AIM-120 on the Tomcat

[CheckGear]

AMRAAM integration won't bring that sort of gameplay. The way that the AMRAAM currently is in game, it has absolutely abysmal range compared to what it should have, so engagement ranges won't go up, even though the F-14 has a superior radar. That sort of play however will likely come as a result of the Phoenix integration, which because LN is going to be modeling it, it will likely live up to its real capability, rather than the parachute equipped Slammers the Eagles are currently throwing around.

 

I feel the opposite, I hope that AMRAAMs are integrated onto the F-14 for a few reasons, but most important of all, I hold no illusions as to the Phoenix being allowed in servers. Some servers have already banned some of the MiG-21 missiles for 'overperforming', and when the Phoenix hits, it'll last at most a week before servers start removing it because players will whine about being splashed from 80nm away. In light of that, without the AMRAAM, the F-14 stops being a competitive multiplayer choice and becomes another gimmick fighter in PvP combat, which would be really sad.

 

I don't see how you think turning the F-14, one of the premier long range fighters in the world, into a short range knife fighter will be positive for gameplay. Without AMRAAMs, and without Phoenix, the F-14 will just get sealclubbed by F-15s operating as they always do. SARH missiles cannot compete with ARH missiles.

 

I also hope to not see the AMRAAM employed on the F-14 in this module. What I'm looking for is a Tomcat experience as close to the real world as possible. Having the AMRAAM would take away from that.

 

Even with regards to the Phoenix, actuality dictated that the Tomcat would rarely fly sorties with them. It was just a ridiculous amount of extra weight that prevented the fighter from doing much of anything else. Two was the real-world max and even that was an extra 2,000 pounds alone.

 

Some people may say it'd be boring, but I say otherwise. A truly authentic experience captures how things really are/were, not what we want them to be. It also makes you appreciate the thing that really matters - training and logistics, not sharp, pointy things. As for getting seal-clubbed by F-15s, remember that, despite the sense the F-14 had to always fight with one hand tied behind its back, it was still expected to come out on top.

 

If we get an authentic Tomcat experience, we'll all be singing:

 

${1}

[will-]

F-14D had the ability.

 

LN is making a/b version.

[BlackLion213]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Tomcat was designed to intercept bombers an shoot them down (or at least threaten them) without being engaged by the enemy escort.

After the cold war was over this scenario was highly unlikely, but the the f/a-18 was already in service so there was no need to upgrade the old tomcat because they already had a new fighter with these capabilities and better all round multirole design.

 

It was actually the first US fighter since the F-86 that was designed from the ground up to be a real dogfighter with MUCH improved visibility, turn performance, and sustained high Alpha performance over it's predecessors.

 

But the USN wanted an aircraft that could do everything and destroy every type of target that it might encounter. So it also carried a weapon system that could engage multiple targets at once (which could be bomber, cruise missiles, or enemy fighters). The "Bomber killer" you describe was actually the F6D Missileer which was cancelled to create a better rounded platform that ultimately became the Tomcat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

 

There was a major resources war in the early 1990s in the military - in the wake of the Cold War, budgets were cut and different communities were vying for resources with different members of the government, Pentagon, and USN leadership trying to support there preferred community. The Hornet ultimately managed to garner more support as the "new and reliable" platform, even though it sacrificed performance to the Tomcat (range, payload, acceleration). Plus, without the AMRAAM - it remained limited in BVR engagements to one target at a time. The Tomcat already had this capability so giving the F/A-18 the ability brought things up to parity in the eyes of the USN.

 

Plus, the USN had a big inventory of AIM-54Cs with only one aircraft that could use it, plus the perceived A-A threats were dwindling, and the Tomcat was switching to precision strike as it's primary role (like the F/A-18C). Without the Soviet threat, serious A-A threats seemed much less likely and the USN switched gears to littoral warfare and precision strike as it's focus. Resources were not allocated for lower priority items and integrating the AMRAAM was viewed in that light given the availability of the AIM-54C.

 

But the Tomcat was not designed as a primary bomber killer - that is a classic myth. It was designed as a A-A KILLER period...and it certainly did that well.

 

-Nick

[BlackLion213]

F-14D had the ability.

 

LN is making a/b version.

 

All Tomcats "could" use the AMRAAM - but needed software upgrades to do so. It never happened and no fleet Tomcats ever carried them.

 

The pictures are all of VX-4 Tomcats during missile testing at Pt Mugu in the mid-80s.

