Jump to content

Is the F-14's gun too accurate?


Baltic Dude

Recommended Posts

Whenever I fly with my friend, we do 1v1 gun fights when he flies F-5 and F-14 when I fly MiG-19S and Su-33. From what I see online as well, the F-5 guns seem realistic and have an area where the gun's volume of fire ends up. The F-14 on the other hand is pin-point accurate and has no variation whatsoever. I was under the assumption that they used the same 20mm Vulcan? The F-14's gun looks and feels more like a 30mm cannon than a Vulcan. Why is there such a discrepancy? Is this because F-14 is artificially better than it was IRL so it gets more sales from the NATO guys? Are they different guns entirely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-5 has a two 20mm single barrel revolver cannoni, 1.500 rounds per minute; the F-14 has a 20mm gatling gun with 6.000 rounds per minute in high setting, so no it’s not the same gun.

also I remeber in an interview of a corsair pilot him saying that the M-61 vulcan was extremely precise.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the problem the opposite - that the F-5E's M39 cannons are too inaccurate?

This is supposedly a reported issue on the F-5E.

  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others have said, F-5 and F-14 use different guns. So comparing their accuracy isn't really meaningful.

However, F-14 uses the same gun as: F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C modules too, and it is still much more accurate than those. This must be the comparison we are looking for, right? Weelll, the thing is, M61 can have several different kinds of dispersion patterns depending on mission, and installation on different aircraft can be different. This is achieved through installing different clamps near the muzzle area of 6 barrels, either leaving them more parallel, or squeezing them together to create more dispersion. So we are back to square one regarding the validity of comparisons sadly 😛

Still, though, just as a gut feeling, I too feel Heatblur's implementation of M61 is probably a little too low dispersion even if we assume it using the lowest dispersion clamp available, but again this is a gut feeling/assumption on my part. To know for sure whether it is right or wrong, we would have to know what type of clamp is used on the Tomcats, and what is its dispersion pattern.

Also like Northstar said above, there has been some dispute over whether DCS F-5E has too much dispersion with its guns, and as far as I recall some people who argue it has provided some primary source data too.

Similarly, I'd argue that probably MiG-19 and Su-33 are a bit too laser-accurate too, GSh-30-1 does have some reputation for it, but especially the NR-30s on the MiG-19 leave me wondering about them seeing how they seem to have almost zero dispersion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

However, F-14 uses the same gun as: F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C modules too, and it is still much more accurate than those. This must be the comparison we are looking for, right? Weelll, the thing is, M61 can have several different kinds of dispersion patterns depending on mission, and installation on different aircraft can be different. This is achieved through installing different clamps near the muzzle area of 6 barrels, either leaving them more parallel, or squeezing them together to create more dispersion. So we are back to square one regarding the validity of comparisons sadly 😛

The problem there though is that gun accuracy has kinda been a contentious issue with ED modules, with them generally underperforming in terms of dispersion. We saw it with the A-10, the F/A-18, the F-86F and the F-5E. Something lesser known is ED's Phalanx Block 1B (again using the M61, but one with longer barrels and a barrel clamp, while firing APDS ammunition), which also has incorrect dispersion.

We need to see some actual data to make a conclusion. Personally though? In light of the above, my gut (so mountain worth of salt here) is leaning more on the side of comparison modules having too much dispersion, than the Tomcat having too much.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a book I read some years ago on NATO air weapons, and the conclusion was that for AA work, a cannon is better (particularly the 27mm mauser), but for A/G work, a gatling gun was judged to be better because it had greater dispersion. This was particularly true of the podded gun (which I think was also an M61 wasnt it?) that the F4 carried on the centreline.

Ive no particular view about whether the F14 has enough dispersion or not (I cant seem to hit a damn thing with it, so you can judge that how you like...) just that generally you should expect wider dispersion than, say, the twin cannons in the F5, because its a nature of the beast. Its a higher rate of fire, and a wider dispersion generally.


Edited by stuart666
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually each barrel has a lower rate of fire than the f-5 cannon. 6.000 RPM / 6 barrels, and I think that’s what affects gun accuracy due to heating (if that’s what you’re referring to)

the interview I mentioned about is the fpp on the a7 and both the guest and Jello agree that the m61 was incredibly accurate on both the a-7 and f-18. So I’m leaning to believe that the f-14 is rather on spot; lately the f-18 too seems to be way more accurate.

