Is there any possibility of us getting the F14D-Super Tomcat?

So yeah, tittle says it all... what do you guys think?

Would be cool to get a tomcat with Datalink and the AN/APG-71

I know we most likely won't get it but in general, if we did, what would you guys think about it? Would it be too OP or something?

Oh and i have a question about the AIM-54C Phonix too, how do you guys think it will perform against fighters (trying to avoid it of course)?

By the way...Did the F14D have ground attack capacities like the F14B-Bombcat?

:book::helpsmilie::smartass::pilotfly::huh:

There are systems/data in the F-14D that Leatherneck wouldn't be able to get their hands on meaning there would be a lot of "gap filling" in terms of capability - by this I mean the systems like LANTIRN 40K, T3, FTI (ie targeting systems) ROVER 3 was also implemented in a very limited few F-14D's I believe (basically a full motion videolink that could be sent to a FAC's computer/laptop).

It would lack the fidelity of the F-14A, A+/B.

The F-14D was most certainly capable of ground attack and was highly efficient at it, it gave the USN a very capable punch - the sad fate was it was replaced by an aircraft with less payload and range, but financially - better to run in terms of cost.

The AIM-54 Phoenix was very much a symbiotic missile with the F-14 - The combination of AWG-9 and the AIM-54A and later C was a very strong deterrent. The AIM-54 was predominantly designed for destroying bombers/large strike aircraft - it (supposedly) had a rather sophisticated (for the time) ability to operate well in a high ECM environment not to mention it's own active radar guidance in the terminal phase - it could also pull some surprisingly tight turns it seems for such a large missile.

It could also intercept cruise missiles and the AIM-54C model had a programmable ECM capability allowing it to be adapted to encountered ECM.

With the AWG's ability to track 24 simultaneous targets in TWS mode (and hence yet another display of the need for an RIO) it could also then launch 6 AIM-54's on those targets. That is a hell of a lot of potential destruction headed the enemies way - especially of it was a bomber/strike fleet.

The Iranians claimed AIM-54 kills and honestly I believe them especially when many of Iraqs aircraft at the time did not have RWR's fitted (it is also why those craft often were grouped with Mirage F1's which did have a RWR). A rear aspect shot from a Phoenix on a non-RWR craft would be a high probability kill I imagine.

The Iranians have since created their own AIM-54, the Fakour-90, which is a reverse engineered AIM-54.

The USN did launch some AIM-54C's in combat I believe, two launched though failed due to the motors failing and another was launched that struck the ground chasing it's target.

Now a few things to consider - in the first Iraq war - where the F-14 was at it's "prime" the ROE prevented BVR engagements - which meant that that long arm the F-14 had was hampered. F-15's took the role of CAP due to their IFF ability which at the time, the F-14 did not meet the requirements of. So the sampling rate for AIM-54 missile failure wasn't potentially representative of it's actual failure rate. If the ROE were different we may have seen AIM-54 "kills".

There are systems/data in the F-14D that Leatherneck wouldn't be able to get their hands on meaning there would be a lot of "gap filling" in terms of capability - by this I mean the systems like LANTIRN 40K, T3, FTI (ie targeting systems) ROVER 3 was also implemented in a very limited few F-14D's I believe (basically a full motion videolink that could be sent to a FAC's computer/laptop).

 

It would lack the fidelity of the F-14A, A+/B.

 

The F-14D was most certainly capable of ground attack and was highly efficient at it, it gave the USN a very capable punch - the sad fate was it was replaced by an aircraft with less payload and range, but financially - better to run in terms of cost.

 

The AIM-54 Phoenix was very much a symbiotic missile with the F-14 - The combination of AWG-9 and the AIM-54A and later C was a very strong deterrent. The AIM-54 was predominantly designed for destroying bombers/large strike aircraft - it (supposedly) had a rather sophisticated (for the time) ability to operate well in a high ECM environment not to mention it's own active radar guidance in the terminal phase - it could also pull some surprisingly tight turns it seems for such a large missile.

 

It could also intercept cruise missiles and the AIM-54C model had a programmable ECM capability allowing it to be adapted to encountered ECM.

 

With the AWG's ability to track 24 simultaneous targets in TWS mode (and hence yet another display of the need for an RIO) it could also then launch 6 AIM-54's on those targets. That is a hell of a lot of potential destruction headed the enemies way - especially of it was a bomber/strike fleet.

 

The Iranians claimed AIM-54 kills and honestly I believe them especially when many of Iraqs aircraft at the time did not have RWR's fitted (it is also why those craft often were grouped with Mirage F1's which did have a RWR). A rear aspect shot from a Phoenix on a non-RWR craft would be a high probability kill I imagine.

