F-14's IFF capabilities

[pepto]

Quick question, will we be getting IFF interrogate? Or will we be relying on that handy dandy camera in the nose ;) Also how far can the camera effectively see?

[Nightwinds]

I do not know about the IFF, but I have read that the range of the TCS pod is about 30 miles.

[BlackLion213]

Also how far can the camera effectively see?

 

The range often quoted for a reliable VID on a fighter sized target is 10 nm (not just spotting, but determining aircraft type). Larger aircraft can be spotted much further, but it depends on size.

 

Quick question, will we be getting IFF interrogate?

 

I'm not aware of a reason that the F-14 module would not have IFF as the real F-14 did have it. Though nothing is certain till release. :)

 

Though it's worth mentioning that the TCS wasn't viewed as a replacement for IFF, but a tool that could expand the envelope for reliable long-ish range shots before the day of NCTR.

 

-Nick

[turkeydriver]

Quick question, will we be getting IFF interrogate? Or will we be relying on that handy dandy camera in the nose ;) Also how far can the camera effectively see?

 

I've read that the TCS can VID a 747 at 70 miles with good visual conditions. The TCS should ID a MiG-25 or 31 from far enough out to launch a BVR weapon.

 

The F-14A had the APX-76 interrogator IIRC so we should be able to interrogate, but personally I think this capability is only useful in congested airspace. Your AWACs and ESM units should have any target positively ID'd as soon as they are wheels up by satisfying a number of conditions.

[The Black Swan]

I do not know about the IFF, but I have read that the range of the TCS pod is about 30 miles.

 

Whoa! If we could see targets that far out that would be awesome!

[punk]

Seeing something and being able to positively ID it as a certain airframe are two different things. and like BlackLion said, I also have never read/seen anywhere accounts of over 10 NM as a reliable distance for positive ID of a fighter sized AC on the TCS. I would not expect anything fighter sized to be more than a blurred mass at 30 NM.

[turkeydriver]

Seeing something and being able to positively ID it as a certain airframe are two different things. and like BlackLion said, I also have never read/seen anywhere accounts of over 10 NM as a reliable distance for positive ID of a fighter sized AC on the TCS. I would not expect anything fighter sized to be more than a blurred mass at 30 NM.

 

Go back and read then. Fighters like the F-15, SU-27, and F-14 can be VID from 8-10 miles using the mk1 eyeball. That TCS will ID an F-5 from 10 miles, which is saying something. IDing a big fighter like a MiG-25 at 30nm or beyond shouldn't be a problem for the TCS if the atmospherics are clear. The TCS was decisive in AIMVAL/ACEVAL to such an effect that the Air Force bought rifle scopes to bolt on in their cockpits.

[Jaktaz]

Go back and read then. Fighters like the F-15, SU-27, and F-14 can be VID from 8-10 miles using the mk1 eyeball. That TCS will ID an F-5 from 10 miles, which is saying something. IDing a big fighter like a MiG-25 at 30nm or beyond shouldn't be a problem for the TCS if the atmospherics are clear. The TCS was decisive in AIMVAL/ACEVAL to such an effect that the Air Force bought rifle scopes to bolt on in their cockpits.

 

What do you mean by bolting a rifle scope? Did they literally do that?

[lunaticfringe]

Yes.

[punk]

Go back and read then. Fighters like the F-15, SU-27, and F-14 can be VID from 8-10 miles using the mk1 eyeball. That TCS will ID an F-5 from 10 miles, which is saying something. IDing a big fighter like a MiG-25 at 30nm or beyond shouldn't be a problem for the TCS if the atmospherics are clear. The TCS was decisive in AIMVAL/ACEVAL to such an effect that the Air Force bought rifle scopes to bolt on in their cockpits.

 

I will be happy to if you tell me what books or sources you are citing. I have anywhere from 20-30 books on just the F-14 alone and as many interviews and documentaries as I have found on the subject. I am more than happy to learn any and everything on these airframes in particular, and most in general, and finding more in depth combat and evaluation information to an equal degree. The info about the scopes is extremely interesting, and I may remember hearing/reading of it, but not enough to post it as a fact or that the TCS view could pick out F-5/16/A-4 and other similar fighter sized AC at 30 NM, much less pull a pic out about the scopes like Mr Fringe (I have not forgot about your request Sir, I have some issues to get through before I can get to it) as I am not a subject matter expert nor have ever claimed to be one.

 

I usually only post when I know I have source material somewhere I can fall back on which no one has done here who are making these claims for longer viewing distances. Inform me, but at least give me/us the background material so we can read and verify it too. I have not disputed anyone's claims that larger vehicles (Or Larger Fighters such as you described here) can be seen at longer distances so what is with the hostility? "Go back and read then." Not a helpful suggestion at all; go back and read Book X, or Document Y at WWW. xyz is much more helpful and much less aggressive or, at the very least, sarcastic.

 

If you are an Ex Naval F-14 Aviator who has had your Mark-1 Eyeballs calibrated at military standards and have first hand knowledge, please state so, I do not know you from any other anonymous Homo sapiens sitting behind a keyboard somewhere in the wired world, and you will have my humblest apologies and utmost respect. If not, please back up statements that do not seem to be what is understood by the average layman so they can easily accept the generous and gracious sharing of your knowledge. I do not have the ocular experience of seeing any of the objects under discussion from a moving airborne platform of any kind, from any distance, under any meteorological conditions to the extent I can verify a given distance to a given sized object for positive identification.

