Will the F-14B that Leatherneck is working on have a LANTIRN pod?

[Jowen G. Bruère-Dawson]

Is it possible for Leatherneck to make an LANTIRN pod, based on the LITENING ?

[BlackLion213]

Is it possible for Leatherneck to make an LANTIRN pod, based on the LITENING ?

 

Probably, the function of these two systems is pretty similar. But there may be code-based or politics/procedure based reasons why it is not possible.

 

-Nick

[Rangi]

 

But I wouldn't loose sleep over it, a developer that plans free maps with it's module is unlikely to start charging extra for sensors and ordnance. At least thats my thought.

 

-Nick

 

Where did you see mention that the maps would be free?

[BlackLion213]

Where did you see mention that the maps would be free?

 

Here you go:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139870

 

While plans may change, we currently hope to bundle two small theatres for free with both of the aircraft we're planning to release this year.

Both theatres are significantly different from each other and will require the construction of a lot of content that can be re-used down the line.

 

-Nick

Edited February 28, 2016 by BlackLion213

[Rangi]

Thanks.

[Dudikoff]

If a LANTIRN is added, and supported, it should be to both models, not specific to the F-14B. The "Bombcat" upgrade that the F-14B received was in the very late 90s and resulted in significant cockpit changes. The backseat displays will be different and there will be an actual HUD. To clarify, I dodnt want the bombcat upgrade specific to the F-14B. If we get LANTIRN, it should be to both the F-14A and F-14B, but don't DELAY the release to implement these.

 

I don't understand why should it be added to both A and B if the A version they plan is mid-80's standard? And if they decide to add the LTS pod to the F-14B (available from 1996), they don't have to add the new Sparrowhawk HUD which was finally available only from 2003 IIRC.

[BlackLion213]

I don't understand why should it be added to both A and B if the A version they plan is mid-80's standard? And if they decide to add the LTS pod to the F-14B (available from 1996), they don't have to add the new Sparrowhawk HUD which was finally available only from 2003 IIRC.

 

You're right, the upgrades were rather piecemeal.

 

LANTIRN integrated from ~95-97.

 

MFDs replaced the RIO fishbowl ~97-99 (first on F-14Bs, later on the F-14A).

 

Sparrowhawk added ~2002-03.

 

So an F-14B with just LANTIRN, LANTIRN+MFD, or all 3 could be correct. Depends on the exact year and squadron of interest.

 

-Nick

[Jowen G. Bruère-Dawson]

Would like to hear a leatherneck dev about this. It's a pretty interresting thread

[dekiplav]

So an F-14B with just LANTIRN, LANTIRN+MFD, or all 3 could be correct. Depends on the exact year and squadron of interest.

 

So... it's possible to have LANTRIN on F-14B with its original cockpit (no MFD's)? Is the target picture shown in the TID? If that's the case, then there is no problem having the LANTRIN pod. But if LNS have to totally redesign the RIO pit... and in the future comes along a theater ... let say First Gulf War... and you are cruising in you're flashy MFD pit ... well its just not authentic

Edited February 28, 2016 by dekiplav
grammar error

[FWind]

You're right, the upgrades were rather piecemeal.

 

LANTIRN integrated from ~95-97.

 

MFDs replaced the RIO fishbowl ~97-99 (first on F-14Bs, later on the F-14A).

 

Sparrowhawk added ~2002-03.

 

So an F-14B with just LANTIRN, LANTIRN+MFD, or all 3 could be correct. Depends on the exact year and squadron of interest.

 

-Nick

 

EGI

[Frisco1522]

I feel, personally, that LN would want to make the F-14A and B (in terms of usefulness in battle) as opposite as possible, as to give purpose to using them both. If you give the player (us) the best weapon possible right from the start (F-14B > F-14A at everything), what is the point of exploring/trying something new?

