Creating a Iranian f-14 for gameplay purposes

[FlyingTaco21]

I'm only aware of generalities concerning the early A models iran ended up with... and that they bled through their 54s pretty fast. Assuming one wants to set up a f14A or B to fill the enemy role in a mission what is the best way to capture the capabilities of a early A weapon wise? They never got the 7 or 9 and so far as I know we can't mate up the russian carbon copy 9s or the other russian/Chinese origin missiles they may have available now. Can we limit capability some way by altering the functionality of particular  systems to aporoximate what a Iranian tomcat would be capable of? 

[BreaKKer]

Just now, FlyingTaco21 said:

I'm only aware of generalities concerning the early A models iran ended up with... and that they bled through their 54s pretty fast. Assuming one wants to set up a f14A or B to fill the enemy role in a mission what is the best way to capture the capabilities of a early A weapon wise? They never got the 7 or 9 and so far as I know we can't mate up the russian carbon copy 9s or the other russian/Chinese origin missiles they may have available now. Can we limit capability some way by altering the functionality of particular  systems to aporoximate what a Iranian tomcat would be capable of? 

If you are a little more patient, the F-14A GR-95 will be here sooner or later with all the things the Iranian's got

[Snappy]

2 hours ago, FlyingTaco21 said:

I'm only aware of generalities concerning the early A models iran ended up with... and that they bled through their 54s pretty fast. Assuming one wants to set up a f14A or B to fill the enemy role in a mission what is the best way to capture the capabilities of a early A weapon wise? They never got the 7 or 9 and so far as I know we can't mate up the russian carbon copy 9s or the other russian/Chinese origin missiles they may have available now. Can we limit capability some way by altering the functionality of particular  systems to aporoximate what a Iranian tomcat would be capable of? 

Not sure why you think that they didn't have Aim-9 and Aim-7.

I think they actually carried both.  I think one type (likely the Aim-9) they got straight from the get go and the other one was added shortly after the war began.

Can't get the details back together right now. I think they transferred the sparrows from the their Phantoms, after the revolution and the lost support from the US.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edit:This thread discussed the early loadouts as well ( look further down in the posts):

One example , quote from Magot:

"

There is list differencies Iranian F-14A GR IIAF/ IRIAF in time (1979-1980) against F-14A US NAVY

 

- downgraded ECM

- downgraded ECCM

- AWG-9 changed frequencies or jumped wavelengths/ counter jammings

- Processors was slowered about 1/100 against US NAVY F-14A processors

- APX-81-M1E IFF system for Iranians could only detect and interoggate transponders of Soviet origin

 

Air to Air loadout

AIM-54A Phoenix - ECCM was there a bit downgraded against same AIM-54A used in same time in US NAVY

AIM-7E-4 Sparrow - from deliveries for F-4s for IIAF (AIM-7F never been delivered to Iran, but before islamic revolution it was planned)

AIM-9P2 /P3 Sidewinder- from deliveries for F-4s/ F-14As for IIAF

 

Engine:

TF30-PW-414 (Was less prone to stall engine than original engine TF30-PW-412 mounted to first series of F-14A for US Navy)

 

There are some source data about use microprocessor in F-14A

http://firstmicroprocessor.com/"..

Edited August 4, 2021 by Snappy

[FlyingTaco21]

Came from a Iranian pilot that interviewed along with two other us tomcat pilots .. done at the museum of flight I think.  Its on YouTube. Made mention of carrying 54s and the weird hawk mod. But said that the 7 and 9 were not given to Iran. I'll try to post it here in a bit 

Came from a Iranian pilot that interviewed along with two other us tomcat pilots .. done at the museum of flight I think.  Its on YouTube. Made mention of carrying 54s and the weird hawk mod. But said that the 7 and 9 were not given to Iran. I'll try to post it here in a bit 

Edit : 

 

 

[9thHunt]

3 hours ago, Snappy said:

Not sure why you think that they didn't have Aim-9 and Aim-7.

I think they actually carried both.  I think one type (likely the Aim-9) they got straight from the get go and the other one was added shortly after the war began.

