Rare Loadouts

[turkeydriver]

Am not sure how my argument is not clear its quite simple, but sure lets agree to disagree.

 

World War 3,4,5 and 6 would not have given the F-14A/B AMRAAM. In all reality if WW3 started in 1989, perhaps the F-14D might have possibly eventually received AMRAAM, but the missile had trouble being integrated into the AWG-9/APG-71. Of course the jet could carry it dumb, but the avionics part was the tough part. This also help the decision to shift the AMRAAM money to the LANTIRN project. If you want an F-14 with AMRAAM, you want a fantasy F-14 with a restarted production line, AST-21 airframe, new engines, and a new avionics. There's no logic to incorporate AMRAAM with this project from any perspective of realism. It would only be incorporated in a fantasy mode where the F-15s also carry AIM-54s and the Flankers carry R-33s....

 

Bottom line, AMRAAM + AWG-9 doesn't have any basis.

[sirscorpion]

World War 3,4,5 and 6 would not have given the F-14A/B AMRAAM. In all reality if WW3 started in 1989, perhaps the F-14D might have possibly eventually received AMRAAM, but the missile had trouble being integrated into the AWG-9/APG-71. Of course the jet could carry it dumb, but the avionics part was the tough part. This also help the decision to shift the AMRAAM money to the LANTIRN project. If you want an F-14 with AMRAAM, you want a fantasy F-14 with a restarted production line, AST-21 airframe, new engines, and a new avionics. There's no logic to incorporate AMRAAM with this project from any perspective of realism. It would only be incorporated in a fantasy mode where the F-15s also carry AIM-54s and the Flankers carry R-33s....

 

Bottom line, AMRAAM + AWG-9 doesn't have any basis.

 

Now see thats more of a better answer to my argument. But i was using an example of the Aim120 b/c some one else used. my argument is more general concept of feasible weapon systems under combat scenarios are less likely to be cut Vs programs in peace time. If the aircraft was tested and certified to use it but it did not simply to the lack of budget then it should be in. If it was out side the scope as you stated, "AFIK Only F14D used the 120" or require a dramatic shift in scope of project then it should not get it in game. And before that, development time should first be allocated to the standard before the prototype.

 

As you seem to know quite a bit on the F-14 subject, what do you think will the F-14 carry in an All out war scenario aside from the standard armament?

Edited March 6, 2016 by sirscorpion

[turkeydriver]

Now see thats more of a better answer to my argument. But i was using an example of the Aim120 b/c some one else used. my argument is more general concept of feasible weapon systems under combat scenarios are less likely to be cut Vs programs in peace time. If the aircraft was tested and certified to use it but it did not simply to the lack of budget then it should be in. If it was out side the scope as you stated, "AFIK Only F14D used the 120" or require a dramatic shift in scope of project then it should not get it in game. And before that, development time should first be allocated to the standard before the prototype.

 

As you seem to know quite a bit on the F-14 subject, what do you think will the F-14 carry in an All out war scenario aside from the standard armament?

 

My thoughts are the hope that the digital components and more modern avionics of the F-14D might have made the AMRAAM more agreeable to the APG-71, no guarantee though.

 

In an ALL OUT WAR scenario, the F-14 would only carry air to air armament. It would be considered to valuable to lose in an A-G mission, and the AST-21 would have been a reality by 1998 and carried the full spectrum of A-G and A-A ordnance. But the F-14A through D would only have carried their 3 AIM types. You might have seen the entire F-14 fleet upgraded to D standard, possibly with an AMRAAM update, and most likely with an AIM-154/155 put back into development. There's just too much that goes into system integration to say that a war would have made it happen on the F-14. For weapons that use the main sensor, integration takes years!

I say this because ALL OUT WAR mandates a respectable air threat, and a respectable air threat would have prevented the F-14 from moving to the A-G mission. The military would have used the higher performance intrinsic to the airframe and just poured money into sensor upgrades and missile production.

Edited March 6, 2016 by turkeydriver

[BlackLion213]

Great post TurkeyDriver!

 

Though I think that changes to the F-14's career trajectory and weapons would depend heavily on when this "All out war" occurred. If it had happened in the 1980s, then the F-14 would have been loaded and operated exactly as it did for operations of the timeframe and Desert Storm. During that period, the F-14 was already carrying the most potent air-to-air missiles available in the US inventory.

 

While big conflicts do open up funding for the military, there are a lot of competing interests and there is no guarantee that any particular airframe will receive special or additional attention.