[turkeydriver]

I'm away from home for a period of time but this link (internet I know)does a good job dscribing the tech and talks about target types ID at specific ranges for their general size about half way down the page. http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-EO-Systems.html

 

I will be happy to if you tell me what books or sources you are citing. I have anywhere from 20-30 books on just the F-14 alone and as many interviews and documentaries as I have found on the subject. I am more than happy to learn any and everything on these airframes in particular, and most in general, and finding more in depth combat and evaluation information to an equal degree. The info about the scopes is extremely interesting, and I may remember hearing/reading of it, but not enough to post it as a fact or that the TCS view could pick out F-5/16/A-4 and other similar fighter sized AC at 30 NM, much less pull a pic out about the scopes like Mr Fringe (I have not forgot about your request Sir, I have some issues to get through before I can get to it) as I am not a subject matter expert nor have ever claimed to be one.

 

I usually only post when I know I have source material somewhere I can fall back on which no one has done here who are making these claims for longer viewing distances. Inform me, but at least give me/us the background material so we can read and verify it too. I have not disputed anyone's claims that larger vehicles (Or Larger Fighters such as you described here) can be seen at longer distances so what is with the hostility? "Go back and read then." Not a helpful suggestion at all; go back and read Book X, or Document Y at WWW. xyz is much more helpful and much less aggressive or, at the very least, sarcastic.

 

If you are an Ex Naval F-14 Aviator who has had your Mark-1 Eyeballs calibrated at military standards and have first hand knowledge, please state so, I do not know you from any other anonymous Homo sapiens sitting behind a keyboard somewhere in the wired world, and you will have my humblest apologies and utmost respect. If not, please back up statements that do not seem to be what is understood by the average layman so they can easily accept the generous and gracious sharing of your knowledge. I do not have the ocular experience of seeing any of the objects under discussion from a moving airborne platform of any kind, from any distance, under any meteorological conditions to the extent I can verify a given distance to a given sized object for positive identification.

[BlackLion213]

Glad to see everyone in such a great mood on a Friday night....:)

 

I'm willing to bet that the Tomcat's TCS spent nearly all of it's time looking at F-5s, A-4s, A-7s, and other F-14s - given the nature of intercept training/DACT. Most of those are small aircraft and 10 miles makes sense even with 10x zoom.

 

I haven't heard about effective ranges for larger aircraft. I don't doubt TurkeyDriver's claim, but I've never seen it written for the TCS. I have read that the F-14 was pretty easy to VID at longer ranges than nearly every fighter.

 

In any case, it is also a subjective tool and many operators may disagree as to what constitutes an adequate VID. Though I think we can conclude that the useful range is at least 10 miles. :thumbup:

 

-Nick

 

PS - Read TurkeyDriver's link ( http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-EO-Systems.html)

Nice article - reinforces that F-5s were probably the source of the "10 mile VID on a fighter" while a C-130 is reliably ID'd at 35 miles.

Edited December 10, 2016 by BlackLion213

[turkeydriver]

What do you mean by bolting a rifle scope? Did they literally do that?

 

Yes read about AIMVAL/ACEVAL.

[Jaktaz]

I would like to see a picture of a rifle scope mounted in a fighter cockpit. I'm having trouble fathoming it

[Top Jockey]

I would like to see a picture of a rifle scope mounted in a fighter cockpit. I'm having trouble fathoming it

 

Previous page, post #9 ?

[lunaticfringe]

Previous page, post #9 ?

 

See- this, this right here.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

[red_coreSix]

Not sure if this has been posted:

 

[probad]

good part of it is also the operator's experience, some people can positively id based on more subtle cues than others.

 

that's all part of the romance of the f-14 though, that human factor.

Edited December 11, 2016 by probad

[Jaktaz]

See- this, this right here.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

Chill baby I was on mobile

[WHOGX5]

PS - Read TurkeyDriver's link ( http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-EO-Systems.html)

Nice article - reinforces that F-5s were probably the source of the "10 mile VID on a fighter" while a C-130 is reliably ID'd at 35 miles.

 

That same source also cites the F-111 as being identifiable at 40 miles which is odd considering that the C-130 has double the wingspan of an unswept Aardvark, double the height, and is 50% longer yet is only identifiable at 35 miles.

[turkeydriver]

That same source also cites the F-111 as being identifiable at 40 miles which is odd considering that the C-130 has double the wingspan of an unswept Aardvark, double the height, and is 50% longer yet is only identifiable at 35 miles.

 

Its not too odd- if you consider the aspect the target is- The F-111 from the side and head on is easy to recognize once you see the intake curve instead of a box. 'm sure there is a guide that takes the tailfin height at XX range and states it is XX aircraft. - a poor man's NCTR. Clearly this was not enough to satisfy a shot during Desert Storm - perhaps because was difficult to determine a MiG-29 from an F-15 at range, or a MirageF1 from an F-16 or Jaguar(from head on). RIO skill definitely comes into play. Maybe compare the raw radar data to the pic for a determination.

[Beamscanner]

Also, the C-130 can look like any other Prop plane(like a P-3) at long ranges.. So it's ambiguous until you get closer to it.

[turkeydriver]

Also, the C-130 can look like any other Prop plane(like a P-3) at long ranges.. So it's ambiguous until you get closer to it.

 

No, it can't. They're easily identifiable as different aircraft by basic airframe differences. I'll give you an IL-38 and a P-3, but a C-130 never looks like a P-3.

[probad]

granted, the p-3 is low winged and difficult to mistake for the high winged c-130, but looking beyond the specifics his point is valid, as there do exist aircraft that do look like the c-130 from certain angles, most notably the an-12.

[turkeydriver]

granted, the p-3 is low winged and difficult to mistake for the high winged c-130, but looking beyond the specifics his point is valid, as there do exist aircraft that do look like the c-130 from certain angles, most notably the an-12.

 

I'll just leave it that the guys in the cockpit who get paid todo this stuff have a much better trained ability to ID stuff from a long way out. The opinion of the armchair commando is invalid. Back on topic gents.