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

[Shaman]

Some documentaries to keep you busy while waiting ;)

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139970

[FoxHoundELite]

You were in a 4g inverted dive with a MiG28?

[Sierra99]

Uh Guys...

 

Why is everyone ignoring THIS:

 

[*]Multiplayer Multicrew capability. Fly together as RIO and Pilot!

 

My second question is will existing DCS Modules work in the Leatherneck Simulations theaters?

[emg]

^One would be safe to assume having the multicrew option (once ED finishes it) and being able to use other planes in the theatre. Anything else would be bizarre.

Edited March 3, 2015 by emg

[Glowing_Amraam]

Now Glowing Amraam can make a proper F-14 tribute video!

 

Drooling at the idea already! :thumbup:

Already mentioned it, but it looks fantastic, can't wait for this one. :)

[captain_dalan]

lol when you start to scale things up or down to suit the ''players'', all were left with is just another game and not a simulator.... Im 100% confident that things wont be scaled down or up or nerfed or buffed to suit the players and balance, as DCS seems to be all about its name, beeing a simulatior!

 

I dont know how good the Phoenix missiles are Im sure theyre pretty dangerous against huge targets like bombers at a long distance, but vs fast maneuvering targets?? I dunno, but I hope they'll make it as real as possible.

 

Btw; As the Tomcat were able to be fitted with x6 AIM-54, This configuration were ''Rarely used due to weight stress on airframe''. I cant help but picturing myself that every servers will be filled with cats carrying 6 Phoenix's....

 

Lot's of variables in the missile launch parameters, so it's not easy to tell. From what i've read, you could sum it up like this:

 

1. Although the max range is indicated as over 100 nm, against fighter sized targets, 50 nm is a more likely optimum launch, and any shot beyond 30 nm for a target that is actively trying to escape (as in full afterburner) is not likely to hit.

 

2. The missile is larger and thus less agile then an AMRAAM (probably more vulnerable to ECM; even the ECCM sealed versions); however, it goes into "active" radar mode, much closer to the target (IIRC some 10 nm away). This, combined with the highly ballistic trajectory of the missile if fired within optimum parameters, makes the time from receiving RWR tone and missile detonation, rather small. Also, this missile "falls" on target at rather steep angles (over 60 degrees at times) and at velocity of 3.5-5 mach, which also makes spatial orientation required to dodge it, somewhat difficult.

 

3. Missile efficiency is bound to AWG-9 weapon system. Thus issues with the radar, are issues with the missile. Over a clear horizon (i.e. over water), AWG-9 has few issues in look-down situations (it can track cruise missile sized targets at 50m alt). However, over land the performance is not as good. Lose of lock (especially a TWS "soft" lock) is possible against targets flying bellow the horizon. This may require STT lock, which both alerts target to your intent and blinds your radar to other contacts.

 

In the end, i think, the overall missile lethality will depend (as it most of the time does in any BVR engagement) on situational awareness. A good AWACS support would go a long way to giving you early warning of incoming missiles. And if you know it's coming, where it's coming from, and where it actually is, you should be able to "dodge" it. Alternatively..... turn about, hit afterburner and stay as far as possible from any AWG-9 alerts on your RWR display.

 

A+/ B can do iron and smart munitions. Regular A's were tested with Irons but never actually used them in combat.

Weren't even the A's brought to Bombcat standards eventually?

[Sierra99]

They can all mount a load of some 16 or so Mk-82s between the engine nacelles. It's all unguided though so it's really old school in that regard.

 

No support for FFARs or any kind of LGB on the normal version, only iron bombs.

 

But to be fair, you can get quite a few on there and you can go very fast so you can almost use it like a mini B-58 if you get good at it.

 

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

 

Following Desert Storm, F-14As and F-14Bs underwent upgrades to avionics and cockpit displays to enable the use of precision munitions, enhance defensive systems, and apply structural improvements. The new avionics were comparable with the F-14D; upgraded aircraft were designated F-14A (Upgrade) and F-14B (Upgrade) respectively.

 

Scroll down to "Adding Ground Attack Capability"

[emg]

Weren't even the A's brought to Bombcat standards eventually?

 

 

Fit of the AN/AAQ-14 pod didn't require any updates to the F-14's own system software, which would have substantially increased the time and expense of the upgrade. It did require that the Tomcat have the MIL-STD 1553B bus, fitted standard to the F-14D and available on MMCAP F-14A/Bs . The RIO received pod imagery on his display and guided LGBs using a new hand controller. Initially the hand controller replaced the RIO's TARPS control panel, meaning a Tomcat configured for LANTIRN couldn't carry TARPS and the reverse, but eventually a workaround was developed that allowed a Tomcat to carry LANTIRN or TARPS as needed.