 

-Nick

[Basher54321]

Interesting - I do have a 1985 document listing "provisions" for the AIM-120A on the F-14D - although that doesnt mean of course it had everything required to actually carry it.

 

 

Like the F-16 for example AIM-120 testing was carried out throughout the 80s and I suspect it was also done on a few F-14s. That old magazine could likely have assumed the F-14 would get it not knowing the end of the CW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-14A_of_PTMC_with_AIM-120_1981.JPEG

[blkspade]

The current issue with the 120s extends to all the radar missiles, which leads me to believe they are all governed by the same variable. Even if LN does their own 54C, and manages to escape a similar fate, I really doubt fighter kills at 80nm will be that common. Eagle pilots will see the long range 14 on the tews and just start jamming. Russian drivers not jamming, will probably still spend all their time low level and in the notch. In either case 21nm-28nm (burn-though) shots will likely have incredible Pk vs fighters.

 

AMRAAM integration won't bring that sort of gameplay. The way that the AMRAAM currently is in game, it has absolutely abysmal range compared to what it should have, so engagement ranges won't go up, even though the F-14 has a superior radar. That sort of play however will likely come as a result of the Phoenix integration, which because LN is going to be modeling it, it will likely live up to its real capability, rather than the parachute equipped Slammers the Eagles are currently throwing around.

 

I feel the opposite, I hope that AMRAAMs are integrated onto the F-14 for a few reasons, but most important of all, I hold no illusions as to the Phoenix being allowed in servers. Some servers have already banned some of the MiG-21 missiles for 'overperforming', and when the Phoenix hits, it'll last at most a week before servers start removing it because players will whine about being splashed from 80nm away. In light of that, without the AMRAAM, the F-14 stops being a competitive multiplayer choice and becomes another gimmick fighter in PvP combat, which would be really sad.

 

I don't see how you think turning the F-14, one of the premier long range fighters in the world, into a short range knife fighter will be positive for gameplay. Without AMRAAMs, and without Phoenix, the F-14 will just get sealclubbed by F-15s operating as they always do. SARH missiles cannot compete with ARH missiles.

[Vampyre]

AMRAAM integration won't bring that sort of gameplay. The way that the AMRAAM currently is in game, it has absolutely abysmal range compared to what it should have, so engagement ranges won't go up, even though the F-14 has a superior radar. That sort of play however will likely come as a result of the Phoenix integration, which because LN is going to be modeling it, it will likely live up to its real capability, rather than the parachute equipped Slammers the Eagles are currently throwing around.

 

I feel the opposite, I hope that AMRAAMs are integrated onto the F-14 for a few reasons, but most important of all, I hold no illusions as to the Phoenix being allowed in servers. Some servers have already banned some of the MiG-21 missiles for 'overperforming', and when the Phoenix hits, it'll last at most a week before servers start removing it because players will whine about being splashed from 80nm away. In light of that, without the AMRAAM, the F-14 stops being a competitive multiplayer choice and becomes another gimmick fighter in PvP combat, which would be really sad.

 

I don't see how you think turning the F-14, one of the premier long range fighters in the world, into a short range knife fighter will be positive for gameplay. Without AMRAAMs, and without Phoenix, the F-14 will just get sealclubbed by F-15s operating as they always do. SARH missiles cannot compete with ARH missiles.

 

I disagree with your assessment. My opinion is that the LN F-14 should only be able to carry and launch it's true weapons load out. The AIM-120 was never integrated into the fleet Tomcats. I would not worry about how it will perform in the non-realistic multiplayer servers... that is a matter for mission designers to deal with. The Tomcat will already have one advantage over the in game F-15 in that it will have a Link-4 or 4A data link. giving it capabilities it never truly had would be a disservice and make it a gamey module as far as I'm concerned. What is to stop them from giving it the AIM-9X as well. They were never integrated into the Tomcats weapon system but the Tomcat could carry and fire them (granted there would be little real advantage as they would have to be aimed like a 9M) with no real changes. If I wanted to spam AIM-120 all over the place I'd fly the eagle. I want the Tomcat to be as true to life as it can be, not an airplane nerfed for unrealistic multiplayer game balance purposes.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Vampyre

[Exorcet]

The F-14 doesn't need the AIM-120 to be viable in MP. For one, you could just not have F-15's at all. F-14 with AIM-7 vs Su-27/33 with R-27.

 

As far as giving the F-14 the ability to carry the AIM-120, it wouldn't bother me. It would simply be an option for the mission designer to include this capability. 120 compatibility could be one of the special options for the F-14. While it was never done in real life I don't consider it unrealistic. Especially when the situations that tend to be created in DCS tend to center around fantasy wars. If Red and Blue went into an all out war, maybe upgrades would have gained higher priority.