 

If LN is releasing two types of Tomcats, there has to be a reason to use both. No other aircraft in DCS has 2 different variants (except for MiG-29s, but they are basically identical :P). I don't know for sure, but I bet the reason LN is releasing two types of Tomcats is because they would both have their advantages and disadvantages over each other. If the B is better than the A in EVERY way possible, then what is the point of the A?

 

By giving us the F-14A first, we probably get to use it in strictly Air-to-Air combat. The F-14B would allow us to attack ground targets as well, but probably has some side effect about the B that I don't understand that would make the A more preferable in a Dogfight.

 

- "Just because you can't understand something, it doesn't mean it's wrong!"

 

Whatever the reason, I just need a Tomcat. Period. :pilotfly:

 

Frisco1522

[BlackLion213]

So... it's possible to have LANTRIN on F-14B with its original cockpit (no MFD's)?

 

I think so, but it's hard to confirm. The original list of cockpit modifications includes an adaptor from HARM testing to mount and communicate with the LANTIRN pod, MIL STD 1553 data translator, hand controller from the A-12 program mounted where TARPS jets mount their TARPS controls, GPS, and thats all that I see.

 

An article on LANTIRN integration mentions that they were able to get the LANTIRN pod to project data in parallel with the existing INS and AWG-9 symbology without making software changes to integrate the systems.

 

The MFDs were added shortly after LANTIRN, but it's not clear if it happened at the exact same time. Many squadrons also added NVG compatibility at the same time, which I think did require replacing the fishbowl with an MFD.

 

The originally described LANTIRN integration used existing AWG-9 cockpit controls with the new hand controller per my references.

 

So my real answer: maybe ;)

 

-Nick

 

PS - it might not be the development LANTIRN itself that is holding LNS from deciding to offer it. The real challenge might be getting Jester AI to use it properly. The Tomcat crews manually ID'd and slewed the designator on to targets (from what I read), it could be tough to program AI to recognize targets on the screen. There might be good work arounds or maybe that AI program is not difficult - just guessing here. :)

Edited February 28, 2016 by BlackLion213

[turkeydriver]

I think so, but it's hard to confirm. The original list of cockpit modifications includes an adaptor from HARM testing to mount and communicate with the LANTIRN pod, MIL STD 1553 data translator, hand controller from the A-12 program mounted where TARPS jets mount their TARPS controls, GPS, and thats all that I see.

 

An article on LANTIRN integration mentions that they were able to get the LANTIRN pod to project data in parallel with the existing INS and AWG-9 symbology without making software changes to integrate the systems.

 

The MFDs were added shortly after LANTIRN, but it's not clear if it happened at the exact same time. Many squadrons also added NVG compatibility at the same time, which I think did require replacing the fishbowl with an MFD.

 

The originally described LANTIRN integration used existing AWG-9 cockpit controls with the new hand controller per my references.

 

So my real answer: maybe ;)

 

-Nick

 

PS - it might not be the development LANTIRN itself that is holding LNS from deciding to offer it. The real challenge might be getting Jester AI to use it properly. The Tomcat crews manually ID'd and slewed the designator on to targets (from what I read), it could be tough to program AI to recognize targets on the screen. There might be good work arounds or maybe that AI program is not difficult - just guessing here. :)

 

Right on point Blacklion! Although I didn't know the F-14A fishbowl ever got replaced. I forgot that LN was planning different periods for their tomcats. I want to be able to compare both jets in the same roles. For instance, an F-14A is lighter and can bring back more ordnance to the boat and most likely launch with more. Throughout my career, I've never known the Tomcats to have varied missions based on their model, but they all transitioned to the same mission set around the same time( depending on which air wing was prepping for deployment and who received upgrades in what order). We're not getting JDAM AFAIK, soo the databus differences shouldn't matter. I'd like the fly the F-14A and B side by side. The F-14A has glove vanes deploy when bomb mode is selected for wing sweep for more stability IIRC- these subtle nuances are what this picky guy is looking for.

[FWind]

I think so, but it's hard to confirm. The original list of cockpit modifications includes an adaptor from HARM testing to mount and communicate with the LANTIRN pod, MIL STD 1553 data translator, hand controller from the A-12 program mounted where TARPS jets mount their TARPS controls, GPS, and thats all that I see.