 


Edited by algherghezghez
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stuart666 said:

I remember a book I read some years ago on NATO air weapons, and the conclusion was that for AA work, a cannon is better (particularly the 27mm mauser), but for A/G work, a gatling gun was judged to be better because it had greater dispersion. This was particularly true of the podded gun (which I think was also an M61 wasnt it?) that the F4 carried on the centreline.

Yes, the Phantoms used the SUU-23/A pod, which did indeed have an M61. My understanding though is that the dispersion arises from the pod itself vibrating.

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED's guns are consistently too inaccurate for whatever reason, from the weird barrel issues with the M3, to excessive dispersion in the M39, M61 and GAU-8, all of which have been reported. I don't think one can infer anything about the F-14 just by comparing it to ED's modules.


Edited by TLTeo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Like others have said, F-5 and F-14 use different guns. So comparing their accuracy isn't really meaningful.

However, F-14 uses the same gun as: F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C modules too, and it is still much more accurate than those. This must be the comparison we are looking for, right? Weelll, the thing is, M61 can have several different kinds of dispersion patterns depending on mission, and installation on different aircraft can be different. This is achieved through installing different clamps near the muzzle area of 6 barrels, either leaving them more parallel, or squeezing them together to create more dispersion. So we are back to square one regarding the validity of comparisons sadly 😛

Still, though, just as a gut feeling, I too feel Heatblur's implementation of M61 is probably a little too low dispersion even if we assume it using the lowest dispersion clamp available, but again this is a gut feeling/assumption on my part. To know for sure whether it is right or wrong, we would have to know what type of clamp is used on the Tomcats, and what is its dispersion pattern.

Also like Northstar said above, there has been some dispute over whether DCS F-5E has too much dispersion with its guns, and as far as I recall some people who argue it has provided some primary source data too.

Similarly, I'd argue that probably MiG-19 and Su-33 are a bit too laser-accurate too, GSh-30-1 does have some reputation for it, but especially the NR-30s on the MiG-19 leave me wondering about them seeing how they seem to have almost zero dispersion.

As a Gatling gun only fires one barrel at a time from the one position on it's rotation then each of the barrels would have to have a slight offset from each other to create dispersion, whether they are all parallel or all have the same amount of "squeeze" they will still be shooting in the same place relative to the other barrels.


Edited by Alicatt
  • Like 1

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-14 M61 in DCS matches the stated specifications for the gun as mounted on the F-14. A newly well-calibrated gun would likely be even more accurate. It also matches SME feedback.


Edited by Naquaii
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 3:27 PM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

My biggest issue is with ED's tracers for the F-series jets. They all look like yellow Russian 30mm. The F14 at least has proper red and narrow tracers. 

 

Agreed and it’s not like the tracer sprites DCS uses are particularly good either.

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 3:03 PM, Northstar98 said:

Yes, the Phantoms used the SUU-23/A pod, which did indeed have an M61. My understanding though is that the dispersion arises from the pod itself vibrating.

That was certainly part of it. But from what ive read, Gatlings are inherently prone to dispersion, Im presuming due to the vibration. What vibration the cannon has, would seem predominantly to be fore and aft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think bigger. You have a Gatling cannon slung on the side of the nose of an airframe. When fired a force is placed cantilever onto the mounting brackets which in turn asymmetrically loads the forward fuselage off centerline on all 3 axis. Not a ton, but it causes a vibration in the whole airframe. Basically no part of the cannon is “hard mounted” only part of the airframe. With the Tomcat even exacerbated by the firing barrel being the most outboard creating the most torque moment on the mount and by connection the airframe. The planes stability keeps it effectively in position, but no performance fighter is going to have strongly dampened stabilization so it will wiggle around stability null as the gun fires.  
 

It’s part of why the A-10 was built around the Cannon to mitigate as much off centerline  moment from its firing. The gun is mounted basically on the “keel” on centerline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RustBelt said:

 

It’s part of why the A-10 was built around the Cannon to mitigate as much off centerline  moment from its firing. The gun is mounted basically on the “keel” on centerline. 

But it's offset to one side so the firing barrel can be closer to centerline, and also angled so the recoil passes through CG instead of under it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spurts said:

But it's offset to one side so the firing barrel can be closer to centerline, and also angled so the recoil passes through CG instead of under it.

