So from what I've heard, you can't silence RWR noises in the F-14...

[Zakatak]

And if that's the case, his there any chance the groundcrew will be able to jury rig a "RWR volume" knob for us, so we don't have to pop the circuit breaker for it?

[Cobra847]

In general terms, we have no issues with making gameplay controls such as this (i.e. muting warnings) an option- likely as a keyboard shortcut.

[Corrigan]

Very reasonable approach. That's certainly not worse than being able to use padlocking, labels etc etc via keyboard shortcuts.

[CAT_101st]

Those can be forced off in the mission editor. If you are hosting that is.

[fable2omg]

I'm surprised people dislike RWR sounds so much that they'd wish to disable it though, I've flown in Falcon BMS (F-16C block 32) for years now and until I began flying the MiG-21bis I never even thought of lowering the volume of the RWR, the worst to me was being locked by a friendly patriot site for IFF interrogation, but even though I had that steady beep buzzing in my ears I never bothered to look to my rear left and turn down the volume knob..

If you're in a high threat environment, isn't it better to know audibly where are the threats? Instead of constantly looking down? That was the intention at least.

[Dudikoff]

I'm surprised people dislike RWR sounds so much that they'd wish to disable it though, I've flown in Falcon BMS (F-16C block 32) for years now and until I began flying the MiG-21bis I never even thought of lowering the volume of the RWR, the worst to me was being locked by a friendly patriot site for IFF interrogation, but even though I had that steady beep buzzing in my ears I never bothered to look to my rear left and turn down the volume knob..

If you're in a high threat environment, isn't it better to know audibly where are the threats? Instead of constantly looking down? That was the intention at least.

 

Well, if they simulate the AN/APR-45/50 to model the apparently atrocious amount of false reports, you might change the tune :)

 

@Cobra: I don't recall if all the breakers will be simulated, but if not, perhaps the RWR one could be (along with a keyboard shortcut) so we could have the risky real-life workaround available as well? But, BlackLion mentions that the maintenance crews could adjust the RWR volume so perhaps this could be added to the module specific in-game options as well?

Edited January 27, 2016 by Dudikoff

[Dutchy93]

I'm surprised people dislike RWR sounds so much that they'd wish to disable it though, I've flown in Falcon BMS (F-16C block 32) for years now and until I began flying the MiG-21bis I never even thought of lowering the volume of the RWR, the worst to me was being locked by a friendly patriot site for IFF interrogation, but even though I had that steady beep buzzing in my ears I never bothered to look to my rear left and turn down the volume knob..

If you're in a high threat environment, isn't it better to know audibly where are the threats? Instead of constantly looking down? That was the intention at least.

 

Then you clearly have never flown the Su27 default campaign.

When on cap you have to patrol the border with an enemy SAM site on the other side.

Let me tell you, when your RWR is screaming bloody murder lock tone at you for 15 minutes straight you will change your statement :megalol:.

 

Volume knob, all for it! Unless it is similar to an F15 TEWS RWR, then I don't mind.

[Justin Case]

In general terms, we have no issues with making gameplay controls such as this (i.e. muting warnings) an option- likely as a keyboard shortcut.

And make the forums explode? :music_whistling:

[OnlyforDCS]

Or....RWR/Warning/Cockpit Volume control should be added by ED as a separate volume slider in the "options" section. This would be a very smart move on the part of ED and frankly I don't understand why no one has thought of this before?

[captain_dalan]

Please mate, let's not turn this into a VS thread, there are plenty of those, just use the search function :)

[fable2omg]

Please mate, let's not turn this into a VS thread, there are plenty of those, just use the search function :)

I'm just making a point. Besides, wasn't Zakatak's question answered with a yes? There will be ways to mute it. I'm just saying as a side-note that I hope LNS won't water it's defaults down.

[NeilWillis]

As long as it is optional, there can be absolutely no cause to complain, and everyone should be happy.

 

If they're not, then frankly, they never will be!