 

An article on LANTIRN integration mentions that they were able to get the LANTIRN pod to project data in parallel with the existing INS and AWG-9 symbology without making software changes to integrate the systems.

 

The MFDs were added shortly after LANTIRN, but it's not clear if it happened at the exact same time. Many squadrons also added NVG compatibility at the same time, which I think did require replacing the fishbowl with an MFD.

 

The originally described LANTIRN integration used existing AWG-9 cockpit controls with the new hand controller per my references.

 

So my real answer: maybe ;)

 

-Nick

 

PS - it might not be the development LANTIRN itself that is holding LNS from deciding to offer it. The real challenge might be getting Jester AI to use it properly. The Tomcat crews manually ID'd and slewed the designator on to targets (from what I read), it could be tough to program AI to recognize targets on the screen. There might be good work arounds or maybe that AI program is not difficult - just guessing here. :)

something interesting.

 

ntegration of the Join Direct Attack Munition on the F-14B Tomcat

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3487&context=utk_gradthes&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fcn.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DIntegration%2Bof%2Bthe%2BJoin%2BDirect%2BAttack%2BMunition%2Bon%2Bthe%2BF-14B%2BTomcat%26go%3D%25E6%258F%2590%25E4%25BA%25A4%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBLH%26pq%3D%26sc%3D0-0%26sp%3D-1%26sk%3D%26cvid%3DA131243646974582B341E5B290661AAB#search=%22Integration%20Join%20Direct%20Attack%20Munition%20F-14B%20Tomcat%22

[Dudikoff]

something interesting.

 

Integration of the Join Direct Attack Munition on the F-14B Tomcat

 

Thanks for the link. If I understood correctly, the LTS integration (available from 1996) and F-14B Upgrade to OFP 317 standard (which added the digital bus and PTID among a few other upgrades; delivered in June 1997) were separate upgrade programs so technically LTS pod might have worked without the PTID as I don't see those mentioned in the article describing the LTS development and integration. The Bombcat special also seems to mention that it was done with the TID: "Symbology from the pod and an AWG-9 simulation were interleaved on the TID to avoid any overlap between the two systems. To the uninitiated eye, it appeared that the LANTIRN pod and the aircraft’s AWG-9 had been integrated seamlessly, when there were in fact two independent sources of information being presented on the TID.".

 

The Tomcats of VF-103 apparently deployed with LTS pods in June 1996 (so, apparently one year before the PTIDs were introduced), but not sure if any references indeed exist which would provide the data on how the TID displayed the LTS data and picture which would be needed by LN. Given that the LTS pod was not really interfaced with the aircraft systems yet in this early LTS phase, it would require much less effort by LN than the later 'digitalized' F-14B(U) (e.g. they'd only need to add the LTS pod, control panel, plus show its picture in the TID).

Edited February 29, 2016 by Dudikoff

[FWind]

Thanks for the link. If I understood correctly, the LTS integration (available from 1996) and F-14B Upgrade to OFP 317 standard (which added the digital bus and PTID among a few other upgrades; delivered in June 1997) were separate upgrade programs so technically LTS pod might have worked without the PTID as I don't see those mentioned in the article describing the LTS development and integration. Edit: The Bombcat special also mentions that it was done without the PTID: "Symbology from the pod and an AWG-9 simulation were interleaved on the TID to avoid any overlap between the two systems. To the uninitiated eye, it appeared that the LANTIRN pod and the aircraft’s AWG-9 had been integrated seamlessly, when there were in fact two independent sources of information being presented on the TID.".

 

The Tomcats of VF-103 apparently deployed with LTS pods in June 1996 (so, apparently one year before the PTIDs were introduced), but not sure if any references indeed exist which would provide the data on how the TID displayed the LTS data and picture which would be needed by LN. Given that the LTS pod was not really interfaced with the aircraft systems yet in this early LTS phase, it would require much less effort by LN than the later 'digitalized' F-14B(U) (e.g. they'd only need to add the LTS pod, control panel, plus show its picture in the TID).

