F14A vs F14B?

[AG-51_Razor]

I'm right there with ya BlackLion! Can't wait to start FCLPs and workups for the boat!! All the rest is just gravy. The boat is where it's at, especially when the weather is in the toilet. After that, dancing with the basket will be my next most favorite evolution. I really hope that the F/A-18 comes with a buddy pack that a human can fly.

[captain_dalan]

Yes, she'll be a handful on landing! :D

 

... With the Aerosoft F-14, just flying the pattern well and getting the airplane to bank smoothly at target AOA proved surprisingly difficult - everything needs to be very precise. Practicing on land will reduce the frustration level quite a bit.

 

In real life, the F-14A nugget pass rate for carrier quals was only 60%. So the rate of failure was something like double that of other carrier airplanes. When it comes to things like the LNS campaign, just recovering back on the boat may be one of the hardest parts of each mission - just like real life.

 

Can't wait!

 

-Nick

Amen! Even after several months of doing it, there are still days when i just can't seam to land the bugger. Especially if the seas are rough. It doesn't take much to lose "the feel" either. Sometimes all it takes is a single non-flying weekend and i have to readjust my bearings all over again...

[BlackLion213]

I'm right there with ya BlackLion! Can't wait to start FCLPs and workups for the boat!! All the rest is just gravy. The boat is where it's at, especially when the weather is in the toilet. After that, dancing with the basket will be my next most favorite evolution. I really hope that the F/A-18 comes with a buddy pack that a human can fly.

 

Totally agree. One of the things that I like best about Naval Aviation is that every part of it is challenging...looks like a real adventure (not to quote their advertisements).

 

But seriously, even the daily, straight-forward tasks of CAP, tanking, and recovery are really tough. It's perfect for DCS, because you could have a slew of realistic and demanding missions without a "real war".

 

The idea about a Hornet buddy tanker is excellent, they should seriously consider it. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, but seems like another important step towards cooperative multiplayer tasks.

 

-Nick

Edited June 7, 2015 by BlackLion213

[BlackLion213]

Amen! Even after several months of doing it, there are still days when i just can't seam to land the bugger. Especially if the seas are rough. It doesn't take much to lose "the feel" either. Sometimes all it takes is a single non-flying weekend and i have to readjust my bearings all over again...

 

+1

 

Love that!

 

-Nick

[Woogey]

Tanker Tie-in: I really hope that when the A-6 finally goes into production, that Razbam makes a Dedicated KA-6 version just for this purpose. On a typical mission scenario in the Turkey, after launching from the boat, the first thing you did was meet up with the tanker to to off your tanks. -Woog

[CheckGear]

The idea about a Hornet buddy tanker is excellent, they should seriously consider it. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, but seems like another important step towards realism.

 

-Nick

 

That wouldn't be too realistic. Like the previous poster said, a KA-6D, or even an S-3, KC-135, or KC-10 would be more realistic.

[BlackLion213]

That wouldn't be too realistic. Like the previous poster said, a KA-6D, or even an S-3, KC-135, or KC-10 would be more realistic.

 

I realize that the only Hornet that is routinely used for tanking is the Super Hornet. A-7s used to use a buddy tank pretty often. None of these were used by the F-14 for tanking, at least on a routine basis (I've never seen pictures).

 

However, the KA-6D is the only aircraft that could become a DCS module in the next few years, at least based on announcements (from Razbam). Coretex hasn't updated anything in the bast 4 months, seems like their development is off for now.

 

So the Hornet is the only option at the moment for buddy tanking, even if it is not very prototypical.

 

Allow me to rephrase: buddy tanking with the ED Hornet would be fun and another means of multiplayer cooperation.

 

-Nick

Edited June 7, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Buddy refueling isn't simply a matter of strapping the pod on. The E/F has a specific panel in the cockpit for refueling control which the C doesn't have. ED aren't going to add it to the C if it doesn't exist.

[CheckGear]

Buddy refueling isn't simply a matter of strapping the pod on. The E/F has a specific panel in the cockpit for refueling control which the C doesn't have. ED aren't going to add it to the C if it doesn't exist.

 

This is more of a policy-related notation, but I think the Navy choosing to rely on the Super Pest (Hornet) as its primary air refueling asset effectively wiped out whatever power projection capability the carrier had. Fighter aircraft are relatively short-ranged platforms; they become long-range platforms via in-flight refueling. Using the F/A-18E/F as a tanker also deprives it of its primary mission, which is strike.

[Dudikoff]

but I think the Navy choosing to rely on the Super Pest (Hornet) as its primary air refueling asset effectively wiped out whatever power projection capability the carrier had. Using the F/A-18E/F as a tanker also deprives it of its primary mission, which is strike.

