AIM-120 on the Tomcat

[Rangi]

Whisper words of wisdom...

[Tirak]

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.

 

The point is the aircraft is clearly capable of using them.

[Silver_Dragon]

No, the F-14 flight manual or the weapons manual don't say anything about a AIM-120 use. A test aircraft modified to used to them o a test weapons squadron don't say nothing about a real field deploy.

[Tirak]

No, the F-14 flight manual or the weapons manual don't say anything about a AIM-120 use. A test aircraft modified to used to them o a test weapons squadron don't say nothing about a real field deploy.

 

I'm not saying anything about field deployment, in this whole discussion I do not assert that the AMRAAM was used in military service by the Tomcat, I don't dispute that fact. My point is that the aircraft can be modified in a sufficiently minor way to utilize the weapon, that it is physically capable of doing so, and therefore, building on decisions made in the past by LN (i.e. integration of the Grom on the MiG-21) that an argument can be made for the integration of the AMRAAM on the F-14 module.

 

Arguments towards the capability are false, the aircraft has the capability with minor modification.

 

The argument is whether or not that it is acceptable to extrapolate some capability for the sake of gameplay and overall fun. Some say yes other say no, and until LN weighs in, neither opinion holds particularly greater merit than the other.

[karambiatos]

If ED adds a way to add weapon restrictions per plane, then sure, if there aren't per plane then no.

[Farlander]

Is it really a "minor" modification?

[luckyhendrix]

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

 

Look, there is a word that shouldn't be there!

 

But anyway, honestly I don't care if it is integrated or not really.

All I am saying is : I don't understand how this discussion gets so much traction, and I don't see how the impact of this module on the multiplayer fragfest is of any consideration ....

[Silver_Dragon]

 

Arguments towards the capability are false, the aircraft has the capability with minor modification.

 

 

Field F-14 require hardware and software upgrades and system updates and integration to use AIM-120, that has no "minor modifications".

 

Edit: MIL-STD-1553 data bus has requiered (F-14 never get them)

http://www.milstd1553.com/applications/

Edited August 30, 2015 by Silver_Dragon

[Tirak]

Field F-14 require hardware and software upgrades and system updates and integration to use AIM-120, that has no "minor modifications".

 

Edit: MIL-STD-1553 data bus has requiered (F-14 never get them)

http://www.milstd1553.com/applications/

 

That is the modification I'm talking about Silver :ermm: A single data bus and a conversion card or two isn't exactly a major overhaul, especially not when compared to Grom integration on a Sapphire Radar set.

 

The navy opted instead to upgrade its tomcats to use LANTIRN because it was retiring the A-6 fleet, but the upgrade was both planned and very much possible. Again, arguing that it is impossible is false. The F-14 was the test aircraft for the AMRAAM and had fired it on multiple occasions. The argument isn't that it can't do it.

 

EDIT: Also

MIL-STD-1553B Digital Multiplex Data Bus (F-14B/D). The MIL-STD-1553D DMDB allows for new avionics subsystems to be integrated and employed by changing bus control software.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-systems.htm

Edited August 30, 2015 by Tirak

[Silver_Dragon]

Tirak, you miss the point, but If you like compare a test aircraft modified with hardware and software for test proposed on a test squadron with a "real" capability, ok, go on. I leave the conversation.

[Tirak]

Tirak, you miss the point, but If you like compare a test aircraft modified with hardware and software for test proposed on a test squadron with a "real" capability, ok, go on. I leave the conversation.

 

Your databus according to Global Security.Org is equipped on the F-14B.

[FWind]

:D

[Flycat]

It's just like the Su-27 capability with R-77. Su-27 in our FC3 is SU-27s type, the early type of su-27, not the Su-27sm or others, It could not fit out with R-77, so ED didn't give it. They explain that is the things about manufacturer and defense department, their work depends on the blue print and historical data, not the personal feelings (this question has been discussion on other thread at FC3 sub forum, you can find it). So let the studio finish their work base on their professionals without pressure from consumers.

 

It's just a common fleet fighter squad, not the 603 test weapon squad or such other testing team in cartoons.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Flycat

[SkateZilla]

That is the modification I'm talking about Silver :ermm: A single data bus and a conversion card or two isn't exactly a major overhaul, especially not when compared to Grom integration on a Sapphire Radar set.

 

The navy opted instead to upgrade its tomcats to use LANTIRN because it was retiring the A-6 fleet, but the upgrade was both planned and very much possible. Again, arguing that it is impossible is false. The F-14 was the test aircraft for the AMRAAM and had fired it on multiple occasions. The argument isn't that it can't do it.

 

EDIT: Also

 

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-systems.htm

 

 

The Analog Radar of the F14A and Bs didnt support the AIM120.

 

 

They can test fire all they want, but the radar did not support the AIM120, so basically all they are doing is testing pylon and launch capabilities of the missile.