[Tirak]

Of course it centers around fantasy wars. PvP servers are about having fun flying combat aircraft against each other. If the F-14 were never able to carry the AMRAAM I'd think differently, but it physically can, and the only reason it wasn't integrated fleet wide was due to budget constraints following the cold war. The capability to use it is not far fetched, it is not something out of a sci fi movie. It was planned capability the only was axed because the world took a step back from going nuclear. We're talking a single electronic bus and a small firmware upgrade, not rewiring the whole bird and tossing an AESA radar set in the nose.

 

Without the AMRAAM, Tomcats are going to be Blufor MiG-21s. Quirky and surprising, but more often than not, rather harmless. No server is going to keep Phoenix's in the airfield armories, and no SARH equipped bird can fight against an ARH equipped one. Deprived of a long range punch, one of the worlds best BVR interceptors will become little more than an F-5 with a surprisingly strong radar, but nothing to use it with. Adding in the capability is well within what was originally envisioned for the Tomcat and it will be good for multiplayer gameplay. If you want to have your super serious "REAL WARZ ONLY" club that's fine, but i frankly don't see that as a particularly strong reason not to integrate it when nothing is lost by it.

 

I'll be getting this module either way this issue flips, but I strongly believe AMRAAM integration would in no way jeopardize the legitimacy of the module as the premier F-14 flight sim.

[Dudikoff]

As far as giving the F-14 the ability to carry the AIM-120, it wouldn't bother me. It would simply be an option for the mission designer to include this capability. 120 compatibility could be one of the special options for the F-14. While it was never done in real life I don't consider it unrealistic. Especially when the situations that tend to be created in DCS tend to center around fantasy wars. If Red and Blue went into an all out war, maybe upgrades would have gained higher priority.

 

Completely agree with this. If possible, it would be nice to have the option to use it in the missions. Most of the missions/campaigns will be unhistorical anyway.

[CheckGear]

I disagree with your assessment. My opinion is that the LN F-14 should only be able to carry and launch it's true weapons load out. The AIM-120 was never integrated into the fleet Tomcats. I would not worry about how it will perform in the non-realistic multiplayer servers... that is a matter for mission designers to deal with. The Tomcat will already have one advantage over the in game F-15 in that it will have a Link-4 or 4A data link. giving it capabilities it never truly had would be a disservice and make it a gamey module as far as I'm concerned. What is to stop them from giving it the AIM-9X as well. They were never integrated into the Tomcats weapon system but the Tomcat could carry and fire them (granted there would be little real advantage as they would have to be aimed like a 9M) with no real changes. If I wanted to spam AIM-120 all over the place I'd fly the eagle. I want the Tomcat to be as true to life as it can be, not an airplane nerfed for unrealistic multiplayer game balance purposes.

 

I agree. Besides, its not necessarily the pointy things that make an aircraft lethal. One thing I want to see is the effect superior avionics, detection systems, as well as command and control have on the air battle. I don't like the idea of third-generation fighters have equal ability in detecting the enemy as the fourth-generation fighters.

[Vampyre]

Of course it centers around fantasy wars. PvP servers are about having fun flying combat aircraft against each other. If the F-14 were never able to carry the AMRAAM I'd think differently, but it physically can, and the only reason it wasn't integrated fleet wide was due to budget constraints following the cold war. The capability to use it is not far fetched, it is not something out of a sci fi movie. It was planned capability the only was axed because the world took a step back from going nuclear. We're talking a single electronic bus and a small firmware upgrade, not rewiring the whole bird and tossing an AESA radar set in the nose.

 

Without the AMRAAM, Tomcats are going to be Blufor MiG-21s. Quirky and surprising, but more often than not, rather harmless. No server is going to keep Phoenix's in the airfield armories, and no SARH equipped bird can fight against an ARH equipped one. Deprived of a long range punch, one of the worlds best BVR interceptors will become little more than an F-5 with a surprisingly strong radar, but nothing to use it with. Adding in the capability is well within what was originally envisioned for the Tomcat and it will be good for multiplayer gameplay. If you want to have your super serious "REAL WARZ ONLY" club that's fine, but i frankly don't see that as a particularly strong reason not to integrate it when nothing is lost by it.

 

I'll be getting this module either way this issue flips, but I strongly believe AMRAAM integration would in no way jeopardize the legitimacy of the module as the premier F-14 flight sim.