 

Disregarding the big difference in range between the A-6 and the Super Hornet, what's the difference between packing extra SH's for tanker duties if required and having a single-purpose tanking platform besides extra maintenance and procurement expenses, plus less flexibility? ;)

 

If I'm reading it correctly, the carriers carried at maximum one squadron of 10 (12) A-6E strike aircraft accompanied by 4 (6) KA-6D's, so not a great tanking capability there to begin with.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Dudikoff

[turkeydriver]

I realize that the only Hornet that is routinely used for tanking is the Super Hornet. A-7s used to use a buddy tank pretty often. None of these were used by the F-14 for tanking, at least on a routine basis (I've never seen pictures).

 

However, the KA-6D is the only aircraft that could become a DCS module in the next few years, at least based on announcements (from Razbam). Coretex hasn't updated anything in the bast 4 months, seems like their development is off for now.

 

So the Hornet is the only option at the moment for buddy tanking, even if it is not very prototypical.

 

Allow me to rephrase: buddy tanking with the ED Hornet would be fun and another means of multiplayer cooperation.

 

-Nick

 

Only if its a super hornet. period. Don't ever bring tanking off a legacy hornet, that's just not possible and unrealistic-couldn't launch with the gas to tank.

[BlackLion213]

Buddy refueling isn't simply a matter of strapping the pod on. The E/F has a specific panel in the cockpit for refueling control which the C doesn't have. ED aren't going to add it to the C if it doesn't exist.

 

Only if its a super hornet. period. Don't ever bring tanking off a legacy hornet, that's just not possible and unrealistic-couldn't launch with the gas to tank.

 

OK... I was simply asking the question.

 

The A-7 used buddy tanking (the Legacy Hornets direct predecessor) and the Super Hornet uses buddy tanking (the successor sort-of and our only CV tanking asset these days). I wondered if the legacy hornet ever used it.

 

I suppose the answer is no...;)

 

Makes sense that it wasn't developed since the F/A-18A and C have more of a fuel thimble than fuel tank.

 

Does anyone know if all A-7s were able to use the buddy tanking system or if it was a few specially designated airframes - like TARPS on the F-14A and F-14B?

 

-Nick

[BlackLion213]

This is more of a policy-related notation, but I think the Navy choosing to rely on the Super Pest (Hornet) as its primary air refueling asset effectively wiped out whatever power projection capability the carrier had. Fighter aircraft are relatively short-ranged platforms; they become long-range platforms via in-flight refueling. Using the F/A-18E/F as a tanker also deprives it of its primary mission, which is strike.

 

I know what you mean, though I think it's more of an issue that ALL USN aircraft are short-range machines. The CVBG has sacrificed some of it's autonomy, but its hard to know how much this impacts their ability.

 

One long-term Tomcat pilot wrote that at the beginning of his career, the Tomcat was the short-legged member of the airwing. At the end of his career, it had twice the combat radius of any other strike aircraft on the ship. Funny how things change.

 

I agree that it's not ideal to put all of our eggs in one short-legged basket - suppose that why the F-35C carries 20,000 lbs of internal fuel. The pendulum is swinging.

 

-Nick

[Frisco1522]

 

Would be the best thing in DCS ever.

 

Frisco1522

[Jogui3000]

im guessing they want to give us an A model because It will give a rival for the MiG-21

 

The F14A is still way superior to the MiG 21 Bis...

[SandMartin]

The F14A is still way superior to the MiG 21 Bis...

 

Offcouse, becouse Tomcat is four generation, fishbed is second generation...

 

First: Mig-9, Mig-15, Mig-17, La-15, Sabre, Super Sabre, Shooting Star ETC..

 

Second: Mig-19, Mig-21, Su-7, F-104, F-105, Saab Drakken...

 

Third: Mig-23, Mig-25, Mig-27, Su-22, Mirage 3, F-111, F-4E, F-5, F-8, Saab Viggen, Harrier GR1, Yak-38, Jaguar, Kfir, ETC...

 

Fourth: F-14,15,16,18, Mig-29, Su-27, Mig-31, Su-30SM, Su-35, Mig-35, Mirage 2000, Rafale, Tornado, Saab Grippen, AV-8B and EF2000

 

Five: F-22, F-35, Pak-FA

 

comparing aircrafts from different generations is not correct.

Edited December 3, 2015 by SandMartin

[turkeydriver]

Also Glove vanes were removed from the F-14A+ and F-14B conversions and were not fitted on the new builds. Only the F-14B test aircraft (the red and white one from Grumman) had glove vanes. Despite the thinking that all F-14A units locked their glove vanes in due to maintenance and lack of need, some squadrons still used them.