Iranian Tomcats with Russian missiles, possible for DCS??

I thought the same, though the IRIAF did manage to successfully fire a HAWK from an F-14. Though getting the HAWK to fire might be simpler since its US made with US avionics. Of course the HAWK proved to be more or less useless as an A-A weapon. It had way too many restrictions built into its guidance (max altitude limits, limited range, etc).

 

Getting the R-27 to integrate with the AWG-9 seems like a mighty feat, but certainly the IRIAF had a lot of time to work on it. It would be a big upgrade from the AIM-7E-4 (the most advanced version of the Sparrow in the IRIAF), its hard to know how many avionics are even original at this point.

 

The IRIAF did manage to receive Tomcat spares for a few years, courtesy of the Iran-Contra affair. Most of the shipments were TOW missiles (over 2500 units) and HAWK SAMS, but several shipments were listed as "aircraft and missile spare parts". One of the shipments that exposed the operation included a complete F-14 canopy.

 

 

 

[/indent]Luckily, IRIAF Tomcats have been planned all along.

 

 

 

Yes, especially since both the F-14 and F-4s used them extensively. There inventory of Sparrows was probably quite good at the start of the war since the Sparrow had been operational with the IIAF for a while. The IIAF ordered 714 Phoenixes, but only about 300 were delivered (though I've read a few different estimates - another said 496).

 

-Nick

This does not really have a bearing on this discussion but the Sparrow stocks were likely as good as they might have been using different Aim-7 Variants.

The Aim-7E-4 was developed with a modified seeker to be compatible with the F-14.

So im not sure the F-4 could carry and use the Aim-7E-4.

And if that was the case then the F-4 would have carried another Aim-7E variant.

So most of the Aim-7s Iran had were likely not Aim-7E4s so they might have been carried by the F-14.

But yea if it can be "proven" that the Iranian F-14A was able to use the R-27 (With the AWG-9 radar if in a modified form)

There are Rumors / statements circling that atleast some of the Iranian F-14s have been upgraded / modified with new radars (probably of Chinese origin) and if that is the case it might be only those were R-27 capable.

But i say Leatherneck and the community in general could try to look into it what kind of weapons the Iranians F-14s can/could use and how they made them compatible.

So im not sure the F-4 could carry and use the Aim-7E-4.

I'm not sure either, every reference to the F-4D/E mention the E-2 variant.

But i say Leatherneck and the community in general could try to look into it what kind of weapons the Iranians F-14s can/could use and how they made them compatible.

It will be tough separating wheat from chaff - so much of what is released (from a photo reference standpoint) is carefully controlled and is likely propaganda (like the R-27 photo most likely). Photos in places like "www.airliners.net" show the Tomcats unarmed in nearly every shot and those who are armed are carrying just a sidewinder or sparrow.

I don't think they want us to know what they can or cannot do...

-Nick

Iranian Tomcats have being overhauled and upgraded to the AM variant which includes a Digital radar, APUs and a New Fire-control system with the capability to Carry Iranian Weapons like the Fakkur and the Maghsoud missile as well as the Russian R-73E.

Well, just my two cents... Irianians tried to hang just ]

 

Appearantly Iranian pilots are bored very quickly, they even included some kind of car stereo in it.

 

That must have been designed with amputees in mind, because it doesn't look like there is any leg room there at all!

... and as they clearly sated, they are also going to make Iranian Tomcats available.

We mostly meant liveries and an option to use an uncovered fuel probe.

We mostly meant liveries and an option to use an uncovered fuel probe.

But, Cobra847 said he liked the idea. And in order to make uncovered fuel probes a reality, another model will be needed anyways. So might as well go all out on the new upgrades and additions (hopefully if possible), and the good thing is, the modernized version that can carry the R-73, AIM-9J, AIM-54A+ and other missiles has another name called the F-14AM. So with this designation, you can have both the normal F-14A be working for both Iran and the USN with their regular package, and then have the AM variant be only for Iran with it's awesome upgrade package and it's ability to use this mix of Russian and American missiles :thumbup:

Have a look at it here........ http://defence.pk/threads/f-14-am-new-iranian-modernized-f-14-capable-firing-fakur-missile.242127/

Another model is not needed. A simple visibility argument would be added to it, then under the special options menu; you can turn it on or off.

The idea is great; no doubt, but that doesn't mean it will happen. It mostly depends on the time we have, and you guys know how we are on deadlines :D

Another model is not needed. A simple visibility argument would be added to it, then under the special options menu; you can turn it on or off.

 

The idea is great; no doubt, but that doesn't mean it will happen. It mostly depends on the time we have, and you guys know how we are on deadlines :D

*Sigh!* Oh well, I'd wouldn't mind giving you guys more time if you needed but anyways. I do certainly wish it was possible though :/

What -Rudel- means is that we'll look into it.