Can't get the details back together right now. I think they transferred the sparrows from the their Phantoms, after the revolution and the lost support from the US.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edit:This thread discussed the early loadouts as well ( look further down in the posts):

One example , quote from Magot:

"

There is list differencies Iranian F-14A GR IIAF/ IRIAF in time (1979-1980) against F-14A US NAVY

 

- downgraded ECM

- downgraded ECCM

- AWG-9 changed frequencies or jumped wavelengths/ counter jammings

- Processors was slowered about 1/100 against US NAVY F-14A processors

- APX-81-M1E IFF system for Iranians could only detect and interoggate transponders of Soviet origin

 

Air to Air loadout

AIM-54A Phoenix - ECCM was there a bit downgraded against same AIM-54A used in same time in US NAVY

AIM-7E-4 Sparrow - from deliveries for F-4s for IIAF (AIM-7F never been delivered to Iran, but before islamic revolution it was planned)

AIM-9P2 /P3 Sidewinder- from deliveries for F-4s/ F-14As for IIAF

 

Engine:

TF30-PW-414 (Was less prone to stall engine than original engine TF30-PW-412 mounted to first series of F-14A for US Navy)

 

There are some source data about use microprocessor in F-14A

http://firstmicroprocessor.com/"..

 

Cool, I was wondering that myself.  I was curious if the IIAF cat would be a good stand-in for an early USN cat. That's all specific to the IIAF order, not Block 90/95 cats as a whole, right?  It's interesting that Grumman didn't consider them a separate production block from the USN orders.

Edited August 4, 2021 by 9thHunt

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, FlyingTaco21 said:

But said that the 7 and 9 were not given to Iran.

Iran absolutely had AIM-7s and AIM-9s. I believe the issue that pilot would be alluding to is that the AIM-7s and AIM-9s they had didn't necessarily work with the F-14. I've heard they eventually figured out a way to get the AIM-7s to talk to the AWG-9. I don't know how much trouble it would be to make the AIM-9s work, but I believe at that point Iran wasn't all that interested in losing their premier area air defense tool in dogfights. 

[FlyingTaco21]

around the 48 minute mark  he starts talking about  how the F-14  got the gun and 54 but not the others even after the war. 

[Snappy]

Interesting, thank you.

 

I honestly don't know why he is saying that . Maybe he was referring to that they didn't get them directly from the US included with the F-14 deliveries.  
Even while he is talking, the picture in the background shows the F-14 of the IIAF with Aim-9 and Aim-7 , not that it means much.

Or maybe not all units got them.

But I am wondering. I have read several times that they indeed had both missiles and if you look up the air to air statistics 

you will see that there were several listed with Aim-9 and Aim-7 by the F-14.

I don't know why there is this discrepancy.

Regards,

Snappy

Edit: It is really a bit confusing.

Here is an interview with another iranian F-14 pilot and he mentions that Iran originally ordered Aim-7 and Aim-9 for the F-14 but the deal fell throug with the

 hostage crisis and he goes on to say that there were compatibility issues with the variants of the Aim-7/9 carried by their F-4s.
But then again later , in the question about the kill ratio , he explicitly mentions them as well.
Nevertheless interesting & detailed interview if you haven't read it already:

 

https://hushkit.net/2020/04/07/interview-with-the-greatest-living-fighter-ace-f-14-tomcat-pilot-col-rtd-fereydoun-a-mazandarani/

 

Right now I tend to think, with the deliveries of the F-14 they initially only got the Aim-54, with the Aim-9 and &7 being on order, which then

got cancelled and then they adopted some of the Aim-9/7 from their phantoms.
Maybe someone else can chime in with more detailed info.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Snappy

[Naquaii]

23 minutes ago, Snappy said:

Interesting, thank you.

 

I honestly don't know why he is saying that . Maybe he was referring to that they didn't get them directly from the US included with the F-14 deliveries.  
Even while he is talking, the picture in the background shows the F-14 of the IIAF with Aim-9 and Aim-7 , not that it means much.

Or maybe not all units got them.