 

The Electronics needed for the AIM120 were never present in the F-14A/B, at all. The F14Ds radar supported the AIM120, but the Aircraft itself still lacked the required software and hardware components.

 

The test birds were modified, therez a l9ng list of things VX9 and NASA did to their tomcats that never made it to Any of the Fleet.

[Exorcet]

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

 

Which isn't a problem if what could actually be carried was labeled and clearly sorted differently from what could not be.

 

I have to ask what peoples thoughts on game mode are. If just simply allowing the F-14 to carry the AMRAAM makes the module inaccurate, even if it's treated like a special feature and not made out to be something the real aircraft can do, how can you possibly respect DCS as a simulation when it offers game mode?

 

Game is neither historically accurate, nor even physically possible, but apparently no one is bothered.

 

Simulation =/= historical accuracy. It all needs to be is a realistic representation of something. No, the A/B not having the hardware to launch 120 doesn't make A/B 120 carrying aircraft unrealistic. This sounds like I'm being contradictory? That's not the case and I'll explain why.

 

It is still a simulation, just one that is not as detailed as some other parts of the module. It's the same thing as simplified AI flight models, ground units, or classified parts of DCS modules (ie ECM is as inaccurate as 120 armed Tomcats of any kind). Loading 120's on the module would be a crude representation, but hardly the only thing in that category. Furthermore it does not prevent you in any way from using a historically accurate Tomcat. Look at it like this:

 

F-14 without AIM-120:

-Can fly as historically accurate plane

-Cannot fly with historically inaccurate weapons

 

F-14 with AIM-120

-Can fly as historically accurate plane

-Can fly with historically inaccurate weapons

 

F-14 with FORCED AIM-120 carriage

-Cannot fly as historically accurate plane

-Can fly with historically inaccurate weapons

 

The last one is the problem you're all yelling about, and I don't think there is a single person that would ask for that. The second option shouldn't bother anyone though, because it's basically exactly the same as the first option.

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

 

Then if you simply don't carry that weapon, you maintain accuracy, right?

 

Does game mode made DCS a joke of a simulation? Yes or no?

Does ECM modeling make DCS a joke of a simulation?

Does simple AI...

 

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.

 

This isn't about weapons, tactics, or game balance. It's more about appreciating what a simulation is. 20 mm armed P-51D's easily fall in the realm of simulation. There are different ways of doing it, like the most simple just involving changing the ammunition coded into the sim, or the more rigorous hiring of a team of engineers to workout how a 20 mm armed P-51D would differ from the normal one and then changing your sim model to that. Doing so would allow you to see what it would have been like had the P-51D has 20 mm cannons. It's not going to interest people who demand maximum historically accuracy, but the physics and combat flying would be no less realistic.

 

 

I totally understand the desire to keep DCS realistic. That's why we're here I assume. It's a simulator. I'm fine with 120 integration because it takes away nothing from the sim. It's just another option for a player to use whenever it suites them. Anyone not interested just needs to ignore it.

 

Certainly in single player you have no reason to care whether the 120 is there or not. I suppose most of the fear about it is related to online and people flying with only AMRAAM armed Tomcats. This is about as likely as game mode taking over servers, or all servers suddenly switching to labels on with infinite fuel.

 

It's just a common fleet fighter squad, not the 603 test weapon squad or such other testing team in cartoons.

 

Why can't we have a tickbox to convert the plane into weapon test platform? You could even make a campaign out of the situation.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Exorcet

[will-]

F-14D had the ability.

 

LN is making a/b version.

 

for 5 pages, am i missing something still?

[Frostie]

for 5 pages, am i missing something still?

 

Basically how to make Black appear White.

[Flycat]

Dude, try to ask the question: why the su-27s doesn't fit R-77 in DCSFC3, at FC3 subforum.

I just try to quote the words from the ED team member, they said that's the rule of their project. Ruskkiy boys have been discussion about this question for hundred page on Rus subforum. And I need to recommended google translation Rus by Eng, That's really nice and correct.

Welp, everyone have different thinks about what the simulator like is. It's better to declaration on another thread, and a little deep thinking for the consumers.

And anyway, we still could edit the .lua to let F-15c have capability to fit aim-9x, in order to make a test squad team mod, however it's another story.

 

PS: The last line of my post is always the joke, don't mind that, it's not important and just for fun to make the discussion not such serious, such as this line.

[Exorcet]

for 5 pages, am i missing something still?

 

The discussion over what makes a simulator and what impact the 120 integration will have on DCS. Everyone knows about the F-14D.

 

Dude, try to ask the question: why the su-27s doesn't fit R-77 in DCSFC3, at FC3 subforum.

I don't have to ask, I know how it goes. Although LN is not ED. Anything said in regard to the F-14 applies to the Su-27. R-77 is not a hit to accuracy because you can just ignore it.

 

That ED's Su-27 can't carry R-77 is a non issue, it's the developer's choice what to include. Likewise if LN F-14 can't carry AIM-120 it's a non issue, the dev just decided it wasn't worth it to add that feature.

