Balancing the F-14

[ENERG1A]

So the F-14A/B is released, it has long range missiles and powerful radar that gives it an unparalleled stand-off capability against other aircraft in the game, plus the two seat cockpit splits workload increasing efficiency, and it's variable geometry wings allow it to glue onto the tail of an A-4, how it this going to play out balance wise? Maybe we should commission another developer, and perhaps introduce a worthy competitor hmm?

 

 

[dinoBIT]

Instant buy for both planes!

[Coxy_99]

Easy ED may nurf the F-14 or bring in the Russian R-77 is it there long range missile? Im not sure we have to wait and see more fully Russian made modules would be nice.

[ENERG1A]

Easy ED may nurf the F-14

 

 

Anything but this! :(

[Coxy_99]

In honesty i dont think they will but bring in some Russian long range missiles would balance it out? Again depends on peoples SA so on and so on.

[ENERG1A]

In honesty i dont think they will but bring in some Russian long range missiles would balance it out? Again depends on peoples SA so on and so on.

 

If they wanted to be slack then sure

[lemoen]

I doubt the F14 will be overpowered, even with the AIM54 at its disposal. Everyone uses their jammers already so the detection / lock-on range will be much diminished for a start. After that, A Tomcat is going to have a hard time dogfighting Mirages and Su27/Mig29. It will be down the the skill of the driver again.

[Skjold]

Easy ED may nurf the F-14 or bring in the Russian R-77 is it there long range missile? Im not sure we have to wait and see more fully Russian made modules would be nice.

 

R-77 is not a long range missile, it is shorter range then the AIM-120C. Russian long range missiles is R-33 (MiG-31) and R-40 (MiG-25) (for its time).

 

No balance will be done since it is a simulator. It is up to the server hosts/mission creator to decide what is acceptable on their own server/mission.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Skjold

[Silver_Dragon]

The main problem to build a Mig-31 with long range missiles (with proper functionality) has the restriction about data (russian secret law). Not sure if a Mig-25 or a Tu-28 can be more plausible actually.

[Coxy_99]

My fault yea R-33s as for jamming another good point

[Fer_Fer]

The main problem to build a Mig-31 with long range missiles (with proper functionality) has the restriction about data (russian secret law). Not sure if a Mig-25 or a Tu-28 can be more plausible actually.

 

well the Russians don't use the Foxbat anymore, and i think that the only foxbat operators are Iran and Algeria (not sure about the first) which is usually a good thing if you want to do a high fidelity sim.

That being said, i'd imagine that while getting permission might be workable, it requires some massaging various officials as well as restrictions being placed on it. (mostly the missiles since IIRC the Mig 31 also uses them)

[Skjold]

well the Russians don't use the Foxbat anymore, and i think that the only foxbat operators are Iran and Algeria (not sure about the first) which is usually a good thing if you want to do a high fidelity sim.

That being said, i'd imagine that while getting permission might be workable, it requires some massaging various officials as well as restrictions being placed on it. (mostly the missiles since IIRC the Mig 31 also uses them)

 

Honestly nobody really uses the Foxbat anymore. The few that are "active" are more so "active on paper" then actual flight worthy aircraft. I also gotta say i never heard of Iran using them, they have MiG-29's but no 25's to my knowledge. Algeria have a token force that is scheduled for replacement soon.

 

That said, the MiG-25 is no match for an F-14, other then its pure speed it holds no advantage at all against the Tomcat.

[Kippy]

"Balance" has no place in DCS. This is a simulation, not World of Warplanes. While it would be neat to see an aircraft to combat the F-14's long range, it should receive no higher priority than any other aircraft.

[Drag0nWIng]

it's not a arena 'game', so no 'balancing problem' for this...

but I still hope the developer could launch more red block aircraft.