 

If a big conflict broke out in the late-80s or early-90s, the F-14D would have almost certainly been built in bigger numbers. Back in 1992, the Navy strongly insisted that it needed "at least" 250 new build F-14D to meet the expected threats of the 1990s. The Secretary of Defense cancelled the F-14D program in favor of an updated Hornet, that wouldn't have happened with impending or active large conflict. They wouldn't save funding for a future aircraft (8-10 years away) when the Navy needed aircraft for an existing conflict. If a lot of F-14Ds were being built, they probably would have been equipped with the AMRAAM which was entering production at the same time, but those things take time and it's hard to know how long it would take to reach fleet units.

 

The one thing that is certainly true about War, it gives alarmingly frank feedback as to what is working and what is not. Changes to F-14 operations, payloads, and upgrades would be directed by real combat experience. If things were going well and loss rates were deemed "acceptable", then very little might have changed. If losses seemed excessive for say, F-14A units due to engine troubles, then remanufacture to the F-14B would have been a logical priority. However, improvements to existing weapons (like creating an AIM-54D/E) might have been faster than getting the AWG-9 and AIM-120 to talk well with each other. Also, operational changes may have happened in lieu of aircraft upgrades to address shortcomings. The last time there was a conflict like you are describing, it was the 1940s. Aircraft and weapons were simple, building and testing were comparatively fast. Nowadays, even with war expedience, it could take years to correct short comings of an aircraft or weapon system - especially if the solution needs to be sought, tested, manufactured, and then integrated. The development time for the F-22 was longer than the front-line service career of the F-4 Phantom, things are different these days!

 

I personally think that a serious conflict would have seen the F-14 operating the way it did in the real conflicts of the 20th century. It would have gone to war with the weapons and airframes that were available and fought hard. Over time, things might have changed with a prolonged conflict, especially if things weren't going as well as planned. But who knows what those changes might have been, real war has commonly defied expectations.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

[turkeydriver]

Great post TurkeyDriver!

 

Though I think that changes to the F-14's career trajectory and weapons would depend heavily on when this "All out war" occurred. If it had happened in the 1980s, then the F-14 would have been loaded and operated exactly as it did for operations of the timeframe and Desert Storm. During that period, the F-14 was already carrying the most potent air-to-air missiles available in the US inventory.

 

While big conflicts do open up funding for the military, there are a lot of competing interests and there is no guarantee that any particular airframe will receive special or additional attention.

 

If a big conflict broke out in the late-80s or early-90s, the F-14D would have almost certainly been built in bigger numbers. Back in 1992, the Navy strongly insisted that it needed "at least" 250 new build F-14D to meet the expected threats of the 1990s. The Secretary of Defense cancelled the F-14D program in favor of an updated Hornet, that wouldn't have happened with impending or active large conflict. They wouldn't save funding for a future aircraft (8-10 years away) when the Navy needed aircraft for an existing conflict. If a lot of F-14Ds were being built, they probably would have been equipped with the AMRAAM which was entering production at the same time, but those things take time and it's hard to know how long it would take to reach fleet units.

 

The one thing that is certainly true about War, it gives alarmingly frank feedback as to what is working and what is not. Changes to F-14 operations, payloads, and upgrades would be directed by real combat experience. If things were going well and loss rates were deemed "acceptable", then very little might have changed. If losses seemed excessive for say, F-14A units due to engine troubles, then remanufacture to the F-14B would have been a logical priority. However, improvements to existing weapons (like creating an AIM-54D/E) might have been faster than getting the AWG-9 and AIM-120 to talk well with each other. Also, operational changes may have happened in lieu of aircraft upgrades to address shortcomings. The last time there was a conflict like you are describing, it was the 1940s. Aircraft and weapons were simple, building and testing were comparatively fast. Nowadays, even with war expedience, it could take years to correct short comings of an aircraft or weapon system - especially if the solution needs to be sought, tested, manufactured, and then integrated. The development time for the F-22 was longer than the front-line service career of the F-4 Phantom, things are different these days!

 

I personally think that a serious conflict would have seen the F-14 operating the way it did in the real conflicts of the 20th century. It would have gone to war with the weapons and airframes that were available and fought hard. Over time, things might have changed with a prolonged conflict, especially if things weren't going as well as planned. But who knows what those changes might have been, real war has commonly defied expectations.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

 

I have to spread rep around before I can give you any more.....

[Chrinik]

Great post TurkeyDriver!