 

The Tomcat has a far larger fan base than the F-15. It also will be a full DCS aircraft. That means that it will be the F-15 that will suffer in multiplayer, not the Tomcat. Now if the individual servers want to limit the Phoenix and some players do not want to fight without it, they will go to another server that does have what they want. Saying the AIM-120 is needed on the Tomcat for multiplayer purposes is silly. If you want to fly a AIM-120 shooter fly the Eagle. If you want to fly a naval AIM-120 shooter fly the Hornet. A lack of realism in a module that is supposed to be ultra realistic WILL be a reason for ridicule. Hopefully LN learned that with the Grom on the MiG-21Bis. A mid-80's A and a mid-90's B did not have had the AIM-120 at all and it shouldn't be included.

Why not just give the FC3 Eagle the AIM-120D, Meteor or even the Phoenix to even things up a bit. The mission builders can do those things. If you want something nerfed it might as well be a flaming cliffs plane... not a full fidelity DCS level plane that has a huge and rabid fan base. LN would just be inviting the hate mail if they did that. I would rather them keep making DCS modules rather than quitting in disgust because of the actions of some of the community.

[Tirak]

The Tomcat has a far larger fan base than the F-15. It also will be a full DCS aircraft. That means that it will be the F-15 that will suffer in multiplayer, not the Tomcat. Now if the individual servers want to limit the Phoenix and some players do not want to fight without it, they will go to another server that does have what they want. Saying the AIM-120 is needed on the Tomcat for multiplayer purposes is silly. If you want to fly a AIM-120 shooter fly the Eagle. If you want to fly a naval AIM-120 shooter fly the Hornet. A lack of realism in a module that is supposed to be ultra realistic WILL be a reason for ridicule. Hopefully LN learned that with the Grom on the MiG-21Bis. A mid-80's A and a mid-90's B did not have had the AIM-120 at all and it shouldn't be included.

Why not just give the FC3 Eagle the AIM-120D, Meteor or even the Phoenix to even things up a bit. The mission builders can do those things. If you want something nerfed it might as well be a flaming cliffs plane... not a full fidelity DCS level plane that has a huge and rabid fan base. LN would just be inviting the hate mail if they did that. I would rather them keep making DCS modules rather than quitting in disgust because of the actions of some of the community.

 

The changes required for the AMRAAM to be integrated into the Tomcat were exceptionally minor. It was only the end of the cold war, and with it and end of any foreseeable air threat, that the Tomcat wasn't upgraded with it on schedule. Had the cold war continued, the F-14Bs would have been upgraded to use it. These upgrades are far more minor a gameplay concession than the Grom was on the MiG-21, and frankly, I've seen very few complaints on the integration of that weapon. The multiplayer community would be better served by granting the Tomcat a weapon that would let it fight on par with the Eagles. Rivet counters can keep their hyper realistic loadouts if they want, but a minor upgrade that would have been included on the real aircraft anyway if conflict like the kind fought in PvP servers were to have actually happened does nothing but enhance the experiance of those of us who want to simulate what a cold war gone hot scenario would play out as, rather than the 'technology in a vacuum' style that some rivet counters demand. What I want is a competitive Tomcat. I want the US Naval fighter that it was meant to be, and not the one that shrinking cold war budgets and political dealings gimped it into. I don't want to have to worry about not being able to use my Tomcat except on 80s night style events because the rivet counters screamed bloody murder about integrating a missile that had been planned for, and the tryhards whining about the overpowered phoenix.

 

At the end of the day, DCS is a game, don't let the title fool you. If such a minor change, that will in no way affect the enjoyment of those who don't want it can be justified, as I believe it can, I see no reason not to implement it. If LN wants to make a final decision on the subject then that's fine, but as long as they don't come down on it one way or the other i will always advocate giving greater options to the player.

[QuiGon]

I'm also against the implementation of the AMRAAM into the Tomcat module for exactly that reason: keep it real! That's what DCS means to me.

 

[...]

If such a minor change, that will in no way affect the enjoyment of those who don't want it can be justified, as I believe it can, I see no reason not to implement it.

[...]

 

It's not really true that it would in no way affect the enjoyment. Of course, I don't have to use it if I don't like it, but I guess there would still be avionics adjusted for the AMRAAM in the plane (weapon selector? HUD-Mode?). But more important: If other players gonna use it in MP, it would totally destroy the immersion, and so the fun, for me. Not to mention the additional development time it'll cost to implement it which won't be that much of course, but it'll be something.