[hvymtal]

Just to add a tiny bit to fable2omg's point, don't be deceived, bricks can actually turn very well at low speed, reference the 57klb Su-27 (air-air 3/4 fuel) which below 600kmh will out-turn anything

 

To the topic at hand

Like LN said, for gamers' convenience I see no reason why it can't be a keybind. Like the pre-OCU F-16A's obstructive HUD projector, it's one bit of authenticity we can live without

http://www.pakwheels.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/f3.jpg

[Tirak]

False reports?! Oh man, this sounds beautiful, if they simulate everything, dogfights with F-14s versus MiG-21s will be gorgeous. I expect that a high amount of fanboys of the F-14 having no clue how to dogfight with it will go on online servers thinking they can destroy everything because they're the mighty F-14, don't get me wrong I'll fly the F-14 as well but if they get the F-14A historically right, shooting them down will be a breeze :P

 

They apparently have limited look down/shoot down capability like the MiG-23, their engines are made of glass basically, people say it's a great turn fighter but top gun tactics clearly show that the aircraft turns like any 50,000lb aircraft would: Like a brick. I can already visualize the posts of people ranting about how the aircraft isn't flying like they thought it would, just like with the VRS: F/A-18E when people suddenly found out that not only it wouldn't fly at mach 1.8, Mach 1.8 was it's VNE, the aircraft can barely go supersonic :megalol:

 

I for one love a challenging aircraft, I don't think I'll ever touch the B model honestly. I hope the inevitable complaints will never make LNS water down it's faults war thunder style because that would be a real shame.

 

While the aircraft has its faults, turning with an Air Superiority Loadout isn't one of them. The Tomcat features a truely fantastic lifting body, which as long as you're not hauling weapon pallets, gives quite fantastic results. Top Gun would look for the tactics that would work best against an opponent, and because of the monsterous power of the Tomcat, and the less throttleable nature of the TF30s, combined with the excellent lift provided by the 'pancake', it was considered best that if you had a small nimble fighter with inferior power, climb. It is the most optimal tactic, and also a holdover from the phantom days. However, against an aircraft that can climb with you, odds are you can out turn them, which is why if fighting say, an F-15, cat pilots could make use of the their vastly superior low speed characteristics to run rings around them.

 

The Tomcat is big, and has a lot of roll inertia, pilots describe it as being a little sluggish at the controls, something the digital flight controls did improve, but to say she can't turn is flat out wrong. Is turning best? Generally no because you have so much power to go up with, and if you want to conserve energy, banking speed into altitude is better than just turning flat and burning speed to move the nose around flatly. I think that we're going to see a lot of angry pilots of other aircraft complaining because they don't understand the advantages the Tomcat has.

[BlackLion213]

False reports?! Oh man, this sounds beautiful, if they simulate everything, dogfights with F-14s versus MiG-21s will be gorgeous. I expect that a high amount of fanboys of the F-14 having no clue how to dogfight with it will go on online servers thinking they can destroy everything because they're the mighty F-14, don't get me wrong I'll fly the F-14 as well but if they get the F-14A historically right, shooting them down will be a breeze :P

 

They apparently have limited look down/shoot down capability like the MiG-23, their engines are made of glass basically, people say it's a great turn fighter but top gun tactics clearly show that the aircraft turns like any 50,000lb aircraft would: Like a brick. I can already visualize the posts of people ranting about how the aircraft isn't flying like they thought it would, just like with the VRS: F/A-18E when people suddenly found out that not only it wouldn't fly at mach 1.8, Mach 1.8 was it's VNE, the aircraft can barely go supersonic :megalol:

 

I for one love a challenging aircraft, I don't think I'll ever touch the B model honestly. I hope the inevitable complaints will never make LNS water down it's faults war thunder style because that would be a real shame.

 

I was hoping to find a MiG opponent like you...lets play for money. :D

 

-Nick

[WinterH]

fable2omg, I think you'll probably experience a rude awakening when F-14 releases, and I say this as someone who loves the MiG-21, and thinks "meh..." about F-14 :).

 

Though, you are probably right about fanboys without much experience who think they'll slaughter everything getting slaughtered until they get the hang of things, or just give up. But, F-14 is much more than you seem give credit for, even though it indeed have some vices. AWG-9, while a 70s radar (which all seem to have one problem or another), is still one of the most capable fighter radars of 20th century. Engine problems plauged F-14A in certain profiles, but at low altitude (where DCS : Unreal Tournament tends to happen) they also provide ridiculous amount of thrust. Also, it isn't people who say it's a great turn fighter, it is the actual flight manual showing maximum turn rates like 28 degrees per second, which is pretty damn high :).

 

It had it's vices yes, quite a few of them may be. But the MiG probably has as many as F-14's rivets in compariosn :).

[fable2omg]

Gee, I sure created one hell of a ruckus huh, so that's what it takes to get you guys fired up.