 

Though I think that changes to the F-14's career trajectory and weapons would depend heavily on when this "All out war" occurred. If it had happened in the 1980s, then the F-14 would have been loaded and operated exactly as it did for operations of the timeframe and Desert Storm. During that period, the F-14 was already carrying the most potent air-to-air missiles available in the US inventory.

 

While big conflicts do open up funding for the military, there are a lot of competing interests and there is no guarantee that any particular airframe will receive special or additional attention.

 

If a big conflict broke out in the late-80s or early-90s, the F-14D would have almost certainly been built in bigger numbers. Back in 1992, the Navy strongly insisted that it needed "at least" 250 new build F-14D to meet the expected threats of the 1990s. The Secretary of Defense cancelled the F-14D program in favor of an updated Hornet, that wouldn't have happened with impending or active large conflict. They wouldn't save funding for a future aircraft (8-10 years away) when the Navy needed aircraft for an existing conflict. If a lot of F-14Ds were being built, they probably would have been equipped with the AMRAAM which was entering production at the same time, but those things take time and it's hard to know how long it would take to reach fleet units.

 

The one thing that is certainly true about War, it gives alarmingly frank feedback as to what is working and what is not. Changes to F-14 operations, payloads, and upgrades would be directed by real combat experience. If things were going well and loss rates were deemed "acceptable", then very little might have changed. If losses seemed excessive for say, F-14A units due to engine troubles, then remanufacture to the F-14B would have been a logical priority. However, improvements to existing weapons (like creating an AIM-54D/E) might have been faster than getting the AWG-9 and AIM-120 to talk well with each other. Also, operational changes may have happened in lieu of aircraft upgrades to address shortcomings. The last time there was a conflict like you are describing, it was the 1940s. Aircraft and weapons were simple, building and testing were comparatively fast. Nowadays, even with war expedience, it could take years to correct short comings of an aircraft or weapon system - especially if the solution needs to be sought, tested, manufactured, and then integrated. The development time for the F-22 was longer than the front-line service career of the F-4 Phantom, things are different these days!

 

I personally think that a serious conflict would have seen the F-14 operating the way it did in the real conflicts of the 20th century. It would have gone to war with the weapons and airframes that were available and fought hard. Over time, things might have changed with a prolonged conflict, especially if things weren't going as well as planned. But who knows what those changes might have been, real war has commonly defied expectations.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

 

To add to that, it would have probably been more desirable to develop and build an entirely new airframe that already incorporates all of these new capabilities then to retrofit them onto an older airframe.

IE: the F-18 would have probably been kicked into service regardless.

 

So, really, pushing for an F-14 that carries a bogus loadout of "modern missles" just to stroke ones ego and spam more AMRAAMs because the Flaming Cliffs F-15C spoils f:helpsmilie:ing everyone in terms of combat performance, people forget that the Mig-21bis was also a specific variant modeled with a specific capability and wasn´t a 93, 97 or 2000 model that carries better RADAR, glass cockpit and R-77s.

 

Honestly, I see this alot lately, people don´t seem to be content with the stuff they are actually getting and demand the latest and greatest. With the RAZBAM Mirage there were forum threats about how much it sucks that it isn´t a 2000-5 with MICA missles or Exocets and how boring and sh:helpsmilie:t a bog standard 2000C would be in comparison.

 

If you want your damn fantasy loadouts, do them...it´s relatively easy to mod some lua files and get whatever loadout you want, but outright demanding people should simulate stuff that "might have been but never was" is hilarious. Especially considering that the only reason one would want Amraams on an older platform is so they feel "competitive" because they are used to them and don´t want to transition to a platform that doesn´t have them because they feel like less of a good pilot without the missle doing all of the work (obvious hyperbole).

 

Anyone want a SU-47 module? Comanche Helicopter?

Hey, maybe we could also get that Boeing Joint Strike Fighter attempt.

 

They are not real, so making sh:helpsmilie:t up about them should be fairly easy.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Chrinik

[BlackLion213]

So, really, pushing for an F-14 that carries a bogus loadout of "modern missles" just to stroke ones ego and spam more AMRAAMs because the Flaming Cliffs F-15C spoils f:helpsmilie:ing everyone in terms of combat performance, people forget that the Mig-21bis was also a specific variant modeled with a specific capability and wasn´t a 93, 97 or 2000 model that carries better RADAR, glass cockpit and R-77s.

 

Honestly, I see this alot lately, people don´t seem to be content with the stuff they are actually getting and demand the latest and greatest. With the RAZBAM Mirage there were forum threats about how much it sucks that it isn´t a 2000-5 with MICA missles or Exocets and how boring and sh:helpsmilie:t a bog standard 2000C would be in comparison.