 

VF-103 1995

 

NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE F-14A, F-14B, AND F-14D AIRCRAFT

 

[ame]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ntsp-F14.pdf[/ame]

Edited February 29, 2016 by FWind

[turkeydriver]

something interesting.

[ATTACH]135708[/ATTACH]

 

ntegration of the Join Direct Attack Munition on the F-14B Tomcat

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3487&context=utk_gradthes&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fcn.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DIntegration%2Bof%2Bthe%2BJoin%2BDirect%2BAttack%2BMunition%2Bon%2Bthe%2BF-14B%2BTomcat%26go%3D%25E6%258F%2590%25E4%25BA%25A4%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBLH%26pq%3D%26sc%3D0-0%26sp%3D-1%26sk%3D%26cvid%3DA131243646974582B341E5B290661AAB#search=%22Integration%20Join%20Direct%20Attack%20Munition%20F-14B%20Tomcat%22

 

Thank you for that read! The symbology is great! Ii had no idea what JDAM employment looked like on the PTID. That's some great info LN can use if they don't already have it (if they add JDAM in the future)

[turkeydriver]

From the above NTP....

"The F-14A (usually equipped with a TID) requires the PTID when configured for LANTIRN. The F14B Upgrade is equipped with the PTID. The F-14D Aircraft uses existing Multi-Function Displays or a PTID when configured for LANTIRN."

Thanks for clarifying that for me. II thought operational F-14As operated the same as the test aircraft with the TID in interleave mode...

[BlackLion213]

VF-103 1995

 

NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE F-14A, F-14B, AND F-14D AIRCRAFT

 

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ntsp-F14.pdf

 

Great finds FWind! And this does clarify it, a LANTIRN equipped F-14A or F-14B should have the PTID (MFD). The F-14D didn't need it, but many still had it installed in the late-90s.

 

I can see why LNS would hedge on this decision. If the differences prove tricky to model, require cockpit mods, development of LANTIRN, and might need some tweaks to Jester AI so that it uses the LANTIRN properly - it might be a bit much for the initial release.

 

Releasing the F-14A set in the mid-1980s and an F-14B in the mid-1990s (able to drop bombs, but needs buddy lasing for LGBs) would offer lots of excellent game play scenarios and mission possibilities.

 

I think that a future upgrade option for both the F-14A and F-14B would be a good idea, perhaps as part of a new Theater for late-90s or early 2000s operations. This package would update the 1980s F-14A to late 90s standard (update the gunvents to F-14B standard, RWR, etc) and add the PTID with LANTIRN and GPS (and possibly DFCS). The F-14B could be upgraded to "F-14B Upgrade" standards with the mentioned avionics upgrades (PTID/MFD, GPS, LANTIRN) and perhaps DFCS.

 

This would effectively create 4 different F-14 models in DCS spanning a 20 year operational period (without compromising the fidelity to operate across that wide time-frame). I think such an upgrade would be really cool and would keep the F-14 continuously upgraded in DCS. Such an upgrade would also pair very well with a new Combat theater or campaign. These 4 models would contrast very well with each other. I think this is what TurkeyDriver recommended in a past post. :)

 

Also, I really don't think that this qualifies as the "nickel and dime-ing" that Tirak complained about since it would create new models that operate during a different era with a bunch of changes. It wouldn't simply be a matter of adding LANTIRN alone.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

[Dudikoff]

Great finds FWind! And this does clarify it, a LANTIRN equipped F-14A or F-14B should have the PTID (MFD). The F-14D didn't need it, but many still had it installed in the late-90s.

 

Sorry for missing it, but it clarifies what exactly? Yes, the PTID was added to LANTIRN capable F-14A's and B's since mid 1997, but as stated before, the first upgraded B's went on the cruise without it if the data and my interpretation of it is correct. So, IMHO, a LANTIRN upgrade could still be added to the LNS F-14B without having to add the PTID (which doesn't come alone; there are many other system changes underneath, like the digital bus, etc. as described in that upgrade document).