 

I really hope the Phoenix won't be banned from servers, especially as it should be relatively easy to dodge them. But I can't understand how anyone would compare the F-14 without it's Phoenix missiles to the MiG-21?? The Sparrows and AIM-9s are still far superior to everything the MiG-21 can bring in the air and especially the radar (and also the RWR) of the F-14 offers much more situational awareness, which is the biggest drawback on the Fishbed in my opionion.

 

I would love to hear what the devs think about integrating the AIM-120 though? Is it planned or not or hasn't this been decided yet? Cobra?

 

 

On a sidenote: I just had to think about that it's kinda funny that the AMRAAM hasn't been integrated and used on the F-14, but on it's predecessor, the F-4 Phantom (although not in US service) :D.

Edited August 28, 2015 by QuiGon

[WinterH]

I'd find it really irksome if AMRAAM would be integrated into DCS : F-14 module.

 

For a fairly minor change Su-27 could have R-77, but it doesn't, hence we don't either. And that is the way it should be. Not any different for F-14 either. It doesn't mean a thing if it did carry or not, many aircraft "carried" and posed nicely with many fancy weapons that they can not actually use. Testing is one thing, operational use another. I am all for hypotethical wars "fantasy" if you will, but those fictional conflicts should feature non-fictional aircraft and weaponry, no concessions there please. As for the Grom, I've stated multiple times that I'd be ok if it was removed,even though I'd miss it a bit, however, Grom is far less a gameplay concession since at least a previous version of MiG-21 was operational with it, whereas no F-14 version was with AIM-120.

 

Leaving it as an option, or let mission designers decide? I'd say it's the other way around, leave it out of module but make it possible to mod it in, if someone wants to play with it in their server or singleplayer environment, by all means let them mod it in, but leave it out of the official module / servers.

 

If sim is to be designed around concept of better serving the multiplayer community's Deathmatch-fragfest, we may as well change title in to Digital Combat Thunder :).

 

Seriously... pretty please no, this is almost becoming a trend among modules and I truly hope it will not...

 

The changes required for the AMRAAM to be integrated into the Tomcat were exceptionally minor.... These upgrades are far more minor a gameplay concession than the Grom was on the MiG-21, and frankly, I've seen very few complaints on the integration of that weapon... The multiplayer community would be better served by granting the Tomcat a weapon that would let it fight on par with the Eagles.

[Exorcet]

I am all for hypotethical wars "fantasy" if you will, but those fictional conflicts should feature non-fictional aircraft and weaponry, no concessions there please.

 

What is the real difference though? The fantasy situation can extend beyond who is fighting who. In a serious conflict, I would not be surprised if more money went toward combat upgrades. The AIM-120 on the F-14 is only historically unrealistic. If you're going into a fantasy war, you've already killed historical accuracy.

 

 

Leaving it as an option, or let mission designers decide? I'd say it's the other way around, leave it out of module but make it possible to mod it in, if someone wants to play with it in their server or singleplayer environment, by all means let them mod it in, but leave it out of the official module / servers.

What if having the AMRAAM as an official feature makes it easier to turn it off [as in a server option for everyone]? It certainly doesn't sound like there is a lack of people willing to go without it. While I don't mind it myself, I don't expect to see it in every server and I wouldn't use it every mission.

 

It doesn't seem like a big deal to have it be part of the module, it can be explained to the buyer what it is, a non historically accurate but technically possible addition. It's still as much a simulator as it would be without the feature, simulation isn't restricted to time accurate history.

 

If sim is to be designed around concept of better serving the multiplayer community's Deathmatch-fragfest, we may as well change title in to Digital Combat Thunder :).

I know what you said is a joke, but this is not some arcade request. It's a legitimate simulation feature. The aim would be to bring the scope a little further beyond historically accurate aircraft. It might not be what DCS usually does, but I wouldn't complain about more features.

 

Of course, all the usual things like developer time and resources apply.

[CheckGear]

Rivet counters can keep their hyper realistic loadouts if they want, but a minor upgrade that would have been included on the real aircraft anyway if conflict like the kind fought in PvP servers were to have actually happened does nothing but enhance the experiance of those of us who want to simulate what a cold war gone hot scenario would play out as, rather than the 'technology in a vacuum' style that some rivet counters demand.

 

The problem is, we've had far too many of these "Cold War Gone Hot" scenarios in past sims. I think its high time they start simulating how things actually are. Place these fighter jets in an environment that they weren't exactly built for and see how they roll. After all, there are very few platforms that operated in the exact environment the creator had in mind. That is partially the beauty of these men and machines - their adaptability.

