AIM 120C getting upgrade

[HWasp]

This is simple trolling at this point.

[jojo]

Ridiculous.

 

Fisrt, it was a joke, but perhaps a little too subbtle for Jojo......

 

Second, a phoenix is 4.01 m for 447 kg, a r27er is 4.80m(ouch) for 350kg, not bad :).

A fighter, as little as mig29 can carry 2X r27er + 2X r77+2X r73 + fuel tank 1400 kg.

Then no, you don't need a fighter as big as f-14 to carry 2X phoenix.

I am sure su-27 could carry X4 phoenix easyly

But since the phoenix is the deadliest missile of the world :), 2 is more than enough.

 

AMERICAN COMBAT EXPERIENCE with phoenix vs fighters

 

- On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target...Ooops :)

 

- On September 9, 1999 another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.

A little turn and....Oooops :lol:

 

And that's not against modern agile fighters with great jamming systems.

 

To sum up :

A DCS f-14 with a radar immune against jamming fighter + the deadliest missile, and you have a winner :)

 

Ok guys, i am done with the meteor, euuuhh the phoenix.

DCS is a game after all

Happy gaming :)

 

You're a clown.

 

Yes, to carry 4 Phoenix with useful range and loiter time with useful maneuvering capability you need a Tomcat.

A Flanker isn't a small fighter in my book, and with 18t empty weight the Su-33 isn't that far from Tomcat.

MiG-29S range is nowhere near that of the Tomcat, even with one bag. And the MiG-29 radar doesn't have the useful range to take full advantage of Phoenix.

 

Take the time to watch that about Tomcat design.

 

 

The Desert Storm failures have been discussed already. You have just discovered that missile engines are aging.

And 3 missiles aren't enough to make useful statistics.

 

Read Tom Cooper about Iranian Tomcat.

Iranians claims are the be taken with a grain of salt, yet Irak did loose a certain amount of fighters to the Tomcat.

They had to use ambush tactics with Mirage F1 EQ and Super 530F to make a few kill. Head on fight wasn't a viable option.

 

For a mission similar to the Tomcat with a similar missile (R-33) the MiG-31 is even bigger !

 

Finally, make the test. Put a Tomcat in front of you and get shot by Phoenix.

Then try to turn hard.

Use TacView.

You will see that the missile doesn't need to lead much because of speed. So when you change direction, it doesn't need to pull crazy amount of G as you think.

 

You can loose the missile with beaming and chaffs (so it isn't unbeatable). But it's more complicated to recommit.

Edited January 25, 2020 by jojo

[sylkhan]

You're a clown.

 

Insult is the weapon of the weak, but not surprising from you.

 

Like i said i am done with the Phoenix.

Happy gaming

[KL0083]

just remember AIM54 was designed for bombers and c3 aircraft, not fast agile fighters.

 

Oh, yeah!

Like media or some of "official elites" saids the Phoenix is big/heavy and not designed for fighters as of Hawk/Herc/C-300/Traitor features one by one even big and heavy and each one makes so-call "heavy" Phoenix looks dwarf. And why, there weren't any of the utter military "elites" ever jump up to say all the latter are"useless"!?

 

SAM? All what's be coded "IM" are the Intercept Missiles which build purposely to shoot down fast and agile aircraft no matter what's the platform it launch from, isn't it!?

 

????~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[eatthis]

Ridiculous.

 

Fisrt, it was a joke, but perhaps a little too subbtle for Jojo......

 

Second, a phoenix is 4.01 m for 447 kg, a r27er is 4.80m(ouch) for 350kg, not bad :).

A fighter, as little as mig29 can carry 2X r27er + 2X r77+2X r73 + fuel tank 1400 kg.

Then no, you don't need a fighter as big as f-14 to carry 2X phoenix.

I am sure su-27 could carry X4 phoenix easyly

But since the phoenix is the deadliest missile of the world :), 2 is more than enough.

 

AMERICAN COMBAT EXPERIENCE with phoenix vs fighters

 

- On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target...Ooops :)

 

- On September 9, 1999 another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.

A little turn and....Oooops :lol:

 

And that's not against modern agile fighters with great jamming systems.

 

To sum up :

A DCS f-14 with a radar immune against jamming fighter + the deadliest missile, and you have a winner :)

 

Ok guys, i am done with the meteor, euuuhh the phoenix.

DCS is a game after all

Happy gaming :)

 

you really are an idiot, youre large part of the reason this thread is so toxic, youre a disgrace to the forum :doh:

[S. Low]

Troll thread. Plain and simple.

[Nexus-6]

Well no see that was different because its Guns only...I’d love to see the Cat beat bugs like that in a realistic situation. :) The problem with Cat people is they’re living in the 90s. Sure you’d be an idiot to think your not at a disadvantage against it...guns only. But it’s a different story with heaters, and it’s a very different story with wingmen, and an extremely different story with ECM.