This isn't about the Mig, we're on the F-14's side of the forum, what I'm all about is demystifying propaganda that claims fighters like the F-14 and the F/A-18 to be the best aircraft worldwide, so of course I got excited when I read about the F-14's performance.

I'm looking for the truth, like the F-15s radar oil leaks, the F/A-18's poor dogfighting capabilities, and F-14s poor performance, guys we're about simulators we should know better than to compare each other's █████.

 

What I got instead is a bunch of people who misinterpreted my text as "which one's best". I guess I should've known better. So I apologize.

I still hope the RWR will be simulated properly, but if this is what kind of mess the devs have when they come here, then it's a lost cause.

[BlackLion213]

Gee, I sure created one hell of a ruckus huh, so that's what it takes to get you guys fired up.

This isn't about the Mig, we're on the F-14's side of the forum, what I'm all about is demystifying propaganda that claims fighters like the F-14 and the F/A-18 to be the best aircraft worldwide, so of course I got excited when I read about the F-14's performance.

I'm looking for the truth, like the F-15s radar oil leaks, the F/A-18's poor dogfighting capabilities, and F-14s poor performance, guys we're about simulators we should know better than to compare each other's █████.

 

What I got instead is a bunch of people who misinterpreted my text as "which one's best". I guess I should've known better. So I apologize.

I still hope the RWR will be simulated properly, but if this is what kind of mess the devs have when they come here, then it's a lost cause.

 

Nothing to apologize for. :)

 

People do get rather insane about crowning something as "the best". It's preyy ridiculous, I'm still waiting for the hundred page debate over rice versus pasta - which is the one true carb! ;)

 

Though I'm a bit confused by this:

 

I'm looking for the truth, like the F-15s radar oil leaks, the F/A-18's poor dogfighting capabilities, and F-14s poor performance, guys we're about simulators...

 

Are these statements of fact or your expectations? I don't know about the the F-15's radar leaking oil, but I wouldn't call the performance of the Hornet or Tomcat poor.

 

To me, that's the real interest of the simulator - no machine is perfect and everything has strengths and weaknesses. The F-14A is definitely vulnerable to other 4th gen fighters during ACM at 25,000' (because of the engines - both reliability and thrust), but the equation reverses below 10,000' (where both reliability and thrust are much better). The Hornet has remarkable ITR, but exercising that ITR for more than 180 degrees bleeds a lot of energy and makes the Hornet vulnerable - especially with it's FBW AOA limiter.

 

The pilot's ability to work around limitations and maximize strengths is the key to it all. Which is why I always chuckle when people want to crown one fighter the ultimate dogfighter - would it ever really matter? It still wouldn't allow you to predict the outcome of an engagement based on aircraft type alone. Plus, let's say that the F-15 is declared far superior to the F-14 (it's not ;)), would it change anything? The F-15 couldn't land on a carrier and couldn't meet the USN's BVR requirements (till the 1990s at least). It's like rice versus pasta....

 

-Nick

 

PS - My offer still stands for F-14A vs MiG-21Bis ACM engagement - guns only. :D

[captain_dalan]

And that is why pupils, you never start a VS flame war on the forums :P

Jokes aside, i really do hope every module we get strives for as much detail and authenticity (if not outright realism) as possible. That is what drives the experience (for me) of flying sims anyway. Would it be an F-14A if there were no compressor stalls? Or a 60's era radar display without the counter intuitive "tube" interpretation? Or a prop without fuel mixture? I think not.....

[Tirak]

I'm looking for the truth, like the F-15s radar oil leaks, the F/A-18's poor dogfighting capabilities, and F-14s poor performance, guys we're about simulators we should know better than to compare each other's █████.

 

The belief that the F-14 has poor dogfighting performance has been prevalent for a long time, as people equate large with sluggish, and in terms of the F-14, at an altitude where it will drag the dogfight to this is not the case. As Blacklion stated, below 10,000ft, an altitude regularly fought at in DCS, the Tomcat has impressive maneuverability thanks to the lifting body design. The simple fact of the matter is, that the Tomcat has a great number of options when it goes into a dogfight. Almost anything that it cannot outclimb, it can out turn, which is a great credit to the design of both the lifting body, and the swing wing.

 

Other wonderful myths about the tomcat include it can't dogfight because it was built as an interceptor, patently false as the F-14 was designed specifically because the original 'interceptor' that was to protect the carriers proved to be so unwieldy, that the Navy insisted on an air superiority capable aircraft that could do both roles, thus necessitating the swing wing, and i won't bother going into to talking about the Phoenix, as given your attitude about the aircraft in general I would assume you're one of the people who refuses to believe Iranian claims about the effectiveness of the missile.