[Hummingbird]

I doubt the F14 will be overpowered, even with the AIM54 at its disposal. Everyone uses their jammers already so the detection / lock-on range will be much diminished for a start. After that, A Tomcat is going to have a hard time dogfighting Mirages and Su27/Mig29. It will be down the the skill of the driver again.

 

It'll outmaneuver the MiG-29, but probably not the Su-27. As for the Mirage, I'm not sure, I'll have to look at thr charts but I think the Tomcat has a higher STR.

[Hummingbird]

"Balance" has no place in DCS. This is a simulation, not World of Warplanes. While it would be neat to see an aircraft to combat the F-14's long range, it should receive no higher priority than any other aircraft.

 

Agree 100%, however sometimes I do wonder how much ED adheres to this.

[drPhibes]

If you want balance, fly a US F-14 against an Iranian one. Problem solved.

[otto]

A mig 23 is balance enough for me.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Honestly nobody really uses the Foxbat anymore. The few that are "active" are more so "active on paper" then actual flight worthy aircraft. I also gotta say i never heard of Iran using them, they have MiG-29's but no 25's to my knowledge. Algeria have a token force that is scheduled for replacement soon.

 

That said, the MiG-25 is no match for an F-14, other then its pure speed it holds no advantage at all against the Tomcat.

 

And, apparently, the Syrian Arab Air Force has 2 still operational. I really question the veracity of this claim given Russian arms trade into the the nation. I'd imagine those 2 birds are ear marked for retirement post-haste.

[Nanne118]

Well, the F-14 is not even (remotely) close to out yet, so lets hold on any sort of speculation until Leatherneck Simulations deems it right to reveal more info on the F-14 (soon plox).

 

That being said, I think it has been established that the Aim-54 is extremely bad against fighters, as it was meant to shoot down Soviet bombers at long range. Even when firing in TWS, the semi-active radar going ... well, active, should wake up any fighter pilot and cause the missile to miss by proxy of the nimble fighter maneuvring. I doubt it'll be OP.

[Tirak]

Well, the F-14 is not even (remotely) close to out yet, so lets hold on any sort of speculation until Leatherneck Simulations deems it right to reveal more info on the F-14 (soon plox).

 

That being said, I think it has been established that the Aim-54 is extremely bad against fighters, as it was meant to shoot down Soviet bombers at long range. Even when firing in TWS, the semi-active radar going ... well, active, should wake up any fighter pilot and cause the missile to miss by proxy of the nimble fighter maneuvring. I doubt it'll be OP.

 

No it most certainly has not been mate. Do a little research. Phoenix's were tested against and hit hard manuvering targets, and even if you take Iranian claims with a grain of salt, you get some impressive results. Like the tomcat itself, people often glance at it and assume that because of size it must be bad at fighting smaller targets, these people are very very wrong.

[Bogey Jammer]

About the MiG-25, there are no spare parts made anymore since ages. It is tactically obsolete and inferior in every way.

 

The MiG-31 is still protected and will ever be. It is so strategically sensitive that it has never been sold outside Russia, or passed to former soviet states.

We'll never see it as a DCS module. Another wishlist thread that will go to waste…

 

And to balance the game, the best enemy for a F-14 is the anti-ship cruise missile.

[Skjold]

No it most certainly has not been mate. Do a little research. Phoenix's were tested against and hit hard manuvering targets, and even if you take Iranian claims with a grain of salt, you get some impressive results. Like the tomcat itself, people often glance at it and assume that because of size it must be bad at fighting smaller targets, these people are very very wrong.

 

Not entirely sure i agree with you here.

 

"Even if you take the Iranian claims with a grain of salt, you get some impressive results" ? The Iranians are literally the only ones that has claimed kills with the AIM-54 so that would leave nothing. Also, at what range was these manouvering targets hits? That is also very important data.

 

Now is the AIM-54 manouverable? Especially for its size? Hell yeah. But it also is so big that i have my doubts it is as good as people claim it is.