 

Then it turns into this discussion, well what if we gave it upgraded AIM-54s?? What if we gave it 9x?? Or they were going too, but they couldn’t or they wanted to but..blah blah blah the F-14 is the most insane case of should’ve, could’ve, would’ve, but didn’t, on theses forums it’s worse then the KA50 theorists IMO. So it’s a waste of breath for both sides.

 

The initial argument was whether the F-14 could perform effective BFM. I think, given that we trust in the validity of Heatblur and ED's respective flight models, that we can put this argument to bed. At least for a while.

 

As far as "Cat people living in the 90s", well that's true, since the F-14's developmental growth didn't extend beyond the 90s. Had it soldiered on for another decade or so, it's not a stretch to imagine that it too would have likely received more modern technology like the JHMCS and the AMRAAM.

 

But it didn't. The Navy decided they had more important things to spend money on and life doesn't allow for "what if". Be that as it may, I don't think any of that nullifies the Tomcat's potential. :)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Edited January 25, 2020 by Nexus-6

[punk]

it's not a stretch to imagine that it too would have likely received more modern technology like the JHMCS and the AMRAAM.

 

The Navy decided they had more important things to spend money on

 

These were all tested on the Tomcat, but not implemented due to cost of upgrades at the time.

 

It wasn't the Navy, it was Dick Cheney who hated Grumman, who finished the bird off. Politics and Cash were the death of the mighty Cat. :disgust:

[captain_dalan]

This is simple trolling at this point.

 

Troll thread. Plain and simple.

 

Far too obvious, far too late :smilewink::megalol:

 

Don't really see how he is even partially right tbh, as the faster speed should also allow the missile to change direction quicker (more lift), and the amount of G's it will have to pull to do so are quite unlikely to exceed what the missile is capable of, which in the case of the AIM54 is ~20 G's IIRC.

 

Do the math, and you'll see. Don't trust my words, but calculate how much g's you need to pull at different speeds, to pull certain angles from the distance that requires the same amount of time to reach your target. :thumbup:

[jojo]

Far too obvious, far too late :smilewink::megalol:

 

 

 

Do the math, and you'll see. Don't trust my words, but calculate how much g's you need to pull at different speeds, to pull certain angles from the distance that requires the same amount of time to reach your target. :thumbup:

 

The thing is that in the good conditions, the AIM-54 is so fast that it doesn't need a lot of lead angle. So even when target reverses turn, it doesn't need to turn as much and to take as much angle as a slower missile, so not that much Gs.

And this is TacView replay...

[Wizard_03]

The initial argument was whether the F-14 could perform effective BFM. I think, given that we trust in the validity of Heatblur and ED's respective flight models, that we can put this argument to bed. At least for a while.

 

As far as "Cat people living in the 90s", well that's true, since the F-14's developmental growth didn't extend beyond the 90s. Had it soldiered on for another decade or so, it's not a stretch to imagine that it too would have likely received more modern technology like the JHMCS and the AMRAAM.

 

But it didn't. The Navy decided they had more important things to spend money on and life doesn't allow for "what if". Be that as it may, I don't think any of that nullifies the Tomcat's potential. :)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

 

It can perform amazingly in ACM, but when I say that, I mean from 1980s-90s ACM perspective, back when staying behind the 3-9 Line was everything, because every WVR weapon required a rear aspect for a valid shot. Today It's completely different. All the STR and TWR in the world will not help you, when you get blasted with a HOBS weapon before the first turn after the merge. I'll trade ALL of that for nose authority so I can get the first shot off every single time, if that's the reality. Ergo hornet. It may not be as glamorous or aww inspiring, but it's every bit as deadly and then some.

 

 

 

And that's exactly what tomcat crews IRL found when we gave the bug heaters for ACM practice. They took one look at the hornet and said, "Oh man it's weak sauce engines are pathetic, and it can't corner anywhere near me, and it's never going to get above me so I can just tomcat my way out of every fight, because I have F110s and I'm a rocket ship. But the second we go from guns to heaters they quickly understood that there is no running away from the hornet, and even though it cannot out corner you, it doesn't matter, because it can point at you in just about every aspect. It may not have any energy when it does, but that's no consolation when your the one getting shot. And a nugget can do that to you, because all he has to do is yank on the stick. Don't need to pay attention to wing rock, don't need to need to think about buffet, don't need to use the rudder above a certain AOA, just pull pull pull, and shoot.