 

No one, you will find here, minds discussing the F-14s short comings, and there are quite a few, especially with the A variant, and the B is most certainly not without it foibles either, but if you want to talk short comings, make sure the complaints your raising are actually real, rather than spouting the myths from the crowd, and then raging at people who call you on them.

 

As to the RWR issue, I have no doubt LN will implement it properly, however despite the tough talk of certain people on the forums, it is important to remember that DCS is in fact, a game. While the genre is indeed simulation, we play DCS, and giving options to people who want to alter certain things is not a negative, especially not when you can still play the game as realistically as you like.

[BlackLion213]

The belief that the F-14 has poor dogfighting performance has been prevalent for a long time, as people equate large with sluggish, and in terms of the F-14, at an altitude where it will drag the dogfight to this is not the case. As Blacklion stated, below 10,000ft, an altitude regularly fought at in DCS, the Tomcat has impressive maneuverability thanks to the lifting body design. The simple fact of the matter is, that the Tomcat has a great number of options when it goes into a dogfight. Almost anything that it cannot outclimb, it can out turn, which is a great credit to the design of both the lifting body, and the swing wing.

 

Other wonderful myths about the tomcat include it can't dogfight because it was built as an interceptor, patently false as the F-14 was designed specifically because the original 'interceptor' that was to protect the carriers proved to be so unwieldy, that the Navy insisted on an air superiority capable aircraft that could do both roles, thus necessitating the swing wing, and i won't bother going into to talking about the Phoenix, as given your attitude about the aircraft in general I would assume you're one of the people who refuses to believe Iranian claims about the effectiveness of the missile.

 

Great post Tirak.

 

The Tomcat misconceptions are pretty pervasive, even among real pilots. Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons had a couple of great stories about facing F-16Cs when he was a RIO at VF-32 in the late 1980s (flying F-14As). His first was walking into a debrief after scoring a gun kill on a F-16C in 1 v 1 DACT. Apparently, the Viper pilot looked rather despondent and was rather surprised with how the engagement preceded. He had never fought Tomcats before and was told that they couldn't fight 1-circle against the F-16. The F-16's expected this DACT to be easy, they ended up losing the exercise based on exchange ratio. It seems that the most common error for the losing Viper pilots was letting their airspeed fall below 350 kts in a sustained turning battle, especially one-circle fights.

 

The second story from "Hey Joe" was that one of their VF-32 pilots was retiring from the USN and was trying to join a ANG squadron near where he planned to retire. The story was that he was good to go from an administrative standpoint, but the ANG squadron wanted him to audition (I've never heard of something like that before). So he took an F-14A cross country for a day. They did 3 set-ups and the Tomcat pilot won all 3 against a block 30 F-16C wide-mouth. They were impressed and he joined a few months later. They also didn't have much experience with the Tomcat and were rather surprised by how things went.

 

These are simple anecdotes and should not be construed as a score card...:music_whistling:

 

But plenty of real life pilots also underestimated the Tomcat based on other's stories or how things looked on paper.

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

 

But plenty of real life pilots also underestimated the Tomcat based on other's stories or how things looked on paper.

 

Tissue paper... teehee :D

[BlackLion213]

Tissue paper... teehee :D

 

:megalol:

 

Though one other factor is worth mentioning with all of these stories: politics. Not national politics or Cheney stuff, I mean pilot egos and beliefs.

 

The F-14 was lucky to become a very famous aircraft and very recognizable to the public, primarily because it starred in the most popular (popular for the general public) aviation movie of all time....you know the name. ;)

 

No movie about combat aircraft has been so popular or widely watched by the general public. I remember being in high school (late 90s) in a geology course and the teacher was discussing the kind of work done on an oil rig, namely the risks, etc. He compared it to the risk of working on the deck of an aircraft carrier and one of the girls asked "Aircraft carriers are dangerous?" and another girl replied: "Just watch the beginning of Top Gun and you'll get what he means". It seems like just about everyone has seen it, which then creates this irritating scenario for the typical, mighty-ego-ed US Fighter pilot:

 

"What do you do for a living", she asks.

 

"I fly fighter jets", pilot replies.

 

"Oh! The airplane from Top Gun", she asks.