I'm guessing if they could have, they would have aligned the whole gun on the centerline, and have it fire out of the top-most barrel to be closer to the vertical CG.  But even offset to one side, there's barely enough room for the nose gear, which is offset as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 9:23 AM, Baltic Dude said:

Is this because F-14 is artificially better than it was IRL so it gets more sales from the NATO guys? 

You asked the same thing about the F16s performance in that sub forum with the same reasoning. 

Maybe, just maybe NATO jets are just better? I mean you only have to watch the news to see what we thought about the “opposition” wasn’t necessarily accurate.

I was just reading an article in The Times about the air war in Ukraine and an SU 25 pilot managing to give an SU 30 the slip over many miles until his mate took off (in a Flanker) and shot it down almost at their airbase. If I tried that in DCS I doubt I’d have the same result, those damn SU 30s shoot me down from miles away when I’m in a Hornet, let alone a Frogfoot.

Just drunk some beer so maybe this post is I’ll advised on my part, I just get a feeling there is some motivation here that isn’t based on facts.

On the plus side for redfor players, DCS 20 years from now, if it still maintains its current level of accuracy, will be 4 F-35s for blue for and that’s it. It’s all we could afford! 😁

 


Edited by Digitalvole
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 10:34 AM, algherghezghez said:

The F-5 has a two 20mm single barrel revolver cannoni, 1.500 rounds per minute; the F-14 has a 20mm gatling gun with 6.000 rounds per minute in high setting, so no it’s not the same gun.

also I remeber in an interview of a corsair pilot him saying that the M-61 vulcan was extremely precise.

All true. I'm reading "F-105 vs MiG-17 over Vietnam". I was amazed, by pilots complaining that... "M-61 Vulcan is too acurate. You may shoot out a single piece of enemy plane. By A2G we used to wave a pedals to create some dispersion"


Edited by 303_Kermit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

You asked the same thing about the F16s performance in that sub forum with the same reasoning. 

Maybe, just maybe NATO jets are just better? I mean you only have to watch the news to see what we thought about the “opposition” wasn’t necessarily accurate.

I was just reading an article in The Times about the air war in Ukraine and an SU 25 pilot managing to give an SU 30 the slip over many miles until his mate took off (in a Flanker) and shot it down almost at their airbase. If I tried that in DCS I doubt I’d have the same result, those damn SU 30s shoot me down from miles away when I’m in a Hornet, let alone a Frogfoot.

Just drunk some beer so maybe this post is I’ll advised on my part, I just get a feeling there is some motivation here that isn’t based on facts.

On the plus side for redfor players, DCS 20 years from now, if it still maintains its current level of accuracy, will be 4 F-35s for blue for and that’s it. It’s all we could afford! 😁

 

 

I thought M61 Vulcan was the same gun used by F-5 which behave very differently. I was clearly wrong about that but I absolutely believe ED's A2G F-16 has a frankenstein FM following the same pattern of Black Shark 3, which some may actually view as a positive (and many aren't complaining)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

Maybe, just maybe NATO jets are just better? I mean you only have to watch the news to see what we thought about the “opposition” wasn’t necessarily accurate.

It's more like that we don't have the proper Redfor counterparts of NATO jets currently in the sim. The MiG-29K, for instance, or Su-30MKI or MKK. Granted, most of those did not fly with Russia in that time period, being sold abroad, but that's how things were in mid-2000s. Sadly, the militaries that operate them are not forthcoming with the data, maybe Deka can figure something out with the Chinese, but it's more likely we'll be stuck with 90s hardware just like Russian AF was in that period. These will obviously lag behind mid-2000s designs.

The Russians have problems because their training sucks. When other people, such as China or India (or even Ukraine), use their kit, they get great results. If you systematically defraud training funds, don't be surprised if your soldiers are poorly trained. Redfor performance in DCS reflects that, Su-27 and MiG-29 are very good aircraft, but they need to be flown properly. An average DCS virtual squadron is probably better trained than actual Russian pilots.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's more like that we don't have the proper Redfor counterparts of NATO jets currently in the sim. The MiG-29K, for instance, or Su-30MKI or MKK. Granted, most of those did not fly with Russia in that time period, being sold abroad, but that's how things were in mid-2000s. Sadly, the militaries that operate them are not forthcoming with the data, maybe Deka can figure something out with the Chinese, but it's more likely we'll be stuck with 90s hardware just like Russian AF was in that period. These will obviously lag behind mid-2000s designs.