 

What always struck me is if the Phoenix is as good as people claim it to be why did:

 

1. The Navy retire it even prior to the retirement of its primary launch platform.

2. Replace it with a smaller, more agile missile with shorter range.

3. Why was it not used more extensively in the air-to-air role in for example Desert Storm? Surely stand off range means less overflight of Iraqi SAM and therefor less risk to american crews yet the USAF F-15's did all of that with AIM-7's.

4. Why was there no further developments to keep a Phoenix derivative in service?

5. Why did F-14's have BARCAP and MIGCAP loadouts with the latter being AIM-7's if the AIM-54 was just that much better in every way?

[Tirak]

1. The Navy retire it even prior to the retirement of its primary launch platform.

 

The missile was large and heavy and an absolute pain in the ass to move around on deck and mount to Tomcats. Since the Tomcat was the only thing in the inventory that used it, it also took up storage space (a considerable amount of it). Sparrow missiles were used on both the Tomcat and the Hornet, the Navy loves cross platform use because it lets them carry more. With the disappearance of the soviet bomber threat, there was no reason to keep a large, expensive missile that was only used on one platform, when looking forward at the sorts of conflicts the US was likely to fight the Sparrow could do the job more than adequately, while being cheaper, easier to mount and move, and take up less space on the carrier.

 

2. Replace it with a smaller, more agile missile with shorter range.

 

The Phoenix has never been replaced. If you're referring to the AMRAAM, that was a replacement for the Sparrow, using quite a bit of technology learned from the Phoenix.

 

3. Why was it not used more extensively in the air-to-air role in for example Desert Storm? Surely stand off range means less overflight of Iraqi SAM and therefor less risk to american crews yet the USAF F-15's did all of that with AIM-7's.

 

F-14s were relagated to carrier defense during ODS, as was their originally intended role, giving way to the Eagles for work over country. Tomcats employed in this role traditionally did fly with two Phoenixs, however they were not deployed in a location to use them. This is part of the politics of the war, not because the Tomcat was perceived of as inferior.

 

4. Why was there no further developments to keep a Phoenix derivative in service?

 

The Phoenix seeker head was used as the model for the AMRAAM, if you're talking about sheer size, it's because the threat of a large bomber force is no longer there. The AMRAAM and similar missiles has a sufficient range to handle the most common threat, a fighter sized target, furthermore AMRAAMs are deployable from every single platform, from Harriers to Eagles to Falcons and Hornets. If a similarly sized missile of the Phoenix were deployed, it'd be limited to two on Eagles and that'd be it. The military doesn't like super specialized weapons only available on a single airframe, especially not after the cold war where military budgets shrank considerably.

 

5. Why did F-14's have BARCAP and MIGCAP loadouts with the latter being AIM-7's if the AIM-54 was just that much better in every way?

 

Because of weight. Each Phoenix missile adds an additional 1000lbs to the aircraft, and each Phoenix rail adds another 400lbs. Adding that much weight, around 8000lbs to a Tomcat expected to get into a dogfight, would have significant effects on the performance of the aircraft, putting them at a disadvantage.

[nomdeplume]

5. Why did F-14's have BARCAP and MIGCAP loadouts with the latter being AIM-7's if the AIM-54 was just that much better in every way?

Well, one possible partial explanation is that the Rules of Engagement the US has pretty much always been operating under since the advent of BVR missiles usually required pilots to visually identify a contact before they could engage it.

 

So if your experience is that you can almost never actually use your weapons at beyond visual range, continuing to maintain and develop super long range missiles probably doesn't seem like an attractive use of resources. Especially when you can instead work on increasing the range of your cheaper, smaller missiles to give you BVR capabilities in the rare situations where you can actually utilise it.

 

Also, semi-active missiles may be preferred in situations where friendlies may be near your enemy (e.g. when you outnumber the enemy), as it's easier to prevent friendly fire incidents if you can just break the lock and have the missile go stupid.