 

"No.....one of the other ones". :(

 

Since every US pilot of a 4th generation fighter believes that he flies the awesomest fighter ever made, it hurts the ego to have another fighter depicted in the most famous aviation movie. They've heard of and seen the F-14, but not your fighter... So suddenly, the F-14 has a huge target on it's back because what ever fighter you fly, it has to be WAY better than the F-14.

 

Good example is from a post on the Tomcat Sunset forum (Dave Parsons?). They tell a story about an Eagle Pilot (still in training I believe in Virginia) just after the release of Top Gun, calling their local paper to brag that his Eagle could blow the F-14 out of the sky and what a huge mistake it was for Paramount to star the F-14 instead of the Eagle. Of course, the crews at Oceana read the article and called over. They asserted that this pilot clearly wouldn't mind a little 2-V-2 against a pair of VF-101 Tomcats to confirm his claim - the pilot could have an instructor for a wingman. So they went at it, instructor and student from VF-101 vs Instructor and loud mouth in the F-15C....and both Eagles got gunned. The Eagle instructor did say that his student wouldn't be calling any more reporters for a while. :D

 

But this is just one famous example, I honestly believe that many non-Tomcat US pilots have been conditioned to claim that the F-14 (especially the F-14A) is easy pickings and no real fighter, just to balance out it's fame and their egos. It's true that the F-14 did have real faults and was far from perfect, but stories and statements from many other pilots don't match the numbers or stories from Tomcat pilots. I remember one F-14A pilot from the Sunset Forum stating something similar: "I'm not sure why these guys (F-16 and F-15 pilots) claim to have never lost a fight against us, I've shot down so many of them in DACT, but they claim it never happens - WTH".

 

Of course, Paramount didn't "choose" the F-14 as their star, it was the aircraft flown at Navy Fighter Weapons school (Hornet was brand new, there weren't any fleet Hornet pilots at Top Gun in 1985 IIRC), which was the topic they chose for the movie. Hardly a knock against the other fighters.

 

Lastly, a few other things generally supported my guess here. The first was that so many other 4th gen pilots claimed that the F-14Bs and Ds were really tough opponents and they had to work like crazy to beat them - totally different than the F-14A, they would say. Yet...the Tomcat pilots tell me that F-14As defeat F-14B/Ds in DACT all the time - it's not that lopsided. The GE Tomcats win more, true, but it's hardly 90:10. So why is the F-14B/D hugely challenging and the F-14A easy pickings??

 

Also, I ran into a VF-213 pilot at the Dayton Airshow in 1999, he wasn't there with an F-14 (no Tomcats that year :(), but I talked with him for a few minutes. They had just transitioned to the F-14D and I asked him how much better his maneuverability/ACM ability was. I was expecting - "way better, everything is different". Instead - "About the same...I love the ability to move the throttles during maneuvers and I can fly minimum radius turns all day without having to trade altitude for speed, but maneuvers and tactics are about the same". He mostly talked about how much better the HUD was and the big upgrade in RADAR capability/reliability.

 

I know that tons of Tomcats lost DACT matches to Hornets, Eagles, and Vipers...but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that things are not as lopsided as those pilots would claim. Pilots are like fisherman you know....:D

 

-Nick

Edited February 5, 2016 by BlackLion213

[hvymtal]

:megalol:

 

Though one other factor is worth mentioning with all of these stories: politics. Not national politics or Cheney stuff, I mean pilot egos and beliefs.

 

The F-14 was lucky to become a very famous aircraft and very recognizable to the public, primarily because it starred in the most popular (popular for the general public) aviation movie of all time....you know the name. ;)

 

No movie about combat aircraft has been so popular or widely watched by the general public. I remember being in high school (late 90s) in a geology course and the teacher was discussing the kind of work done on an oil rig, namely the risks, etc. He compared it to the risk of working on the deck of an aircraft carrier and one of the girls asked "Aircraft carriers are dangerous?" and another girl replied: "Just watch the beginning of Top Gun and you'll get what he means". It seems like just about everyone has seen it, which then creates this irritating scenario for the typical, mighty-ego-ed US Fighter pilot:

 

"What do you do for a living", she asks.

 

"I fly fighter jets", pilot replies.

 

"Oh! The airplane from Top Gun", she asks.

 

"No.....one of the other ones". :(

 

Since every US pilot of a 4th generation fighter believes that he flies the awesomest fighter ever made, it hurts the ego to have another fighter depicted in the most famous aviation movie. They've heard of and seen the F-14, but not your fighter... So suddenly, the F-14 has a huge target on it's back because what ever fighter you fly, it has to be WAY better than the F-14.