 

What I want is a competitive Tomcat. I want the US Naval fighter that it was meant to be, and not the one that shrinking cold war budgets and political dealings gimped it into. I don't want to have to worry about not being able to use my Tomcat except on 80s night style events because the rivet counters screamed bloody murder about integrating a missile that had been planned for, and the tryhards whining about the overpowered phoenix.

 

While I understand what you're trying to say, keep in mind the Tomcat exists because of those dastardly things called budgets and political dealings. And to me, the "what-ifs?" become far less fascinating the further away they get from actuality and history. The Tomcat isn't what it was meant to be, it is what it is/was. I think you get a greater appreciation for the platform when you see how it was, warts and all, and learn to live and play within those limitations. After all, as I said before, its not just the pointy, sharp things that make a fighter good.

 

At the end of the day, DCS is a game, don't let the title fool you. If such a minor change, that will in no way affect the enjoyment of those who don't want it can be justified, as I believe it can, I see no reason not to implement it. If LN wants to make a final decision on the subject then that's fine, but as long as they don't come down on it one way or the other i will always advocate giving greater options to the player.

 

Far more sensible of an option would be to keep it 100% realistic, but allow modders to go in and make changes for themselves and their closest friends, if so desired.

 

What is the real difference though? The fantasy situation can extend beyond who is fighting who. In a serious conflict, I would not be surprised if more money went toward combat upgrades. The AIM-120 on the F-14 is only historically unrealistic. If you're going into a fantasy war, you've already killed historical accuracy.

 

That makes sense in theory, but it doesn't always work out that way in the real world. For one thing, there is prioritization. Depending on the situation, air assets may receive immediate attention and larger share of the pie, while in another situation, nobody will care. Also, just because there's a war going on doesn't mean everything will be turned upside down just to support the war effort. The facts show that those waging war (at least in a place like America) will attempt to maintain stability as much as possible. Furthermore, just because there is a war doesn't mean change necessarily happens quicker. Again, unless our whole society is turned upside down, things will proceed largely the same way they did before. The pace of change may be a step faster, but it won't be that much quicker. In the grand scheme of things, giving one fighter, the Tomcat, AMRAAM-capability is a small detail. Such a change would likely occur only in the event the results of the air war showed that the Tomcat relying on AIM-7s was a deteriment to the aircrew, the aircraft, and the war overall. Militaries are institutionally conservative, both in times of peace and war, and change tends to come only when the numbers say so (and depending on who views those numbers).

 

It doesn't seem like a big deal to have it be part of the module, it can be explained to the buyer what it is, a non historically accurate but technically possible addition. It's still as much a simulator as it would be without the feature, simulation isn't restricted to time accurate history.

 

The time accuracy is where the realism really lies. Imagine if they were somehow able to simulate reconnaissance missions in the world of DCS. Then imagine they wanted to simulate the earliest deployable variant of the Tomcat and they decided to have the TARPS pod available to it. But the TARPS pod wasn't operationally capable until seven years after. Imagine how out-of-place that would feel. Technically, it may have been possible for the Tomcat to use the TARPS pod earlier, but that's not how it happened in real life and it takes a lot of changes, big and/or small, to make something technically possible. Its one thing to consolidate certain features in order to remain within design constraints, but its another thing to add something simply on the basis of technical possibility, especially if that thing was never actually implemented.

 

I know what you said is a joke, but this is not some arcade request. It's a legitimate simulation feature. The aim would be to bring the scope a little further beyond historically accurate aircraft. It might not be what DCS usually does, but I wouldn't complain about more features.

 

If they were to make modules based off World War II, Korean War, or Vietnam War fighters, would it sit well with you if they gave the aircraft "technically possible" features? Same thing. Its one thing if its a currently-operation fighter with a lot of service time ahead of it. Its another thing if its a thing of the past. The Tomcat is what it was, not what it could've been. Any non-historical modification to it is a detractor.

Edited August 28, 2015 by CheckGear

[Beamscanner]

I agree that we should keep the modules as realistic as possible.

 

It's true that F-14s were not upgraded to use the AIM-120 operationally. But it's also true that F-14's would be carrying at least 2 AIM-94c missiles for BVR engagements.

 

So your also NOT going to get the "real experience" if the server your playing on bans the Phoenix missile. The argument for keeping the module legitimate exists on both sides of this debate.

 

So, if the community decides that they don't want to give the F-14 the major weapon system it was designed for(the Phoenix), then the true nature of the beast is lost. In this case, for the sake of fair play, the F-14 should have another ARH missile...the 120.

 

What the F-14 uniquely offers is the ability to engage targets at very long range whilst delaying the targets ability to recognize the inbound threat. If you take away the long range ARH from the F-14 in multiplayer, then it is no longer the F-14 known historically. There goes your realism. Giving the F-14 a AIM-120, if the Phoenix is banned, at least keeps the platform closer to what it was designed for.

 

Also, whoever related this concept to giving the SU-27 the R-77 missile is dead wrong to do so. Integrating the R-77 with the SU-27's vanilla radar system is much more complex and requires new/modified hardware. Comparing this with the compatibility between the AWG-9 system and the 120 is not a fair. Most of these complex requirements already exist in support of the F-14's Phoenix ARH.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Beamscanner

[Alfa]

Interesting - I do have a 1985 document listing "provisions" for the AIM-120A on the F-14D...

 

The F/A-18C introduced into service in 1987 also had "provision" for the AMRAAM, but didn't get it until 1993.

 

... although that doesnt mean of course it had everything required to actually carry it.

 

It probably did - having "provision" for it, means that the WCS has been prepared for it, but integrating a new weapon comes with a costly testing and certification process. At the time the trend was going toward multirole fighters and with the advent of the Hornet and discussion about whether to retire the F-14, I suspect it was simply deemed better value for money to try and push the A/G potential of it(range/payload) than to further extend the already well established A/A capability.

[Alfa]

Also, whoever related this concept to giving the SU-27 the R-77 missile is dead wrong to do so. Integrating the R-77 with the SU-27's vanilla radar system is much more complex and requires new/modified hardware.

 

It doesn't really - e.g. the MiG-29S has practically the same radar as the MiG-29 with only subtle modifications for supporting the R-77. I think you might be jumping to conclusions looking at the modifications made to the Su-27SM's modified N001 radar, but keep in mind that this also involves new air-to-ground modes, while support for the RVV-AE basically consists of an "add-on" radar mode similar to that of the MiG-29S.

 

But you are right that the AWG-9 from the outset is better suited for AMRAAM integration given the existing radar functionality and support for the AIM-54.

[Exorcet]

That makes sense in theory, but it doesn't always work out that way in the real world. For one thing, there is prioritization. Depending on the situation, air assets may receive immediate attention and larger share of the pie, while in another situation, nobody will care. Also, just because there's a war going on doesn't mean everything will be turned upside down just to support the war effort. The facts show that those waging war (at least in a place like America) will attempt to maintain stability as much as possible. Furthermore, just because there is a war doesn't mean change necessarily happens quicker. Again, unless our whole society is turned upside down, things will proceed largely the same way they did before. The pace of change may be a step faster, but it won't be that much quicker. In the grand scheme of things, giving one fighter, the Tomcat, AMRAAM-capability is a small detail. Such a change would likely occur only in the event the results of the air war showed that the Tomcat relying on AIM-7s was a deteriment to the aircrew, the aircraft, and the war overall. Militaries are institutionally conservative, both in times of peace and war, and change tends to come only when the numbers say so (and depending on who views those numbers).

 

Yes, but it's still plausible, that's all it has to be. I'm not saying that war would absolutely lead to AIM-120 on the F-14. It's just a possibility to explore should the player wish to go there.

 

 

 

The time accuracy is where the realism really lies. Imagine if they were somehow able to simulate reconnaissance missions in the world of DCS. Then imagine they wanted to simulate the earliest deployable variant of the Tomcat and they decided to have the TARPS pod available to it. But the TARPS pod wasn't operationally capable until seven years after. Imagine how out-of-place that would feel. Technically, it may have been possible for the Tomcat to use the TARPS pod earlier, but that's not how it happened in real life and it takes a lot of changes, big and/or small, to make something technically possible. Its one thing to consolidate certain features in order to remain within design constraints, but its another thing to add something simply on the basis of technical possibility, especially if that thing was never actually implemented.

 

 

 

If they were to make modules based off World War II, Korean War, or Vietnam War fighters, would it sit well with you if they gave the aircraft "technically possible" features? Same thing. Its one thing if its a currently-operation fighter with a lot of service time ahead of it. Its another thing if its a thing of the past. The Tomcat is what it was, not what it could've been. Any non-historical modification to it is a detractor.