But I am wondering. I have read several times that they indeed had both missiles and if you look up the air to air statistics 

you will see that there were several listed with Aim-9 and Aim-7 by the F-14.

I don't know why there is this discrepancy.

Regards,

Snappy

Edit: It is really a bit confusing.

Here is an interview with another iranian F-14 pilot and he mentions that Iran originally ordered Aim-7 and Aim-9 for the F-14 but the deal fell throug with the

 hostage crisis and he goes on to say that there were compatibility issues with the variants of the Aim-7/9 carried by their F-4s.
But then again later , in the question about the kill ratio , he explicitly mentions them as well.
Nevertheless interesting interview if you haven't read it already:

 

https://hushkit.net/2020/04/07/interview-with-the-greatest-living-fighter-ace-f-14-tomcat-pilot-col-rtd-fereydoun-a-mazandarani/

 

Right now I tend to think, with the deliveries of the F-14 they initially only got the Aim-54, with the Aim-9 and &7 being on order, which then

got cancelled and then they adopted some of the Aim-9/7 from their phantoms.
Maybe someone else can chime in with more detailed info.

 

 

 

 

The AIM-9s should be compatible as they've always been backwards compatible afaik. I do recall them having to modify their AIM-7Es though as they needed a modification to work with the AWG-9. IIRC that's why the F-14 in USN service used the AIM-7E4 and not the AIM-7E2.

[Harlikwin]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:27 AM, Naquaii said:

 

The AIM-9s should be compatible as they've always been backwards compatible afaik. I do recall them having to modify their AIM-7Es though as they needed a modification to work with the AWG-9. IIRC that's why the F-14 in USN service used the AIM-7E4 and not the AIM-7E2.

So this is a bit misunderstood.

There are two general families of sidewinders, the Navy versions. 9B/D/G/H, developed by China Lake, which starting with the D were gas cooled from bottles in the pylons. And then there were the Air Force models. The 9E/J/N/P etc. These starting with the E were peltier cooled. I.e. Electrically, these missiles were not China lake built, rather Ford Philco and others. 

There are however other differences, for example the 9G/H could use SEAM modes and could be pointed by radar. Whereas the 9E/J/N/P could not, though these missiles could accept an "uncage" seeker command that is independent of the firing switch. 

The 9L, which was ordered by congress to be "common" was developed from the 9G/H "DNA" by china lake. As such it has SEAM compatibility, and its internally cooled by its own gas bottle.

I believe Iran was slated to get the 9G or 9H sidewinders with the F14, but never did. So they somehow would have had to adapt the pylons that were designed for the navy missiles to work with the AF missiles they had for their phantoms. Certainly not an insurmountable task as they managed to do it. But for example the 9J/P that they used would not have access to SEAM. 

The Falklands adaptation of the 9L was mostly good luck on the brits part as the 9L used the 9G/H "DNA" and thats what the RN harriers used, so it was backwards compatible aside from the 9G/H rail had to "modified" with files.

Also I recall reading that Iran had to adapt their AIM 7E-2 to work with  the F14 like the AIM 7E4. Though perhaps they did have some AIM7-E4's delivered.

 

So hopefully your guys IRAF F14 will have 9J/P's that work like 9J/P (no SEAM).

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Joe1978]

hace 7 horas, Harlikwin dijo:

So this is a bit misunderstood.

There are two general families of sidewinders, the Navy versions. 9B/D/G/H, developed by China Lake, which starting with the D were gas cooled from bottles in the pylons. And then there were the Air Force models. The 9E/J/N/P etc. These starting with the E were peltier cooled. I.e. Electrically, these missiles were not China lake built, rather Ford Philco and others. 

There are however other differences, for example the 9G/H could use SEAM modes and could be pointed by radar. Whereas the 9E/J/N/P could not, though these missiles could accept an "uncage" seeker command that is independent of the firing switch. 

The 9L, which was ordered by congress to be "common" was developed from the 9G/H "DNA" by china lake. As such it has SEAM compatibility, and its internally cooled by its own gas bottle.