 

If you want your damn fantasy loadouts, do them...it´s relatively easy to mod some lua files and get whatever loadout you want, but outright demanding people should simulate stuff that "might have been but never was" is hilarious. Especially considering that the only reason one would want Amraams on an older platform is so they feel "competitive" because they are used to them and don´t want to transition to a platform that doesn´t have them because they feel like less of a good pilot without the missle doing all of the work (obvious hyperbole).

 

They are not real, so making sh:helpsmilie:t up about them should be fairly easy.

 

Yes, I agree with nearly everything you said. If anything, I think DCS is more fun with less effective weapons. Less effective weapons emphasize tactics and training, plus it gives more opportunities for older aircraft to hold their own (MiG-21, Mirage F1, F-5E, etc). A lot people don't want their favorite aircraft to be at any disadvantage.

 

Plus, I think the Tomcat will be just fine without the AMRAAM. :D

Yes, there would some advantages to also having it, but not enough to override realism IMHO.

 

Here is the part I don't agree with:

 

To add to that, it would have probably been more desirable to develop and build an entirely new airframe that already incorporates all of these new capabilities then to retrofit them onto an older airframe.

IE: the F-18 would have probably been kicked into service regardless.

 

The Super Hornet is a less desirable airframe than the F-14. It's slower, less effective in the vertical, carries a lighter payload (in practical terms, not load every pylon and take one lap around the field terms). It has become a fine tanker however...:thumbup:

 

I think the Super Hornet still would have happened even if the Navy got the 250-300 F-14Ds that it needed, but the two would have served side-by-side. The Super Hornet was not originally approved as a Tomcat replacement, it was approved as a modification to address known short comings with the F/A-18C - namely range, payload, and bring back.

 

It also had one of the most troubled births of any aircraft used by the USN. I talked to a E-2 pilot stationed at Pax River (this was 1999) and he was amazed by how many aerodynamic bugs it had. It took years to deal with transonic wing drop, weapon separation problems, excessive buffet at transonic speeds. The weapons separation problem was solved by canting the pylons outward a bit, which further diminished performance by increasing drag. It didn't quite meet expectations for range after these improvements, but it was the only Navy aircraft available in the pipeline.

 

The Tomcat's greatest fault was not the TF30 (that is probably the 2nd greatest fault) - it was the immense cost of buying and maintaining them. The maintenance issue was substantially addressed with digital avionics, those analog avionics were really complicated and difficult to upkeep. Remarkably, the Tomcat had better airframe availability in the 2000s than the Hornet (A+/C) - part of the Hornets favorable comparison in the 1990s was the newness of the airframe vs 20 year old Tomcats.

 

But the acquisition cost always made it a favorite target for the GAO and any attempt to reduce cost (like buying fewer F-22s today). When the Hornet could do some of the same things, it made it very appealing - more airframes for less cost. Those numbers on a spread sheet is hardly the whole picture, but it is a big part of the decisions.

 

The Hornet also has numerous supporters and is really good airplane, but the Tomcat was not filling in a gap till the Super Hornet arrived. The USN maximally utilized their Tomcats till the end and certainly would have kept them longer if allowed. It is the only US aircraft that had a reverse transition - it left the reserves first, then front-lines. It wasn't perfect, but it was a remarkably good airplane.

 

Now the Charlie Hornets are becoming the same maintenance nightmares as the Tomcats...a life at sea is not an easy one. ;)

 

-Nick

[Sideswipe]

This is slightly off topic, but in Top Gun some of the Tomcat footage has a cylindrical shaped object mounted on one of the phoenix rails. For some reason for the longest time I always thought they were TARPS units. Does anyone know what they are? Are they some kind of more primitive version of TARPS for recon purposes?

[Hummingbird]

An all new F-14 with a complete digital avionics system and uprated engines would be very hard to beat, esp. if they took advantage of that larger radome and strapped on a large AESA radar. The F-14 could/can fit a bigger radar and more electronics than an F-15, so the possibilities were huge.

 

But then Dick Cheney happened -.- That man should be hung by his balls....

[Hummingbird]

This is slightly off topic, but in Top Gun some of the Tomcat footage has a cylindrical shaped object mounted on one of the phoenix rails. For some reason for the longest time I always thought they were TARPS units. Does anyone know what they are? Are they some kind of more primitive version of TARPS for recon purposes?

 

Camera?

