AIM-120 on the Tomcat

[CheckGear]

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

 

I can say that because that's how it is. Even in the post-Vietnam era, you still had instances where a single aircraft would fire multiple missiles, particularly improved versions of the Sparrow, and they still wouldn't hit the target. Then you have the active-radar Phoenix, which, at least in American inventory, never scored a hit. Granted, we're talking about a small sample size, but you'd expect better from a missile that had an 85% success rate in testing. If you look at the history of air-to-air missile launches, you're going to see far more failures than successes. In fact, the most effective AAM appears to be the short-range, IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder.

 

So no, missiles are not a waste of money. But there's no need to make them more effective than they really are.

[turkeydriver]

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.

 

on the AIM-54C data you speak of.....just no.

 

Of the 3 fired, one followed a MiG-23 into the ground as it ran out of gas trying to escape. The CBG Admiral regarded as a kill. The other two that "missed" never had a chance, the weapons did not "fail", they were loaded incorrectly so the rocket motors had no chance to arm, and they dropped like Mk-83s. Iraqs entire air strategy was based on avoiding F-14s and engaging F-15/16/18 and bombers which they thought they had a a credible chance against. I'll give you that the Iranian record is questionable, but Iraqi pilots weren't stupid, despite lacking flight hours. The AIM-54 was perfect for what it was designed for, and killing maneuvering fighters was a secondary design characteristic.

[turkeydriver]

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.

 

Actually integrating the AMRAAM into the entire F-14 fleet was deemed too expensive-apparently there were problems with old AWG-9.

[Buzzles]

Going back on topic, we're getting an A and a B of the F-14.

 

From what I've read, while a couple of A/B variants may have been modified for testing, it was really planned for the D variant, which did test it, in preparation for a fleet-wide rollout that never happened in favour of other upgrades.

 

In short: No operational aircraft ever had the ability to use the 120.

Conclusion: We should not expect the F14 A and B variants to use the 120.

 

I also suspect LN will err on the side of caution on loadouts, as they were factually wrong to allow the DCS '21Bis to use the Grom and were called out on it.

[Tirak]

I also suspect LN will err on the side of caution on loadouts, as they were factually wrong to allow the DCS '21Bis to use the Grom and were called out on it.

 

The choice to use the Grom was a deliberate decision made to expand the scope of the module in a non intrusive way, and to help 'soft' represent other versions of the MiG-21 that could use the weapon. This wasn't a case of LN being in the dark or trying to slip one past. Very few people have had negative responses towards Grom integration, in fact, most of the community agreed that such integration was a positive thing.

 

It is because of that decision, which LN took that there is the distinct possibility of seeing AMRAAM integration on the aircraft, not despite it.

[luckyhendrix]

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 :).

To the people using the multiplayer argument, just this. It is a flight sim, the purpose is to simulate real capabilities and operations of the aircraft.

 

The balance of specific games mode are up to the mission developer's.

[lokodehortaleza]

on the AIM-54C data you speak of.....just no.

 

Of the 3 fired, one followed a MiG-23 into the ground as it ran out of gas trying to escape. The CBG Admiral regarded as a kill. The other two that "missed" never had a chance, the weapons did not "fail", they were loaded incorrectly so the rocket motors had no chance to arm, and they dropped like Mk-83s. Iraqs entire air strategy was based on avoiding F-14s and engaging F-15/16/18 and bombers which they thought they had a a credible chance against. I'll give you that the Iranian record is questionable, but Iraqi pilots weren't stupid, despite lacking flight hours. The AIM-54 was perfect for what it was designed for, and killing maneuvering fighters was a secondary design characteristic.

 

The Iraqui custom of turning tail and running as soon as an AWG-9 was in the air speaks volumes about the Tomcat-Phoenix combination. They had met it before, and clearly they didn't like it very much. And one musn't forget the iranians had 54A's, not C's.

[Tirak]

To the people using the multiplayer argument, just this. It is a flight sim, the purpose is to simulate real capabilities and operations of the aircraft.

 

The balance of specific games mode are up to the mission developer's.

 

Fine, so lets simulate the real planned capabilities of the aircraft and give us the AMRAAM.

[Flycat]

this is the creepiest thread I've ever read on this sub forum.

"I beg you give us xxx, just like kindergarten boys in WOT."

the result of 120 capability in the history is that it could, but not, and it only suitable on latest version of tomcat in lab, ours now is 80s& early 90s series in common.

they didn't use it on the common one, only in lab and has been cut down by dear Dick Cheney.

even you can beg/ask the studio to develop F-21 superior tomcat or vg wing type of navy raptor which on blueprint, that's more fantastic and much more interesting than F-14s.

 

LOL

[Zomba]

I'd personally prefer the F-14 to be as close to how the fleet aircraft were like, good and bad. Putting 120s on it seems more like a pleasant fiction. Would be useful, but a fiction and I think wishful thinking is a path best avoided where possible with sims like this.

[SkateZilla]

I can verify the AIM120 Upgrade planned for the F14Ds was suspended in favor of A2G upgrades as at the time the navy was retiring the A6s so the Tomcat A2G Program took its place. (which was also previously suspended)

 

Cost was also a factor.