 

* Although the Navy couldn't get new Tomcats, it could provide modest upgrades for those it had in service to keep them flying and capable. In 1988, the Navy initiated the "Multi-Mission Capability Avionics Program (MMCAP)", first known as the "F-14++" program, to modernize their F-14A/Bs. This featured installation of the improved AN/ALR-67 RWR; fit of Swedish BOL chaff-flare dispensers on the rear end of the Sidewinder launch rails; an improved mission computer; two MIL-STD 1553B digital databuses; and a new "Programmable Tactical Information Display System (PTIDS)" for the RIO in the back seat. The first MMCAP F-14A was redelivered in 1994.

 

from Greg Goebel's excellent site http://www.airvectors.net/avtomcat_2.html#m4

 

But, I don't know that we should expect this upgrade. Adding those pods = lots of complexity and development time.... and maybe legal issues that come with newer configurations.

Edited March 3, 2015 by emg

[jib]

I love how this thread has had over 30,000 views in 10 hours!

 

I'm excited but I'm expecting the wait to be a bit longer than first estimated (as usual for DCS).

[Slipp]

from Greg Goebel's excellent site http://www.airvectors.net/avtomcat_2.html#m4

 

Of course we don't know if we're getting the 1994 version. Adding those pods would add a lot of complexity.

 

Why make two Tomcats and not make one multi-role?

 

B needs to be multi-role.

[Overvolt]

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, 1000 say YES.

Finally "THE MOS WANTED" is comming for the DCS.

 

Thanks Leatherneck team.

[emg]

Why make two Tomcats and not make one multi-role?

 

B needs to be multi-role.

 

 

 

There may be legal issues with this late configuration. I think the LANTIRN pods are still in active use with some forces? We have a modern pod on the DCS A-10C, but ED had a special military contract for that.

 

I don't know... but we know the Bo-105/Gazelle team isn't even sure they can use the real names for their 70/80's era chopper modules.

Edited March 3, 2015 by emg

[zaelu]

So when the rest of the news are going to be out? Any word? I really am interested on this 'JESTER AI'

 

Who's Jester? :)

[VIKBELL]

This is first day buy for me..:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::joystick:

[golani79]

So DCS: Top Gun it is :D

 

Sounds good - although I´m a bit curious on how the multicrew workload will work out if one is playing alone.

[Manuel_108]

^me too

[Slipp]

There may be legal issues with this late configuration. I think the LANTIRN pods are still in active use with some forces?

 

We have plenty of things in the game that are still in active use. :)

LN is a great 3rd party dev, surely they wouldn't leave out such an important feature like PGMs.

[john_X]

I have a question: Who is responsible for this super cool 3D model of the tomcat?

[emg]

We have plenty of things in the game that are still in active use. :)

LN is a great 3rd party dev, surely they wouldn't leave out such an important feature like PGMs.

 

I edited my post. If you look at the threads for Gazelle and Bo-105, they aren't even sure if they will be allowed to use the real names of those 70/80's era choppers, specifically the names of their military configurations.

 

ED had a military contract for A-10C. I don't know what Leatherneck can work out in regards to LANTIRN pods and LGBs. I guess we'll see, I'm just saying there might be reasons for leaving out PGMs :).

Edited March 3, 2015 by emg

[Kilrah]

A small question: What´s the difference between the TGP in the A10 and the LANTIRN pod?

[Lt_Berkut]

you magnificent bastards!!!!!

 

:thumbup:

[Paradox]

from Greg Goebel's excellent site http://www.airvectors.net/avtomcat_2.html#m4

 

But, I don't know that we should expect this upgrade. Adding those pods = lots of complexity and development time.... and maybe legal issues that come with newer configurations.

 

Yeah it's very hard to say exactly what to expect, the late 90's F-14s had very impressive A2G capabilities but quite a lot of that stuff wasn't really in service very long.

 

I'll be content with whatever we get though since the capabilities out Tomcats lack will be made up for by our Hornets.

 

It's like an ideal form of the US Navy from the mid '90's

[Sierra99]

^One would be safe to assume having the multicrew option (once ED finishes it) and being able to use other planes in the theatre. Anything else would be bizarre.

 

First it doesn't say "Once ED finishes it"... It strongly suggest the capability exists now. This is significant because if they have solved the Tandem Crew issues in multi-player it opens up a significant number of aircraft for further development:

 

F-15E, F-18F, F-4-ABCDEFG, A-6E,

 

being able to use other planes in the theatre. Anything else would be bizarre.

 

Second assuming ANYTHING flight sim related is folly.

[captain_dalan]

So DCS: Top Gun it is :D

 

Sounds good - although I´m a bit curious on how the multicrew workload will work out if one is playing alone.

That's why the Jester AI RIO is here for :thumbup:

[macky]

A dream coming to reality. Thanks and all the best for the Leatherneck team.