What fictionalized actually means is a matter of the details; not whether it happened or was possible at all. We're quite aware that some experimental compatability tests weren't really realistic.

How were the computer systems rewired, if at all. HUD/AWG indications, pylon limitations, etc- etc.

I look forward to whatever you guys decide to do.

I would be awesome if we could have the AM variant but how can someone find info on it? I don't think it is possible. :(

I would be awesome if we could have the AM variant but how can someone can info on it? I don't think it is possible. :(

Therein lies the problem, how much of the data is simple propaganda, deliberate misinformation or simply flat out unknown. While they could model an Iranian F-14 they probably wouldn't be able to model any avionic changes well, it would be guess work and it would become reliant on suspected changes. Just because we have a picture of an F-14 with an R-27 on it doesn't mean it actually works with it - though feasibly it is something Iran would have to look at given it's stocks of US missiles won't last forever.

Now If they limit the Iranian F-14 to the original models delivered then all they really need is the skins to be changed for those F-14's and the implementation of AIM-7E's.

I would actually enjoy an Iranian F-14 given that it saw active combat duty.

Well, just my two cents... Irianians tried to hang just about anything with a rocketmotor on their F14's. Including an HAWK missile wich is supposed to be a SAM.

 

 

This does not mean it actually works like a normal AA missile. This might have been for publicity reasons only. They do more stuff like that. Like a few years ago, they pretended to develop a stealthfighter of their own.

 

 

Appearantly Iranian pilots are bored very quickly, they even included some kind of car stereo in it.

 

 

And it is not supposed to fly faster then about 260knots acording the speedometer.

 

Anyways, the PR guys in the Iranian defence forces sometimes make things up that cannot be really the truth. As with the AA-10, I can not imagine it would actually be usable. I mean, any nutcase (pun intended) with a wrench can bolt it on, but will they be able to lock the target with an american radar and guide a russian missile to it? Or maybe they've put in some kind of american seeker-head on the AA10 missile. I don't think this AA-10 is really usable on the F-14 in real-life.

Yep even the top pic is a photoshop- you don't fire weapons with full flaps and the correct pylon adapter isn't even installed. I know they fired the HAWK SAM from the F-14, but they never hit anything with it.

Too much work and a waste of time if we have no idea what the differences really are

Im sorry, I didnt realize that Changing the Pylon Data and a Few sensor type lines in the DATA LUA File was "Too Much Work"

It really doesnt matter, as the AI Ingores everything outside of that LUA,

So you can take the F-14A LUA, Save As F-14AM LUA

Change the Declare Name, the Name, Display Name, Adjust and SFM Specifics,

Goto the Pylons and add R-73E, AIM-54A+ “Fakkur”, AIM-54A, AIM-7E and AIM-9J, etc

Got the Sensors Block, and Change the RWR, Radar, etc Types to something from the Russian Side to diffrentiate from the -A's

Create a New Weapon Type and Declaration for "Fakkur", Change Parameters to whatever the fakkur has over the Vanilla AIM-54

1 Extra LUA Files, = 50KB Extra, then Put the IIAF Liveries for the -AM within the /Liveries/<Module Name>/ Folder.

It's not hard. I have done AI Modules that are 8 Aircraft in a Single Folder Using Different LUAs and Separate Liveries.

Would be nice, unless they fix the AIM-7M Sparrow, cause it sucks :/

Anyway, we will also get Chinese and Russian F-14 w/ phoenix, since they is no country lock for planes & weapons. :music_whistling:

Leave enough room for skilled texture makers to enjoy :thumbup:

LOL thats gonna be funny, (Canadian) CF-14 Tomcat. Since theres no country lock.

Getting the IHAWK Missile to "work" on the tomcat won't be too difficult from an electronic perspective. Though it wouldn't be effective.

The IHAWK missile uses no datalink what-so-ever, and homes on its target via an X-Band CW Illuminator (which the AWG-9 has to support it's older sparrow missiles). So really engineers just need to tune the AWG-9 'CW mode' and the passive missile seeker to the same frequency and it 'should' work.

However, unlike the IHAWK illuminator, the AWG-9 illumination would have a doppler shift because of the velocity of the F-14. Because the original IHAWK illuminator wasn't in motion, its unlikely that the missile has a rearward facing receiver for doppler referencing.(no need to receive a reference signal when you 'know' the frequency of the illuminator, and you know it wont be doppler shifted)

Because the illuminator has a doppler shift from the F-14's motion, that the missile is unaware of, it will likely home in on any chaff. Normally chaff gets filtered out because it has no doppler shift, but because the illuminator itself has a doppler shift that the missile is not aware of, it'll think the chaff return has a velocity of it's own and thus not reject it.(this also applies to ground clutter, for the same reason, and is thus not effective in a look-down engagement)

Now it wouldn't be effective at mid-long ranges, as the missile would fly PN all the way, and the seeker needs to pick up the reflection from the rail otherwise it'll go ballistic. So all in all its likely a POS missile that you wouldn't want.

