F-14A of 70's Vs F-14A of 90's Vs F-14A Iranian

[Harlikwin]

19 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

Yes, the original one is what I was referring to.  Again, wondering how or why it was so bad when apparently the type used in earlier aircraft like the F-101 and F-106 seemed to work fine according to pilot accounts.

They did and they didn't. It really is down to the use case. 

[Spurts]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Though given the fact all IR missiles and IRST currently work through clouds (hint, they shouldn't) doesn't give me alot of hope on this front as ED doesn't seem to have people that understand IR stuff.

Or maybe they just lack the know how of modelling the behaviour in a sim.

12 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

Yes, the original one is what I was referring to.  Again, wondering how or why it was so bad when apparently the type used in earlier aircraft like the F-101 and F-106 seemed to work fine according to pilot accounts.

because it's all relative.  F-101 and F-106 had early short range radars so an IRST was near parity.  F-14A had the AWG-9, so those same IRSTs are useless in comparison.

[lunaticfringe]

3 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

I mean, I've heard interviews with guys who flew the F-101 and F-106, and they didn't seem to have any complaints about it.  It sounds like the one in the f-14 almost didn't work at all.

Again, define what constitutes "worked".  Working IRST with a diminutive detection range with 50's technological background on a clear day for US based interceptors when compared against a radar with perhaps a 40 mile seems like a relative nicety.  Now pair it with a platform detecting bombers out to 130+ nautical miles with a weapon to match, and add in the realities of naval ops.  

The -23 was hot, unreliable garbage, even for its time- even when it was comparatively better than those aforementioned systems on a perfect day.  They were willing to remove them and fly no secondary sensor until the TCS matured and was available fleet wide.  

[WarthogOsl]

31 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

The -23 was hot, unreliable garbage, even for its time- even when it was comparatively better than those aforementioned systems on a perfect day.  They were willing to remove them and fly no secondary sensor until the TCS matured and was available fleet wide.  

And this is the crux of my question...do we know it was, in fact, better then those older systems?  All I want is some details about why it seemed so bad.  Unfortunately, most of the Tomcat guys in interviews came well after the original IR seeker was removed, and can only say "I heard it was garbage.  I'm not doubting that it was garbage...I'd just like some kind of detail beyond "it was garbage."  Are there any sources?  For all I know, the thing might not have worked AT ALL.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

And this is the crux of my question...do we know it was, in fact, better then those older systems?  All I want is some details about why it seemed so bad.  Unfortunately, most of the Tomcat guys in interviews came well after the original IR seeker was removed, and can only say "I heard it was garbage.  I'm not doubting that it was garbage...I'd just like some kind of detail beyond "it was garbage."  Are there any sources?  For all I know, the thing might not have worked AT ALL.

IDK, the iranians didn't want the OG IRST per cooper. And honestly their #1 use case was to use it vs the mig25 at high alt and high mach which is basically the perfect situational scenario for early IRST's i.e. one where they should work well. If the tomcats didn't impress them for that use case, well that speaks volumes IMO.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Spurts said:

Or maybe they just lack the know how of modelling the behaviour in a sim.

because it's all relative.  F-101 and F-106 had early short range radars so an IRST was near parity.  F-14A had the AWG-9, so those same IRSTs are useless in comparison.

Yeah, I'm not gonna say modeling IR is "Easy" but how DCS is frankly criminally oversimplified. But the bulk of the user base doesn't know, doesn't care just like most of the other systems simulations that are bad. The fox2 simulation/simplifications make me wanna cry. 

Yeah, without a doubt the AWG9, esp in lookup (Iranian use case mostly when they bought em) is gonna dramatically outperform early IRST's. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Harlikwin

[WarthogOsl]

44 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, the iranians didn't want the OG IRST per cooper. And honestly their #1 use case was to use it vs the mig25 at high alt and high mach which is basically the perfect situational scenario for early IRST's i.e. one where they should work well. If the tomcats didn't impress them for that use case, well that speaks volumes IMO.

 

Which is odd, because just about the only comment I can find about the IR seeker is this one from James Perry Stevenson's book:

"The infrared mode provides detection in the airspace that can be used in conjunction with the radar.  It is most effective against high altitude after burning targets.  The IR sensor can be slaved to the radar, or it can search independently.  F-14's have picked up SR-71's at high altitudes over long distances."

Like you said, that sounds perfect to use against a Foxbat.  So perhaps reliability or something was a known issue by the time the Iranians took delivery of it?

Edited July 31, 2022 by WarthogOsl

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, WarthogOsl said:

Which is odd, because just about the only comment I can find about the IR seeker is this one from James Perry Stevenson's book:

"The infrared mode provides detection in the airspace that can be used in conjunction with the radar.  It is most effective against high altitude after burning targets.  The IR sensor can be slaved to the radar, or it can search independently.  F-14's have picked up SR-71's at high altitudes over long distances."

Like you said, that sounds perfect to use against a Foxbat.  So perhaps reliability or something was a known issue by the time the Iranians took delivery of it?

 

Yeah like the high alt high speed use case is basically "easy mode" for any IRST. Like if your IRST can't do that its absolute trash. Also any published detection ranges vs an SR71 while likely accurate should be divided by 10 for detection ranges for any other "real" target. 

As for Iran IDK, just what cooper said about it. And the fact they never got it. So either it wasn't for sale, or it was trash.

[DSplayer]

IIRC Naquaii mentioned that the AAA-4 IRST (might be wrong with the designation) on the early F-14As had symbology similar to an oscilloscope and were basically more beefed up IR missile seekers of the time. Compared to the F-14D's IRST, (which could give FLIR imagery) it was ancient. Even though I would want a piece of trash like that IRST, HB probably wouldn't spend their resources doing something like that. Maybe if HB does an F-4B down the line that has an IRST then they could put some of that implementation into an F-14A.

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

IIRC Naquaii mentioned that the AAA-4 IRST (might be wrong with the designation) on the early F-14As had symbology similar to an oscilloscope and were basically more beefed up IR missile seekers of the time. Compared to the F-14D's IRST, (which could give FLIR imagery) it was ancient. Even though I would want a piece of trash like that IRST, HB probably wouldn't spend their resources doing something like that. Maybe if HB does an F-4B down the line that has an IRST then they could put some of that implementation into an F-14A.

Honestly HB probably cant find docs to do one either way, and ED can't model the core physics to make IRST work, given how bad the current IR missiles and IRSTs actually are.

 

[DSplayer]

7 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Honestly HB probably cant find docs to do one either way, and ED can't model the core physics to make IRST work, given how bad the current IR missiles and IRSTs actually are.

Tbh even War Thunder has slightly more complex IR modelling for their IR seekers compared to DCS iirc.

[Swordsman422]

They could, but the issue is that HB wants to represent the F-14's systems correctly and realistically. Same reason they haven't given us a PTID. They don't have docs for it and don't want to just guess at the functions or use inaccurate representation. Whether that's good or bad is subjective, but they're the folks making the call.

[SkateZilla]

F-14A with IRST would be worthless,
F-14A without the Chinpod for either, just the ALQ100 antenna, is what IRIAF had.

Which would give you F-14A90/95 GR.

p.s. My father worked on all 3 Variants of Tomcats and A-6s when deployed, and was stateside with VF-101 before they were dis-established.

they rarely referred to them by block, but some guys did in passing when talking about the aircraft evolution, especially pilots that have flown them for a while. things like "they added this with the 125GR"

While they came from the Line the same, as soon as they got to their respective Sqns, they were modified by the ground crew to match the aircraft already in fleet, add/remove things, especially things they deemed broken, IRST being one of them, I remember my father said one of the first things they did was remove the IRST head and put a cover on it as it never worked correctly. 

[Naquaii]

3 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

They could, but the issue is that HB wants to represent the F-14's systems correctly and realistically. Same reason they haven't given us a PTID. They don't have docs for it and don't want to just guess at the functions or use inaccurate representation. Whether that's good or bad is subjective, but they're the folks making the call.

We've never said we didn't have the docs for the original F-14A IRST. But one have to realise it's not even close to the same thing as the new IRST on the -D which could generate imagery as well as search.

The simple fact is that the IRST for the early -A would be as much, if not more work than the AWG-9 to implement and all sources agree that it was bad enough that it was basically not useful. That's also why it dissappeared so quickly and why we chose not to do it.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tomcat-stans, but if we were to get an F-14 of a 70s vintage, that'd mean glove vanes, wouldn't it? HB made it clear pretty early on that the glove vane was never going to happen. If I'm correct, it'd be a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw that we'd only be getting 80s and 90s era Tomcats.

It's just the nature of this complex beast. The people who want Hell over Hanoi will have to use a MiG-21 that didn't fly over Hanoi until '77 and they'll have to use a MiG-19 when the VPAF had J-6s which produced a bit more engine power. Just gotta make do with what we can get.

Edited July 31, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[WolfHound009]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

We've never said we didn't have the docs for the original F-14A IRST. But one have to realise it's not even close to the same thing as the new IRST on the -D which could generate imagery as well as search.

The simple fact is that the IRST for the early -A would be as much, if not more work than the AWG-9 to implement and all sources agree that it was bad enough that it was basically not useful. That's also why it dissappeared so quickly and why we chose not to do it.

How did the original -A IRST work?

[Naquaii]

4 minutes ago, WolfHound009 said:

How did the original -A IRST work?

Think something akin to an oscilloscope display on the DDD.

[LanceCriminal86]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tomcat-stans, but if we were to get an F-14 of a 70s vintage, that'd mean glove vanes, wouldn't it? HB made it clear pretty early on that the glove vane was never going to happen. If I'm correct, it'd be a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw that we'd only be getting 80s and 90s era Tomcats.

It's just the nature of this complex beast. The people who want Hell over Hanoi will have to use a MiG-21 that didn't fly over Hanoi until '77 and they'll have to use a MiG-19 when the VPAF had J-6s which produced a bit more engine power. Just gotta make do with what we can get.

 

The oldest Tomcats even remotely considered for representation would be the Iranian jets, and potentially at least from a visual/systems standpoint the equivalent US jets from the same production block. I say that in the sense that *IF*  an economic way to allow swapping/mounting of TCS pods and ALQ-126 jammers is achieved, you could remove the jammers & TCS from the "early" 135 jets and represent back to about the -95 jets. The ALQ-126 and associated beaver-tail are the quickest way to differentiate jets that are older than the 110 GR block where the feature was introduced, and newer production jets. But kind of like SkateZilla alluded to, the rest of the systems/features aside from that like AWG-9 updates and tapes and such would all have been brought across to older jets. Just not the jammers without the jets going back to Grumman for a significant rebuild (which did happen to the -60/-65 and one other BuNO).

And yes, for a period of time that would mean working glove vanes, but that would be a visual only feature if Cobra takes the time to work them in. He already surprised us with the removable refueling probe door, so I'd say let's see what he can do. Though removable fuel pylons may not get done anytime really soon, the ALQ-126 and removable TCS have been discussed with a higher likelihood and optimism so we've just got to hold on and see. IF we do get them, then everyone can party with their '79 VF-41/84 Hi-Vis skins, '81 Sidra shoot-down jets of the same vintage, '89 Sidra skins, updated '88 and '91 VF-11 and VF-31 skins, all that jazz with and without the appropriate jammers and TCS pods. And most likely with the old style gun vents modeled in too.

[WarthogOsl]

2 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

How did the original -A IRST work?

Just to be clear, I am not at all advocating that we get any sort of IRST with the HB F-14...I just find it an interesting subject.  At any rate, here's some info about IRST's of that era, in this case, on the F-106 (source https://www.f-106deltadart.com/weapons.html):

Quote

 It would then tell the MA-1 fire control system the azimuth and elevation of the IR source. The pilot would see a spiked dot on the radar screen at the az and el of the target and would hear a distinctive tome; the tone and the spike would increase as more of the IR source was received (i.e., when you got closer).

Quote

The IRSTS would get a very strong return at as much as 180 miles away; long before the radar would see the target; then you could slave the radar to the IR and it would get the longest possible radar contact range. This was especially critical on high-closure rate front attacks (Mach 2 to Mach 3 plus combined closure rates). We were very successful at shooting down BOMARCs as drones in this environment. In short, the IRSTS IN COMBINATION WITH the radar made the Six DEADLY.

Quote

The IRSTS was also invaluable at high altitude on frontal attacks against high flying hypersonic targets like the Soviet Foxbat.... I loved the IRSTS.

--Mark Foxwell, Col USAF (Ret), USAF Interceptor Weapons School Instructor and Commander

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

27 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

-snip-

Thanks for the explanation. A-6 is my US Navy bird obsession lays. I was under the impression that glove vanes were, indeed, out of the question at least as far as the FM goes.

[captain_dalan]

10 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

F-14A with IRST would be worthless

I don't think 'worth' is what people who voted in the poll or who favor classic 1970's jet otherwise are into. People going for 'worth' always tend to flock to the latest and most capable variants possible. And want as many and as latest features available. People that are fans of the 70's jets are IMO more into the history and nostalgia factor. To me at least, first cruise Tomcats or AIM/ACEVAL Tomcats are much more dearer and contextually significant. They also look fancier with their high viz paint schemes. Modern HUDs? Data buses for GPS guided ammunition? Digital avionics? Nah.... that's for the sunset guys. I'm there for the dawn and maybe early noon. 

[Harlikwin]

15 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

IR seekers are mostly fine (the non FPA ones) other than seeing through clouds. IRST can be done in a similar manner when you use the new FLIR maps for objects and have a contrast tracking and detection algo. for it. You shouldn't draw conclusions from FC3 IRST.

LOL no they aren't not at all. Literally anyone with any passing familiarity with how IR or how IR missiles actually work will cringe when they see what DCS does with them (so like 99.9 of DCS customers think its great, but thats the dunning kruger use case, since the entier user base has almost no clue). The entire DCS IR model is terrible and thats me being nice. They model absolutely none of the issues that IR missiles deal with. Nor do they get any part of "all aspect" right at all. Its a meme. And don't get me started about IR CM's because thats the worst part of it. 

Like you realize that there are more than a dozen versions of the Aim9M... And the Cold war ones should goobble up soviet IR countermeasures right? So for any "cold war" scenario the 9L and 9M should basically be home on flare? And there was a crash effort to "fix that" prior to GW1, which well succeeded, but none of those versions got to the gulf "because reasons". Of course you didn't, because the average DCS guy has no idea about that. 

 

 

6 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

Just to be clear, I am not at all advocating that we get any sort of IRST with the HB F-14...I just find it an interesting subject.  At any rate, here's some info about IRST's of that era, in this case, on the F-106 (source https://www.f-106deltadart.com/weapons.html

--Mark Foxwell, Col USAF (Ret), USAF Interceptor Weapons School Instructor and Commander

Like all of this is literally the ideal use case for IRST stuff. At high alt you have 0 clutter, you are looking at space (cold) you have a very hot (supersonic/AB) target, and yeah in this literally ONE use case IRST's from that era "worked". You put clouds in the equation, you reduce the speed, you don't use AB (Though AB detection is basically worthless past a few thousand feet) and you add "aspect" to all of this, you end up with systems that sucked. Especially when "weather" was involved, or "looking at the ground" was involved.

Literally look at how "well" the IR falcon missile system worked (hint it didn't). 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

I don't think 'worth' is what people who voted in the poll or who favor classic 1970's jet otherwise are into. People going for 'worth' always tend to flock to the latest and most capable variants possible. And want as many and as latest features available. People that are fans of the 70's jets are IMO more into the history and nostalgia factor. To me at least, first cruise Tomcats or AIM/ACEVAL Tomcats are much more dearer and contextually significant. They also look fancier with their high viz paint schemes. Modern HUDs? Data buses for GPS guided ammunition? Digital avionics? Nah.... that's for the sunset guys. I'm there for the dawn and maybe early noon. 

This is the classic hoggit trap that ED has fallen into. They think the average DCS gamer needs an F22 to splash Mig21's. And well sadly they might be right, but in reality CW stuff is where its at. Docs are accessible, so you can do a decent simulation. And you have something approaching airframe parity back then. Rather than the sad "warcrimes" use case for most "moderns stuff".

8 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Think something akin to an oscilloscope display on the DDD.

less fancy than the the 104 then, lord thats sad. 

[Southernbear]

So just asking for a temp check on the F-14A Early and Iranian F-14? a date would be nice but unrealistic, can we at least assume we are going to hear something about them before the F-4 goes into EA for example?....maybe hear something in the next 6 months or so? 

[draconus]

28 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

So just asking for a temp check on the F-14A Early and Iranian F-14?

Afair they said it's planned for late summer/early autumn if everything goes well. Can't find the source post atm.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Southernbear said:

So just asking for a temp check on the F-14A Early and Iranian F-14? a date would be nice but unrealistic, can we at least assume we are going to hear something about them before the F-4 goes into EA for example?....maybe hear something in the next 6 months or so? 

They mention the ALR45 in a recent update so I'd guess its close that being one of the big differences. And I think they might have said it will come before the F4.

The bigger question in my mind is if the iranian cat will actually come with the correct missiles AND the limitations of those missiles since they were ad-hoc integrated. (i.e. no SEAM for the iranian sidewinders)

Edited August 1, 2022 by Harlikwin