 

I like your idea of having both early and late F-14A/B configuration options, but I'm not sure if it would be financially feasible for LN given the relatively large amount of new systems to be added, especially for a late F-14B, though I guess it depends on how well the initial pack sells and the perceived interest for such an additional package. Personally, I'd rather opt for a later D then :) (even though it brings extra baggage on top of modelling the late F-14B like A2G radar modes, etc.)

Edited March 1, 2016 by Dudikoff

[Tirak]

modelling the late F-14B like A2G radar modes, etc.)

 

Sorry, but what? I was under the impression that the AN/AWG-9 didn't have an air to ground mode.

[Dudikoff]

Sorry, but what? I was under the impression that the AN/AWG-9 didn't have an air to ground mode.

 

It doesn't, but AN/APG-71 on the F-14D does.

[Tirak]

It doesn't, but AN/APG-71 on the F-14D does.

 

Which as far as I know, was not put on F-14Bs, so modeling the ground radar mode like you imply wouldn't be an issue since even the late F-14B wasn't upgraded to AN/APG-71 status.

[probad]

tirak you quoted him completely out of context

a later D ... brings extra baggage on top of modelling the late F-14B like A2G radar modes

Edited March 1, 2016 by probad

[BlackLion213]

Sorry for missing it, but it clarifies what exactly? Yes, the PTID was added to LANTIRN capable F-14A's and B's since mid 1997, but as stated before, the first upgraded B's went on the cruise without it if the data and my interpretation of it is correct.

 

The document stated that F-14s using LANTIRN needed the PTID. Like you, I'm not totally sure that is correct for all timeframes. But it seems likely from this report, that all F-14 squadrons that actively used the LANTIRN had the PTID upgrade. Also, the first squadron that deployed with LANTIRN was VF-103 in 1996. Their jets were modified prior to deployment for LANTIRN and one of the upgrades mentioned was NVG compatibility of the cockpit. I'm pretty sure that one of the critical NVG compatibility changes was the replacement of the RIO TID with a PTID (again, stitched together from multiple reports - wish someone would publish the complete "LANTIRN recipe").

 

It doesn't, but AN/APG-71 on the F-14D does.

 

Which as far as I know, was not put on F-14Bs, so modeling the ground radar mode like you imply wouldn't be an issue since even the late F-14B wasn't upgraded to AN/APG-71 status.

 

From everything I can tell (and I just checked again), no F-14s as delivered to the USN had A-G radar. The APG-71 with it's synthetic aperture could perform A-G tasks, including ground mapping, but the F-14D lacked the necessary software. There were plans to upgrade the F-14D's APG-71 with the right software - part of the "Block 1 Strike upgrade" that was later cancelled. Plus, there were only 55 F-14Ds produced and the remaining F-14s all used the AWG-9 which could not be upgraded for A-G. In fact, the lack of these functions was one of the major reasons cited by the GAO for not funding the Block 1 F-14 upgrades.

 

[ame]http://gao.gov/assets/230/220364.pdf[/ame]

 

The F-14B never received any radar upgrades, it has the exact same AWG-9 used by the F-14A and remained unchanged throughout it's service life. So luckily, Leatherneck does not have to worry about A-G radar for any version of the F-14. ;)

 

The F-14's impressive strike reputation was built on LANTIRN, the F-14's range, effective payload, loiter capability, benefits of 2 crew members, and what they pulled off during the development/implementation of FAC(A) missions. The F-14 didn't look so great on paper with respect to check boxes (as the above PDF demonstrated) but mission/theater commanders agreed that it was the best USN precision strike platform available (even a few Hornet pilots have admitted that ;) - like Neptunus Lex). Those crews did a whole lot without many electronic aids.

 

-Nick

Edited March 1, 2016 by BlackLion213