Getting the AA-10 to work would require the replacement of AWG-9 computer and signal processor (and likely a minor re-tuning of the transmitter), in order to support the missile's datalink and illumination. Though, if I were a betting man, I'd say they didn't intend to allow the AWG-9 to support a datalink for mid-course and instead are banking off a short range mode of the missile that only goes off the CW illumination, thus not needing to replace the computer/signal processor. Though, with some re-tuning, they could allow the AA-10 rear-facing receivers to capture the CW illumination for referencing and thus allow the missile to properly reject 0 doppler returns (such as chaff and ground clutter). But again, if they went this route (ie no datalink) then the missile seeker needs to be close enough (or the Target RCS needs to be large enough) to acquire the CW reflection while the missile is on the rail.

If anything, their attempts to get these missiles to work show how desperate the Iranians were to keep their F-14s armed. No worries for them now though, they just got 99% of their military sanctions lifted and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. Now the question is, do they want their Super Flankers in blue or grey...

Now the question is, do they want their Super Flankers in blue or grey...

Why not the F-14-style desert scheme!?

Wasn't that camo modeled after the Flanker prototypes to begin with...? :music_whistling:

Why not the F-14-style desert scheme!?

 

Wasn't that camo modeled after the Flanker prototypes to begin with...? :music_whistling:

Nah, I believe it was their regular camo that we had on other aggressors.

So would the Iranian F-14A be a separate aircraft from the US F-14A? Or will they be one and the same with a checkbox option?

However, unlike the IHAWK illuminator, the AWG-9 illumination would have a doppler shift because of the velocity of the F-14. Because the original IHAWK illuminator wasn't in motion, its unlikely that the missile has a rearward facing receiver for doppler referencing.(no need to receive a reference signal when you 'know' the frequency of the illuminator, and you know it wont be doppler shifted)

 

Because the illuminator has a doppler shift from the F-14's motion, that the missile is unaware of, it will likely home in on any chaff. Normally chaff gets filtered out because it has no doppler shift, but because the illuminator itself has a doppler shift that the missile is not aware of, it'll think the chaff return has a velocity of it's own and thus not reject it.(this also applies to ground clutter, for the same reason, and is thus not effective in a look-down engagement)

Since someone has already taken the liberty of resurrecting ths thread, why do you think Doppler shift is irrelevant for the IHAWK? If anything, it's more relevant because the missile's speed relative to its launching unit is much higher, and as such it's really not much different from an air-launched weapon.

Of course, you can always argue the IHAWK ground station uses a slightly upshifted frequency to accommodate its missile, but that doesn't account for the fact the missile's speed (absolute and relative to its launcher) varies greatly along its flight path. The missile has to be able to track in spite of that, and there I'm finding myself asking if guidance from a tuned AWG-9 really does make as much of a difference as you said it does.

Yep even the top pic is a photoshop- you don't fire weapons with full flaps and the correct pylon adapter isn't even installed. I know they fired the HAWK SAM from the F-14, but they never hit anything with it.

Oh we did hit!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, just my two cents... Irianians tried to hang just about anything with a rocketmotor on their F14's. Including an HAWK missile wich is supposed to be a SAM.

 

 

This does not mean it actually works like a normal AA missile. This might have been for publicity reasons only. They do more stuff like that. Like a few years ago, they pretended to develop a stealthfighter of their own.

 

 

Appearantly Iranian pilots are bored very quickly, they even included some kind of car stereo in it.

 

 

And it is not supposed to fly faster then about 260knots acording the speedometer.

 

Anyways, the PR guys in the Iranian defence forces sometimes make things up that cannot be really the truth. As with the AA-10, I can not imagine it would actually be usable. I mean, any nutcase (pun intended) with a wrench can bolt it on, but will they be able to lock the target with an american radar and guide a russian missile to it? Or maybe they've put in some kind of american seeker-head on the AA10 missile. I don't think this AA-10 is really usable on the F-14 in real-life.

The first picture is photoshopped

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

But again, if they went this route (ie no datalink) then the missile seeker needs to be close enough (or the Target RCS needs to be large enough) to acquire the CW reflection while the missile is on the rail.

The R-27 seeker does not work with CW - needs PD illumination. Also the missile seeker does not acquire anything while its on the rail - its LOAL.