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

That's true. And I concede that opinions like these have no incorrect answer. We like what we like, and since it harms no one, neither is wrong.

This was a lot of fun. I hope we both can be indicative to the community that disagreements such as this one can be civily debated.

Thank you.

The Iranian F-14A

During the Ian Iraq war, F-14s were the main aerial force for the Iranian Air Force and reportedly shot down 160 Iraqi aircraft..

...

Out of all the pilots who shot down Iraqi aircraft, the one pilot who had the most kills was “Jalil Zandi” who shot down 11 Iraqi planes.

I remain unmoved by old hotrods that had a disadvantage at visual ranges because they were painted up like billboards. There is a reason they all went to the TPS scheme, and it was generally a good one.

Not always a disadvantage. In a battlescape deprived of perfect SA, blue on blue kills are very much a real danger. Having your AC painted in unique and easily recognizable patterns helps with IFF, especially in the visual arena :thumbup:

Not always a disadvantage. In a battlescape deprived of perfect SA, blue on blue kills are very much a real danger. Having your AC painted in unique and easily recognizable patterns helps with IFF, especially in the visual arena :thumbup:

Being harder to see by everyone would still be a better bet than being easily identifiable by everyone. This was one of the tertiary findings of ACEVAL/AIMVAL and why those garrish liveries went away and haven't come back except in CAG birds.

During the Ian Iraq war, F-14s were the main aerial force for the Iranian Air Force

No. They were the spearhead of Iranian air superiority and of course, as you said, the most successful in that role. Anyway, the F-4s and F-5s carried the weight of a huge lot of instrumental missions.

This was one of the tertiary findings of ACEVAL/AIMVAL

IIRC yes, but one of the findings was also that WVR should be avoided at all costs, and that all aspect missiles will make it redundant. Take away liberal engagements and WVR IFF is still important.

... and why those garrish liveries went away and haven't come back except in CAG birds.

I actually asked the same question several times, both on aviation forums and to people that actively served in the Navy around that time. It appears no one can give me a decisive answer as to why the high-vis schemes went away, so this makes sense as one of the possible explanations.

IIRC yes, but one of the findings was also that WVR should be avoided at all costs, and that all aspect missiles will make it redundant. Take away liberal engagements and WVR IFF is still important.

Being distinctive would be adequate enough without needing to paint the jet up like a barrio wagon on its way to a car show.

I actually asked the same question several times, both on aviation forums and to people that actively served in the Navy around that time. It appears no one can give me a decisive answer as to why the high-vis schemes went away, so this makes sense as one of the possible explanations.

It wasn't the only reason. TPS is also easier on corrosion control efforts. It's not as exciting, but the economics of maintenace helped make TPS a reality.

Being distinctive would be adequate enough without needing to paint the jet up like a barrio wagon on its way to a car show.

 

We gonna have to disagree on this one. Personally i find distinct pattern very useful, especially in chaotic furballs. :joystick:

The funny thing if you think about it. HB does the Iranian F14A or a close enough version. We have the F5E, we will have the F4... Mig 29... Su25... DCS will be the IRAF simulator.

We gonna have to disagree on this one. Personally i find distinct pattern very useful, especially in chaotic furballs. :joystick:

You can. The Navy made its own choices based on evaluation and studies, and I agree with it. Doesn't mean I don't like some of those colorful old jets, I just appreciate the TPS for its purpose.

The funny thing if you think about it. HB does the Iranian F14A or a close enough version. We have the F5E, we will have the F4... Mig 29... Su25... DCS will be the IRAF simulator.

We need an Ormuz map !

#OhWait :D

F-14A When ??

"The Heatblur Simulations F-14A/B Tomcat aims to simulate this iconic aircraft as a high-fidelity module for DCS World. This module is the culmination of several years of research, coding and modelling."

-> I buying this modul for the F-14A !

"The F-14A and the TARPS pod will follow later during the Early Access period and the tutorials and campaigns will be implemented and expanded during this early access as well."

-> Ok HB but When for the F-14A ?

:confused:

I'd rather see the D model

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I most want a mature F-14D and 2004 era F-14B (perhaps that as a sequel module with hypothetical Super Tomcat 21 F-14E). Though can see the appeal of Cold War scenarios with late 1970s, early 1980s high viz F-14A as well, it's probably last on my personal list.

Iranian Cats would be great for adversaries, no doubt. Doubt we'd see Fakour 90 or anything like that, though so limited to early AIM-54A...

The F-14A is dead ? Corona?

The A is not dead.

Iranian F-14A or the Classic. Upgraded is too close the one we have.

Two words: GLOVE VANES

What he said.

Glove vanes and the old hi-viz paint schemes, that's what I want.

I remain unmoved by old hotrods that had a disadvantage at visual ranges because they were painted up like billboards. There is a reason they all went to the TPS scheme, and it was generally a good one.

 

Still, I won't begrudge anyone putting liveries they like on a plane. I was raised not to kink shame.

:lol:

There was something about the 70s F-14A and the clean hi-viz paint schemes I just loved. The drawback being the even more temperamental TF-30 P-412A, before F-14As began receiving the slightly better P-414 engine.

I hope we get an option to disable glove vanes. They were deleted fairly early on from what I recall. Those who like them can turn them on, those who don't can turn them off.

I hope we get an option to disable glove vanes. They were deleted fairly early on from what I recall. Those who like them can turn them on, those who don't can turn them off.

Many have done so by the end of the 80's, others kept them around till the end.

Weren't they generally kept until they broke and disabled instead of repaired after that?

Weren't they generally kept until they broke and disabled instead of repaired after that?

Going off of memory, it depended on the squadron. Some disabled them, some waited for them to break, then disabled them, some kept them functional. There's images from the mid-1990s of F-14As with their glove vanes rolled out, and their description and functionality is still found in the the 1997 NATOPS for the F-14A. As the 90s wore on, they were disabled more and more often. They were removed from the A's NATOPS by 2003, so some time before then, they had been deactivated across the fleet.

F-14A – VF-124 – US Navy – 1978

NAS Miramar AB