I believe Iran was slated to get the 9G or 9H sidewinders with the F14, but never did. So they somehow would have had to adapt the pylons that were designed for the navy missiles to work with the AF missiles they had for their phantoms. Certainly not an insurmountable task as they managed to do it. But for example the 9J/P that they used would not have access to SEAM. 

The Falklands adaptation of the 9L was mostly good luck on the brits part as the 9L used the 9G/H "DNA" and thats what the RN harriers used, so it was backwards compatible aside from the 9G/H rail had to "modified" with files.

Also I recall reading that Iran had to adapt their AIM 7E-2 to work with  the F14 like the AIM 7E4. Though perhaps they did have some AIM7-E4's delivered.

 

So hopefully your guys IRAF F14 will have 9J/P's that work like 9J/P (no SEAM).

 

 

Exactly, good explanation.

About this:

- AWG-9 changed frequencies or jumped wavelengths/ counter jammings

I have to check out the book on Tom Cooper's F 14 Iranians but it seems that Grumman and Raytheon simply slowed down the radar of the Persian cats a bit but in real life this meant a delay of something like a millisecond. 

 

[Naquaii]

18 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

So this is a bit misunderstood.

There are two general families of sidewinders, the Navy versions. 9B/D/G/H, developed by China Lake, which starting with the D were gas cooled from bottles in the pylons. And then there were the Air Force models. The 9E/J/N/P etc. These starting with the E were peltier cooled. I.e. Electrically, these missiles were not China lake built, rather Ford Philco and others. 

There are however other differences, for example the 9G/H could use SEAM modes and could be pointed by radar. Whereas the 9E/J/N/P could not, though these missiles could accept an "uncage" seeker command that is independent of the firing switch. 

The 9L, which was ordered by congress to be "common" was developed from the 9G/H "DNA" by china lake. As such it has SEAM compatibility, and its internally cooled by its own gas bottle.

I believe Iran was slated to get the 9G or 9H sidewinders with the F14, but never did. So they somehow would have had to adapt the pylons that were designed for the navy missiles to work with the AF missiles they had for their phantoms. Certainly not an insurmountable task as they managed to do it. But for example the 9J/P that they used would not have access to SEAM. 

The Falklands adaptation of the 9L was mostly good luck on the brits part as the 9L used the 9G/H "DNA" and thats what the RN harriers used, so it was backwards compatible aside from the 9G/H rail had to "modified" with files.

Also I recall reading that Iran had to adapt their AIM 7E-2 to work with  the F14 like the AIM 7E4. Though perhaps they did have some AIM7-E4's delivered.

 

So hopefully your guys IRAF F14 will have 9J/P's that work like 9J/P (no SEAM).

 

 

Yeah, that's the main difference between USAF and USN AIM-9s. I was however talking about the actual interface controlling the missile, not the launch rails.

As long as that works the other parts are more trivial if not easy to fix.

 

And yup, other than that that's what I was talking about. Aircraft not being designed for SEAM could still use those missiles, just without the SEAM functionality. The earliest docs we have for the F-14 lists the AIM-9D, G and H, with the D not having SEAM.

But don't worry, we do know about the different variations and their capabilities. If they are already in DCS or added by ED the IRIAF version of our F-14A will likely have them.

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Yeah, that's the main difference between USAF and USN AIM-9s. I was however talking about the actual interface controlling the missile, not the launch rails.

As long as that works the other parts are more trivial if not easy to fix.

 

And yup, other than that that's what I was talking about. Aircraft not being designed for SEAM could still use those missiles, just without the SEAM functionality. The earliest docs we have for the F-14 lists the AIM-9D, G and H, with the D not having SEAM.

But don't worry, we do know about the different variations and their capabilities. If they are already in DCS or added by ED the IRIAF version of our F-14A will likely have them.

In that sense I'm less worried about the IRAF one (9J and 9P are in game) as long as they don't use SEAM on the F14 we are GTG. But I'd like to the bone stock -95 come with AIM-9G/H (not in game) and 7E4's (in game but horribly modeled). 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Harlikwin