 

It's all the same. It would be entirely up to me whether to participate or not in what was historically accurate. Let me clarify that I'm not asking for the AIM-120 to be immediately available to load on the F-14 after install. It would be something you have to switch on and opt-in to. It would clearly be explained in the manual as a fantasy, what-if, feature. Servers could force it off at will. Basically any time something like this is done, it requires a big glowing button that you can't press accidentally. Something like simple flight mode in the options or takeoff assist on the P-51. Those things don't bother me at all, I simply never use them.

 

Presenting the feature this way takes nothing away from the F-14, it only adds to it. Now you can fly it "as it was" and "what it could have been". I personally find both interesting. I would expect that the historically accurate plane took priority and that everything after that was an extra that would be done if time permits. In single player, it won't effect you at all as you'll have complete control over whether it is used or not. In multiplayer, you're at the will of the server, but then this is also the case when it comes to mods. I'll also say that for me, it's hard to feel that much of anything would be lost even if every F-14 online flew around with only 8 AMRAAM. Many servers feature deathmatch mission that don't simulate actual combat sorties. That is at least as big a hit to realism as your weapons load.

 

Ultimately though I leave it up to LN. Whether the F-14 can carry AMRAAM or not won't change my purchase or enjoyment. It's certainly not a necessary feature, but I don't think it's something out of place in a simulation like DCS.

[CheckGear]

It's true that F-14s were not upgraded to use the AIM-120 operationally. But it's also true that F-14's would be carrying at least 2 AIM-94c missiles for BVR engagements.

 

So your also NOT going to get the "real experience" if the server your playing on bans the Phoenix missile. The argument for keeping the module legitimate exists on both sides of this debate.

 

So, if the community decides that they don't want to give the F-14 the major weapon system it was designed for(the Phoenix), then the true nature of the beast is lost. In this case, for the sake of fair play, the F-14 should have another ARH missile...the 120.

 

In the real world, fighters are routine placed under weapons restrictions during training evolution that are meant to be realistic. We're talking Topgun, Red Flag, etc. In fact, the AIM-54 was rarely used in air combat training - Sparrows and Sidewinders were the weapons of choice. While DCS isn't necessarily simulating training experiences, its not unusual, in the real world, for a fighter to be put out of its element, either deliberately or circumstantially. The ability to win an unfair fight is really what separates the truly proficient fighter pilots from the pretenders.

 

I'd like DCS to be that sim where the guy with better skill, who knows how to use the aircraft within its operating limits effectively, wins the battle. Not the guy with the better missile.

[Dudikoff]

I'd like DCS to be that sim where the guy with better skill, who knows how to use the aircraft within its operating limits effectively, wins the battle. Not the guy with the better missile.

 

Are you saying you want gunzo or that missile performance is unrealistically toned down? :) Because, there's no denying the better missile can contribute a great deal towards winning (better training also helps, granted, but it can only take you so far against better tech).

 

Everybody has their own idea of they want DCS to be. The point some people are trying to make here is that it can satisfy more than one of those ideas if it wants to and that's where mission and campaign designers come into fore.

[CheckGear]

Are you saying you want gunzo or that missile performance is unrealistically toned down? :) Because, there's no denying the better missile can contribute a great deal towards winning (better training also helps, granted, but it can only take you so far against better tech).

 

Generally speaking, the less effective a missile, the closer it is to real-world experience. Missiles are not nearly as effective as people think they are, although they remain the weapon of choice (for good reason). As an example, the F-14 has fired the Phoenix missile in combat (albeit only a few times); none have hit. This despite an 85% success rate during testing. The Iranians claim to have had more success with it, but I would view their claims with skepticism, due to the nature of the Islamic Republic.

 

Now, does that mean there was an issue with the missile itself, or was there an issue with the operator? In all likelihood, it was a combination of both. I would like the ideal sim to demonstrate the challenge in getting a missile to strike its target, no matter how advanced.

 

When it comes to assessing kills, do you know what was shown to be the most decisive factor? Early detection and surprise. More often than not, the guy who got shot down never knew his adversary was there, until it was too late. Again, the point here is that its not the pointy things that lead to victories. Its the man in the cockpit and the instruments that allow him to see better the picture around him.

[Exorcet]

Generally speaking, the less effective a missile, the closer it is to real-world experience.

I'm not sure how you can say that. They're not perfect, but they certainly aren't a waste of money.

 

Too little documentation on the AIM-54 to make anything of its hit rate. A 0% score means very little with a handful of launches. It also doesn't make those launches a wasted missile either. Mission kills are valid kills, but they aren't always treated that way in DCS.