 

Upgrades for Deployment of AIM120 on Tomcats never made it to the fleet,

Tests were conducted, that was it.

 

for Authenticity sake, there shouldnt be any 120s on the T9mcats, A,B or D.

 

As for the "Why Notters"

 

DCS Modules are held to high standards, with Accuracy being among those.

[Exorcet]

As for the "Why Notters"

 

DCS Modules are held to high standards, with Accuracy being among those.

Of course. The AIM-120 is being asked for in part because it does nothing to diminish these standards, including accuracy.

 

Game mode does not make DCS any less of a sim, because you're not forced to use it. The 120 Tomcat would be the same.

[SkateZilla]

The A/B/D Fleet Tomcats did not have the equipment and software upgrades to carry the AIM-120,

 

So NO, it would not be accurate,

 

that's like saying I want a AGM65 On my F-86

[Exorcet]

The A/B/D Fleet Tomcats did not have the equipment and software upgrades to carry the AIM-120

That doesn't stop you from flying the module without carrying AIM-120. The only way to damage the accuracy of the module would be to force the 120's on.

 

Saying that 120 degrades the accuracy of the module is like saying game mode makes DCS an arcade game, but that makes no sense.

 

There are different ways to handle 120 usage, no one is asking for it to be sneakily thrown in so it can pretend to a representation of an active USN Tomcat. Like game mode, or takeoff assist, etc it could be clearly labeled as what it is, a non historically accurate feature that takes away nothing from the rest of the module.

[Zomba]

Maybe just put the 120s on when in game mode? Would be a suitable compromise when operating in Mario Kart mode. That way there would be no undermining accuracy in sim mode.

[SkateZilla]

IM not gonna argue with you over this,

 

Just sayin', a Weapon that was not deployed to the fleet should not be permitted to be carried.

 

Sure you can argue the testing cats had them, but then everyone's gonna wanna go back and add stuff to the other aircraft that the testing craft had.

 

What's next Thrust Vectoring nozzles that they tested on the F-14s as well?

 

There's a mess ton more than just AIM-120's on the list of "Conducted tests w/ but not deployed to fleet" weapons.

 

Bottom Line, the A/B's Couldnt Handle AIM-120's Regardless, At All, AN/AWG-9 did not support the AIM-120 AT ALL,

 

 

So, No F-14D. Means No AN/APG-71, Means No AIM-120 Capability at All, which means No not even as a "game mode perk",

 

You're asking for a Missile to be fired from a Radar System that does not support it, Non Realistic and In Accurate.

 

This isnt ACE Combat.

[Exorcet]

Maybe just put the 120s on when in game mode? Would be a suitable compromise when operating in Mario Kart mode. That way there would be no undermining accuracy in sim mode.

That's a bit arbitrary and would defeat the point of a simulation.

[McBlemmen]

That doesn't stop you from flying the module without carrying AIM-120. The only way to damage the accuracy of the module would be to force the 120's on.

 

Saying that 120 degrades the accuracy of the module is like saying game mode makes DCS an arcade game, but that makes no sense.

 

 

By that logic every flyable module should be able to carry every possible weapon

[CheckGear]

Of course. The AIM-120 is being asked for in part because it does nothing to diminish these standards, including accuracy.

 

An aircraft carrying a weapon it never actually carried or was never made capable of carrying is the exact definition of inaccuracy.

[Bidartarra]

I would be quite disappointed seeing the amraam on the Tomcat. The module is about what F14A/B were not could have been.

 

The F15 is here for Amraam shooting. Let's keep the F14 true to what it was.

[CheckGear]

I would be quite disappointed seeing the amraam on the Tomcat. The module is about what F14A/B were not could have been.

 

The F15 is here for Amraam shooting. Let's keep the F14 true to what it was.

 

Amen to that. There's plenty of other aircraft that carried the AMRAAM. The F-14 is one aircraft that never carried it. Just let it be.

[Zomba]

That's a bit arbitrary and would defeat the point of a simulation.

 

I was just being facetious. Sticking weapons on it that it was never operational with is very Game Mode.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Zomba

[Solty]

If AiM120 wasn't present on the aircraft in any combat scenario, then it shouldn't be in the game. It is like asking for P-51D to have 20mm Hispanos. It could have them, and P-51 (Mustang MK1a) had them, but that doesn't mean the D should have them. And we are talking F/A-14A&B... so yeah. Su27 doesn't have R77 in the game too, so I don't see the problem. It is going to be just different. Different tactics, and different use of weapons.

[Tirak]

Amen to that. There's plenty of other aircraft that carried the AMRAAM. The F-14 is one aircraft that never carried it. Just let it be.

 

And yet... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-14A_AIM-120_Test_3.JPEG

https://research.archives.gov/id/6368592

 

These are F-14As, they are launching AMRAAMs.

[Silver_Dragon]

Only on test proposes on a test proving grounds on modified F-14 testing airplanes, AIM-120 never has deploy on the field units with F-14 modified to use them or combat operations.