The Russians have problems because their training sucks. When other people, such as China or India (or even Ukraine), use their kit, they get great results. If you systematically defraud training funds, don't be surprised if your soldiers are poorly trained. Redfor performance in DCS reflects that, Su-27 and MiG-29 are very good aircraft, but they need to be flown properly. An average DCS virtual squadron is probably better trained than actual Russian pilots.

9 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

To some extent. You still ain't winning fighsts against western Fox-3's with 27ER or even 77-1. Let alone lack of a standard multi-domain link system and sensors.

The tech to make things interesting have all been in the sim forever. The mission bias is just geared towards optimizing the blufor full fidelity experience that folks have paid 80 bucks for.

AIM-120B vs R-27ER is a pretty fair fight (not in a sterile 1v1 obviously, but then nothing in air combat works that way). They also roughly coexist in the same time frame. R-77 vs AIM-120B is a great fight even in 1v1. R-77 vs AIM-120C-5 not so much. If online mission makers weren't so insistent on putting AIM-120C-5s on everything, the online space would look very very different. (Heck, people might even have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different weapons platforms)

Problem with wanting new stuff like R-77-1 (2015) or R-77M (prototype tech) is that it would have to contend with AIM-120Ds and Meteors (which we might have to contend with regardless). Neither of which are fights that could in any way be described as "interactive", "engaging" or "fair". You're just getting clapped from ranges that make a high altitude Phoenix blush.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

The tech to make things interesting have all been in the sim forever. The mission bias is just geared towards optimizing the blufor full fidelity experience that folks have paid 80 bucks for.

The problem is that "red" countries were much less forthcoming with their aircraft documentation than blue ones. DCS has been about FF modules for a long time, and it just wasn't possible to make FF modules from the red side.

If the server owners won't restrict tech to older generation weapons, the solution is either more blue aircraft from the 80s (so we can have more old-timey servers), or red ones from mid-2000s, which would mean Chinese aircraft with PL-12, a perfectly good AIM-120C counterpart from what I've heard (as mentioned, Russian AF kind of sucked at the time).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Baltic Dude said:

I thought M61 Vulcan was the same gun used by F-5 which behave very differently. I was clearly wrong about that but I absolutely believe ED's A2G F-16 has a frankenstein FM following the same pattern of Black Shark 3, which some may actually view as a positive (and many aren't complaining)

I think the beer made me come across more confrontational than I would like to be, so my apologies. 🙂

11 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's more like that we don't have the proper Redfor counterparts of NATO jets currently in the sim. The MiG-29K, for instance, or Su-30MKI or MKK. Granted, most of those did not fly with Russia in that time period, being sold abroad, but that's how things were in mid-2000s. Sadly, the militaries that operate them are not forthcoming with the data, maybe Deka can figure something out with the Chinese, but it's more likely we'll be stuck with 90s hardware just like Russian AF was in that period. These will obviously lag behind mid-2000s designs.

The Russians have problems because their training sucks. When other people, such as China or India (or even Ukraine), use their kit, they get great results. If you systematically defraud training funds, don't be surprised if your soldiers are poorly trained. Redfor performance in DCS reflects that, Su-27 and MiG-29 are very good aircraft, but they need to be flown properly. An average DCS virtual squadron is probably better trained than actual Russian pilots.

Much better explanation than I could manage. It’s the man in the box etc. Interestingly isn’t the reverse true in DCS WWII? The reds have more modern planes than the blues.

10 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

To some extent. You still ain't winning fighsts against western Fox-3's with 27ER or even 77-1. Let alone lack of a standard multi-domain link system and sensors.

In the article one of the pilots did say that the Russian AWACS (can’t remember the proper name) was giving them real headaches, and they don’t have the equivalent. Very low level flying seems to be the order of the day. So I’d imagine a bunch of data linked nato jets with all there fancy bells and whistles plus awacs support would have pretty huge advantage over an opposition without that stuff. But then again I’ve no idea what the redfor planes in DCS have in that regard which could explain my terrible performance in MP, know your enemy and all that 😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...