 

Welp, everyone have different thinks about what the simulator like is. It's better to declaration on another thread, and a little deep thinking for the consumers.

What a simulator is, isn't really up for debate. It's defined. What type of simulator DCS is and what players want to see is another debate. I understand that people want realism, I don't know who wouldn't want realism in DCS. However people tend to confuse, conflate, or whatever, the notions of realism vs reality.

 

And anyway, we still could edit the .lua to let F-15c have capability to fit aim-9x, in order to make a test squad team mod, however it's another story.

Sure, but then it's more convenient if the devs just make it option that can be enforced as a server rule.

[WinterH]

Yeah, in the same vein, equipping warp drive on DCS : MiG-21Bis is not a hit on accuracy, contrarily, a legitimate sim feature, because, hey... you can ignore it! :)

[Exorcet]

Yeah, in the same vein, equipping warp drive on DCS : MiG-21Bis is not a hit on accuracy, contrarily, a legitimate sim feature, because, hey... you can ignore it! :)

Obviously. And I'm serious.

 

Although there is the problem of warp drive not being physically possible, so there is no comparison there, other than it not impacting the accuracy of the simulation by being completely ignorable. Afterall I don't see what it would matter if it was there in my module, it would always be switch off and as far as I knew, wouldn't be present.

[Tirak]

for 5 pages, am i missing something still?

 

Yes, what you're missing is the fact that LN has in the past extrapolated capability in the interest of enhancing the module. If they hadn't, I wouldn't argue in favor of the AMRAAM, but they have, so that makes it a possibility, and until they flat out say they won't do it, I'll continue to advocate it.

[Vampyre]

Obviously. And I'm serious.

 

Although there is the problem of warp drive not being physically possible, so there is no comparison there, other than it not impacting the accuracy of the simulation by being completely ignorable. Afterall I don't see what it would matter if it was there in my module, it would always be switch off and as far as I knew, wouldn't be present.

 

So, in summary, you and Tirak are seriously asking for an official cheat to be incorporated into a full real DCS level module because you don't think you can win in the multiplayer fragfest servers regardless of the fact that the F-14A and F-14B were never equipped to fire the AIM-120.

 

The pictures posted earlier of a Tomcat firing an AIM-120 were of NF-14A Buno 158625, not an F-14A fleet representative model. While the "warp drive" example that someone else threw out there is not physically possible, neither is the AIM-120 on a fleet Tomcat which is what LN are building... not a one off test aircraft. Some people are always trying to ice skate uphill.:doh:

[SkateZilla]

If you want it that bad, add it yourself,

 

dont ask a studio to throw accuracy out the window for a minority that just wants something added because they think it will be cool.

 

Like I said, this isnt Ace Combat.... dont ask for something for the sake of "being cool"

[Exorcet]

So, in summary, you and Tirak are seriously asking for an official cheat

Cheat - an unfair advantage.

 

So no, no one is asking for a cheat of any kind.

 

Curiously DCS has a tab [mis]labeled "cheat" in controls. In includes quick start. If adding 120 is a cheat, or makes the game arcade, why isn't DCS arcade already since it has cheats and physics braking features.

 

If you think DCS is an arcade game, I respectfully disagree, but then at least the anti 120 stance seems consistent.

 

 

to be incorporated into a full real DCS level module because you don't think you can win in the multiplayer fragfest servers regardless of the fact that the F-14A and F-14B were never equipped to fire the AIM-120.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how this relates to anything I've said or even hinted at.

 

The pictures posted earlier of a Tomcat firing an AIM-120 were of NF-14A Buno 158625, not an F-14A fleet representative model. While the "warp drive" example that someone else threw out there is not physically possible, neither is the AIM-120 on a fleet Tomcat which is what LN are building... not a one off test aircraft. Some people are always trying to ice skate uphill.:doh:

120 on a Tomcat is physically possible. That's obviously true. Warp drive is the opposite. Now of course there is an issue with details. Throwing 120 on the A/B F-14 and waving hands at the electronics would be less realistic than dealing with the electronics issues. Just as putting R-77 on the Su-27 is in FC3. However it's still a simulation, just one that is less realistic than other aspects of the simulation. It's the same way FC3 itself is less realistic than DCS, but still a simulation.

 

 

 

dont ask a studio to throw accuracy out the window for a minority that just wants something added because they think it will be cool.

That's just it. No one is asking for accuracy to be reduced.

 

Like I said, this isnt Ace Combat.... dont ask for something for the sake of "being cool"

 

But it is Ace Combat, after all there is game mode. You can turn it off, but that doesn't matter for some reason.

 

"

Yeah, in the same vein, equipping game mode on DCS : MiG-21Bis is not a hit on accuracy, contrarily, a legitimate sim feature, because, hey... you can ignore it!

_____"

Edited August 30, 2015 by Exorcet