 

 

 

Now multiply that times 10 for 9x, But even if we add that to the tomcat, it's of no use because to make it count you need to push the jet all the way to it's AOA limits, and because it's a "pilots jet" that means you've gotta stay right at the edge of loosing control in a jet when recoveries are iffy at best. So now we need a FBW system in the aircraft just to allow it too safely compete. So when it's all said and done, your looking at something akin to a "hornet-Super hornet" level update to the jet, just for that single weapon system. Ergo ST21, which IMO goes into the category of "well if money weren't a factor then.." but the reality is, it's not only a factor, its possibly the most important one when it comes to building weapons. :)

 

 

All that aside, personally the tomcat is one of my favorite jets, but it certainly has it's limitations.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Wizard_03

[captain_dalan]

The thing is that in the good conditions, the AIM-54 is so fast that it doesn't need a lot of lead angle. So even when target reverses turn, it doesn't need to turn as much and to take as much angle as a slower missile, so not that much Gs.

And this is TacView replay...

 

I agree, with the caveat that the defender has less time to react and thus can't always perform the best defensive break.

 

As for the actual g's needed to turn, i swear i had some numbers put on paper somewhere, that illustrated how much g's does the object need to pull when moving at 750, 1500 and 2250 kts ground speed, in order to move the required number of degrees to intercept (pure) a defender that is doing a fixed airspeed and fixed g-loaded turn and numbers actually did went up.

 

It's 3AM though, so i can't look for it right now. It went something like 23, 25 and 26 if memory serves. Could be wrong though. And i can't remember the turn radius of the defender.

[captain_dalan]

It can perform amazingly in ACM, but when I say that, I mean from 1980s-90s ACM perspective, back when staying behind the 3-9 Line was everything, because every WVR weapon required a rear aspect for a valid shot. Today It's completely different. All the STR and TWR in the world will not help you, when you get blasted with a HOBS weapon before the first turn after the merge. I'll trade ALL of that for nose authority so I can get the first shot off every single time, if that's the reality. Ergo hornet. It may not be as glamorous or aww inspiring, but it's every bit as deadly and then some.

Amen. Easy to see why merges are generally detested by the services these days :thumbup:

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

[Nexus-6]

It can perform amazingly in ACM, but when I say that, I mean from 1980s-90s ACM perspective, back when staying behind the 3-9 Line was everything, because every WVR weapon required a rear aspect for a valid shot. Today It's completely different. All the STR and TWR in the world will not help you, when you get blasted with a HOBS weapon before the first turn after the merge. I'll trade ALL of that for nose authority so I can get the first shot off every single time, if that's the reality. Ergo hornet. It may not be as glamorous or aww inspiring, but it's every bit as deadly and then some.

 

 

 

And that's exactly what tomcat crews IRL found when we gave the bug heaters for ACM practice. They took one look at the hornet and said, "Oh man it's weak sauce engines are pathetic, and it can't corner anywhere near me, and it's never going to get above me so I can just tomcat my way out of every fight, because I have F110s and I'm a rocket ship. But the second we go from guns to heaters they quickly understood that there is no running away from the hornet, and even though it cannot out corner you, it doesn't matter, because it can point at you in just about every aspect. It may not have any energy when it does, but that's no consolation when your the one getting shot. And a nugget can do that to you, because all he has to do is yank on the stick. Don't need to pay attention to wing rock, don't need to need to think about buffet, don't need to use the rudder above a certain AOA, just pull pull pull, and shoot.

 

 

 

Now multiply that times 10 for 9x, But even if we add that to the tomcat, it's of no use because to make it count you need to push the jet all the way to it's AOA limits, and because it's a "pilots jet" that means you've gotta stay right at the edge of loosing control in a jet when recoveries are iffy at best. So now we need a FBW system in the aircraft just to allow it too safely compete. So when it's all said and done, your looking at something akin to a "hornet-Super hornet" level update to the jet, just for that single weapon system. Ergo ST21, which IMO goes into the category of "well if money weren't a factor then.." but the reality is, it's not only a factor, its possibly the most important one when it comes to building weapons. :)

 

 

All that aside, personally the tomcat is one of my favorite jets, but it certainly has it's limitations.

I definitely agree with the bulk of what you're saying. If I were a fighter pilot, and had to wage an air war tomorrow, I wouldn't choose a Tomcat simply because it's frozen in time and lacks many of the features that come standard on it's modern counterparts. Given a choice, I would much rather have an F-22...or a Rafale...or a Typhoon...and so on. As you say, first shot is everything. There is, obviously, no such thing as "fair" in the real world. I would, however, respectfully point out that there seems to be a bit of "apples and oranges" in play here. I don't think you can objectively judge the F-14 based on a standard it didn't reach operationally.