[BlackLion213]

This is slightly off topic, but in Top Gun some of the Tomcat footage has a cylindrical shaped object mounted on one of the phoenix rails. For some reason for the longest time I always thought they were TARPS units. Does anyone know what they are? Are they some kind of more primitive version of TARPS for recon purposes?

 

Camera?

 

Yes, that was an external camera mount for aerial filming. NL104 of VF-51 was the "camera-bird" as the called it and it was heavily featured in the movie. It was modified by Grumman to carry internal and external cameras. There are lots of scenes where it is wearing a camera pod of some sort in several different locations on the aircraft.

 

-Nick

[Sideswipe]

That's interesting. I would have thought it would be some kind of movie faux pas to show the movie camera in shot. I guess the average movie goer wouldn't know the difference though, I myself probably know more about the Tomcat than the average and I never considered it to be that.

[BlackLion213]

That's interesting. I would have thought it would be some kind of movie faux pas to show the movie camera in shot. I guess the average movie goer wouldn't know the difference though, I myself probably know more about the Tomcat than the average and I never considered it to be that.

 

Exactly.

 

Dave "Bio" Baranek commented on that exact issue in his book. The Top Gun instructors mentioned the visible camera pods and the Director figured that no one will recognize it as out of the ordinary (>90% of people anyway).

 

-Nick

[Sideswipe]

Tony Scott definitely had some strokes of genius, haha. RIP.

[Chrinik]

Here is the part I don't agree with:

 

The Super Hornet is a less desirable airframe than the F-14. It's slower, less effective in the vertical, carries a lighter payload (in practical terms, not load every pylon and take one lap around the field terms). It has become a fine tanker however...:thumbup:

 

 

A: I was not talking about the Super Hornet.

B: I did not mean it would replace the F-14, but rather then building and retrofitting weapon systems onto the F-14, it would have probably still been supplemented by F-18s in the case of war that carried those systems from the design drawings.

 

So F-14s would fly Air superiourity for carrier launched F-18s and Strikers, with the F-18s doubling as close protection escorting the other strikers after the strike mission was completed.

 

Maybe.

We will never know honestly, so take this as what it is, my opinion.

[BlackLion213]

A: I was not talking about the Super Hornet.

B: I did not mean it would replace the F-14, but rather then building and retrofitting weapon systems onto the F-14, it would have probably still been supplemented by F-18s in the case of war that carried those systems from the design drawings.

 

So F-14s would fly Air superiourity for carrier launched F-18s and Strikers, with the F-18s doubling as close protection escorting the other strikers after the strike mission was completed.

 

Maybe.

We will never know honestly, so take this as what it is, my opinion.

 

Sorry for the mis-interpretation. :music_whistling:

 

At least based on what you said here, we do in fact agree. :)

 

-Nick

[gospadin]

I agree. Mission editor should present us with capabilities. Let mission designers be responsible for realism / typical loadouts.

[probad]

The game does present us with all capabilities, because it can be modded. Therefore, it is very much the mission designer's responsibility if they don't want authentic loadouts.

 

As it should be.

[McBlemmen]

I don't see this happening , but i am in favor of it if it does happen.

[Chrinik]

I agree. Mission editor should present us with capabilities. Let mission designers be responsible for realism / typical loadouts.

 

The game does present us with all capabilities, because it can be modded. Therefore, it is very much the mission designer's responsibility if they don't want authentic loadouts.

 

As it should be.

 

Then make the mod, run a server that runs the mod.

 

Problem solved.

[punk]

I know this is an old post and not really what I am curious about, but it has the right title I guess for a pic I recently came across that I had never seen before. Anyway, I am wondering if atypical load outs will be available? I.E. 5 Sparrows and 3 Sidewinders as is what I see in the following pic among others provided it could be set up. I may be wrong, if so, my apologies and disregard.

 

 

<Salute>

Punk

[probad]

i dont see why this wouldnt be feasible, considering we have control over individual pylon loading in dcs?

[BlackLion213]

I know this is an old post and not really what I am curious about, but it has the right title I guess for a pic I recently came across that I had never seen before. Anyway, I am wondering if atypical load outs will be available? I.E. 5 Sparrows and 3 Sidewinders as is what I see in the following pic among others provided it could be set up. I may be wrong, if so, my apologies and disregard.

 

[ATTACH]169292[/ATTACH]

 

<Salute>

Punk

 

Should be totally possible to create load-outs like this. As long as it was weapons station that could carry the weapon IRL, then it should also work for the module.

 

-Nick