 

Good example from the book "Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye Bye Baby" . They tell a story about an Eagle Pilot (still in training I believe in Virginia) just after the release of Top Gun, calling their local paper to brag that his Eagle could blow the F-14 out of the sky and what a huge mistake it was for Paramount to star the F-14 instead of the Eagle. Of course, the crews at Oceana read the article and called over. They asserted that this pilot clearly wouldn't mind a little 2-V-2 against a pair of VF-101 Tomcats to confirm his claim - the pilot could have an instructor for a wingman. So they went at it, instructor and student from VF-101 vs Instructor and loud mouth in the F-15C....and both Eagles got gunned. The Eagle instructor did say that his student wouldn't be calling any more reporters for a while. :D

 

But this is just one famous example, I honestly believe that many non-Tomcat US pilots have been conditioned to claim that the F-14 (especially the F-14A) is easy pickings and no real fighter, just to balance out it's fame and their egos. It's true that the F-14 did have real faults and was far from perfect, but stories and statements from many other pilots don't match the numbers or stories from Tomcat pilots. I remember one F-14A pilot from the Sunset Forum stating something similar: "I'm not sure why these guys (F-16 and F-15 pilots) claim to have never lost a fight against us, I've shot down so many of them in DACT, but they claim it never happens - WTH".

 

Of course, Paramount didn't "choose" the F-14 as their star, it was the aircraft flown at Navy Fighter Weapons school (Hornet was brand new, there weren't any fleet Hornet pilots at Top Gun in 1985 IIRC), which was the topic they chose for the movie. Hardly a knock against the other fighters.

 

Lastly, a few other things generally supported my guess here. The first was that so many other 4th gen pilots claimed that the F-14Bs and Ds were really tough opponents and they had to work like crazy to beat them - totally different than the F-14A, they would say. Yet...the Tomcat pilots tell me that F-14As defeat F-14B/Ds in DACT all the time - it's not that lopsided. The GE Tomcats win more, true, but it's hardly 90:10. So why is the F-14B/D hugely challenging and the F-14A easy pickings??

 

Also, I ran into a VF-213 pilot at the Dayton Airshow in 1999, he wasn't there with an F-14 (no Tomcats that year :(), but I talked with him for a few minutes. They had just transitioned to the F-14D and I asked him how much better his maneuverability/ACM ability was. I was expecting - "way better, everything is different". Instead - "About the same...I love the ability to move the throttles during maneuvers and I can fly minimum radius turns all day without having to trade altitude for speed, but maneuvers and tactics are about the same". He mostly talked about how much better the HUD was and the big upgrade in RADAR capability/reliability.

 

I know that tons of Tomcats lost DACT matches to Hornets, Eagles, and Vipers...but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that things are not as lopsided as those pilots would claim. Pilots are like fisherman you know....:D

 

-Nick

 

^This

 

I think probably the only 4th gen fighter that would have a significant edge over everything else would be the Flanker. Not so much in power/weight (not much of that XD) but in pure maneuverability. It can out-turn just about anything. Other than that Most of them have different strengths and weaknesses but they aren't going to be very dramatic. Though the F-14A having bomber engines is tragic.

 

I think the whole TF30 thing is what people like to catch on to. It's quite good in maneuvering so long as you don't try to play with the throttle out of burn, and Vark pilots have a couple of maneuvering kills, most famous probably being zero hour ODS.

[Hummingbird]

 

I know that tons of Tomcats lost DACT matches to Hornets, Eagles, and Vipers...but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that things are not as lopsided as those pilots would claim. Pilots are like fisherman you know....:D

 

-Nick

 

Yeah, one also has to take into account the fact that a lot of those fights would've been with student F-14 pilots against highly skilled aggressor F-16, F-18 or F-15's. Another thing is the 6.5 G Navy limit, I think a lot of pilots were careful not to exceed this in order to stay friendly with their ground crews ;)

 

Regardless of that as far as I know the F-14 has a pretty even record against all these aircraft, and a positive record when flown by an experienced crew, esp. in WVR engagements. Baranek alluded to this himself :)

 

Most telling however is the fact that with equal pilots in new airframes Iranian test pilots found that the F-14 would win in a WVR dogfight against the F-15 everytime, which speaks volumes if you ask me. Their word is worth the most on this matter really due to the fact that they got the opportunity to test both aircraft to their limits, i.e. no politics involved like for example with the Japan deal.