 

 

 

Does the Hornet's FBW make it more user friendly to a novice? Absolutely, yes, and there's no denying that it's a real world advantage, AND it probably wouldn't have done the Tomcat any harm to have a similar system. However, do I think all of the above would have been absolutely necessary for it to stay relevant? Eh...no, not really. The F-14 wants specific inputs from the user, and it DOES take time to learn what they are, but it's behavior is still pretty docile at high AoA, even to a layman like me. Also, I'm fairly sure the AIM-9s the 'Cats carried were the "all aspect" Lima and Mike versions which no longer required the shooter to be behind the 3/9 line. It's not an exaggeration to say that the Turkey needed facelift, but there's nothing wrong with Grumman's design.

 

 

*shrug*

 

 

Of course, this should all be taken at face value. I'm no fighter pilot. Just a sim grunt and amateur aviation enthusiast speaking from his (admittedly limited) experience with both modules.

 

 

 

Just my .02.

[Paradox]

My understanding is that the capability that the Navy really misses from the Tomcat is the range and loiter time that even the super hornet doesn't really come close to

 

In the Gulf War they were using Tomcats to strike well in land from the carrier where it was too dangerous for AAR

[jojo]

And there is the timeline.

The Hornet and F-16 we have in DCS are year 2005 or later.

 

The Tomcat we have...I don't know exactly but probably from the 90's.

And a cooperation Tomcat for long range shot and Hornet for closer threat is surely deadly :smilewink:

Because even if you manage to escape Phoenix, being engaged by Hornet while you recommit isn't a dream situation.

[Nexus-6]

The Tomcat we have...I don't know exactly but probably from the 90's.

The Tomcat we have is a mid '90s F-14B.

 

 

Because even if you manage to escape Phoenix, being engaged by Hornet while you recommit isn't a dream situation.

Absolutely not. The Hornet is very lethal. Particularly in close. I merely submit that judging the F-14 by a standard it never reached is not equitable, and that simply being old does not necessarily make it a bad design that's incapable of being adapted to the modern battlefield without building an essentially new airframe. Grumman knew what they were doing, and the USN got what it paid for.

 

 

 

It needed TLC, not the scrap yard. :)

Edited January 28, 2020 by Nexus-6

[jojo]

The Tomcat we have is a mid '90s F-14B.

 

 

Absolutely not. The Hornet is very lethal. Particularly in close. I merely submit that judging the F-14 by a standard it never reached is not equitable, and that simply being old does not necessarily make it a bad design that's incapable of being adapted to the modern battlefield without building an essentially new airframe. Grumman knew what they were doing, and the USN got what it paid for.

 

 

 

It needed TLC, not the scrap yard. :)

 

TLC ?

 

The problem is that from the beginning this was a big and complex airframe, not cheap to operate.

And with airframes nearly 30 years old, it was even worse.

[Nexus-6]

TLC ?

 

 

 

The problem is that from the beginning this was a big and complex airframe, not cheap to operate.

 

And with airframes nearly 30 years old, it was even worse.

"Tender Loving Care"

 

Just a way of saying the 'Cat was allowed to fall too far behind the technological curve.

 

Also, yes, the existing airframes needed to be put out to pasture. Not like they couldn't have produced more though. Also, I can't help but see the humor in a government that would fund the F-22 and F35, yet retire an already proven airframe due to "cost". XD

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[punk]

"Tender Loving Care"

 

Just a way of saying the 'Cat was allowed to fall too far behind the technological curve.

 

Also, yes, the existing airframes needed to be put out to pasture. Not like they couldn't have produced more though. Also, I can't help but see the humor in a government that would fund the F-22 and F35, yet retire an already proven airframe due to "cost". XD

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

"Cost" was the excuse, not the reason.

 

Salute,

[captain_dalan]

The thing is that in the good conditions, the AIM-54 is so fast that it doesn't need a lot of lead angle. So even when target reverses turn, it doesn't need to turn as much and to take as much angle as a slower missile, so not that much Gs.

And this is TacView replay...

 

Got those numbers mate, purely hypothetical:

1s time to target for all 3 cases

750 kts gs, 37 degrees turn, takes 25 or so g

1500 kts gs, 20 degrees turn, takes 27 or so g

2250 kts gs, 14 degrees turn, takes 28-29 g

 

All 3 should intercept the same target with the same lateral separation in 1 s.

The numbers are a bit rounded up :thumbup:

Edited January 29, 2020 by captain_dalan

[Nexus-6]

"Cost" was the excuse, not the reason.

 

Salute,

I know, I was just being a wise ass and illuminating the obvious flaw in the "offical" explanation.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[jojo]

I know, I was just being a wise ass and illuminating the obvious flaw in the "offical" explanation.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

As much as you love the Tomcat, I think this is an eye opener…

 

[captain_dalan]

As much as you love the Tomcat, I think this is an eye opener…

 

 

Indeed, that one has all the bad things related to the thing, especially the early birds.

 

But there was good stuff about it as well: