EDIT: P.P.S

That's some good info Ohgr. Rep+

[Ohgr]

Thank you sir. We had many issues with them from an electricians standpoint but aside from the one I had already highlighted was called the SDC (Signal Data Converter) which sent a signal from the tank probes to the indicators. Whoever thought these up was definitely a bookworm with no real life experience. We would adjust these things for correct indications only to have them knocked off by vibration because the adjustment potentiometers were not the locking type. The enlisted mans solution........ Run a bead of torque seal over the adjustment point so the bastard wouldn't move. That would last for maybe 2 flights and they'd be back 4-5 at a time. I had always loved the tomcat since I was a kid, then I worked on them lol. But still that little piece of me retains that. Who wouldn't?

[BIGNEWY]

Please return to the topic of the thread