 

The Iranians have since created their own AIM-54, the Fakour-90, which is a reverse engineered AIM-54.

 

The USN did launch some AIM-54C's in combat I believe, two launched though failed due to the motors failing and another was launched that struck the ground chasing it's target.

 

Now a few things to consider - in the first Iraq war - where the F-14 was at it's "prime" the ROE prevented BVR engagements - which meant that that long arm the F-14 had was hampered. F-15's took the role of CAP due to their IFF ability which at the time, the F-14 did not meet the requirements of. So the sampling rate for AIM-54 missile failure wasn't potentially representative of it's actual failure rate. If the ROE were different we may have seen AIM-54 "kills".

Very informative post, thank you!

EDIT: I feel kind of sad that they wouldn't be able to get all the info they need since i'd love to fly the F14D in DCS ;-;

Did the ED get the license or help from northrop on F-18c?

If they could for now, maybe they can developed F-14D and 54c in the future.

Did the ED get the license or help from northrop on F-18c?

If they could for now, maybe they can developed F-14D and 54c in the future.

I have no idea :/

Very informative post, thank you!

 

EDIT: I feel kind of sad that they wouldn't be able to get all the info they need since i'd love to fly the F14D in DCS ;-;

Me too!

It has the impressive combination of reasonably modern avionics (F-15C era) with a big radar dish and novel sensors (IRST).

However, creating an F-14D would probably require something like +80% new code (all new avionics, RADAR, HUD, IRST, totally new cockpit, different ARI for the flight model, and a few small exterior 3-d model revisions). Maybe it would happen a few years after the F-14A/B depending on interest and such - but it really would be a totally new module.

One thing, it is almost certain that LNS will create an AIM-54C since it was the version used from ~1989 till retirement (first operational in 1986, but you don't see them mounted to F-14s in pictures till 1989 or 1990). The F-14B needs it to be complete.

The real question in my mind: will their be an AIM-54A? The AIM-54C wasn't in routine fleet use till Desert Storm (more or less), so a mid-80s F-14A would sort-of need the AIM-54A (as would IRIAF F-14s). That said, their capabilities weren't so different (besides general reliability in changing to digital avionics and better ECM resistance). I would be fine with an AIM-54A skin if need be - since it wouldn't effect game play much.

-Nick

Me too!

 

It has the impressive combination of reasonably modern avionics (F-15C era) with a big radar dish and novel sensors (IRST).

 

However, creating an F-14D would probably require something like +80% new code (all new avionics, RADAR, HUD, IRST, totally new cockpit, different ARI for the flight model, and a few small exterior 3-d model revisions). Maybe it would happen a few years after the F-14A/B depending on interest and such - but it really would be a totally new module.

 

One thing, it is almost certain that LNS will create an AIM-54C since it was the version used from ~1989 till retirement (first operational in 1986, but you don't see them mounted to F-14s in pictures till 1989 or 1990). The F-14B needs it to be complete.

 

The real question in my mind: will their be an AIM-54A? The AIM-54C wasn't in routine fleet use till Desert Storm (more or less), so a mid-80s F-14A would sort-of need the AIM-54A (as would IRIAF F-14s). That said, their capabilities weren't so different (besides general reliability in changing to digital avionics and better ECM resistance). I would be fine with an AIM-54A skin if need be - since it wouldn't effect game play much.

 

-Nick

Yeah i think so too, and likely, there will probally be some AIM-54As since well it's Leatherneck :)

Back when I played the Ace Combat games, the F14A and B didn't have a HUD thingy, their HUD was like right in the glass, but the F14D at least in the Ace Combat Games had a little HUD in front of the glass, not sure how to describe it, here take a look

F14A: In Ace Combat 5

F14D in Ace Combat Assault Horizon:

That's correct, the F-14A and F-14B (pre-sparrowhawk in the early 2000s) did not have a separate HUD combiner - it was projected straight onto the windscreen. The F-14A was originally going to have a separate combiner and some early cockpit schematics show it, but there were issues (I forget exactly - maybe vibration or visibility problems?) Direct projection required a reflective coating on the windscreen for the HUD to be visible. You can see the tidemark in this photo - look closely at the upper windscreen and how it is a bit more reflective:

This reflective coating would cause some problems, it interfered with NVG a bit, would reflect some sunlight when flying away from the sun, and windscreen distortion at high speed would also distort the HUD images.

The F-14D had a much better HUD and also had a separate combiner as shown in your F-14D cockpit image - that is indeed correct. It also solved the issues that I mentioned above.

The F-14B would later get a HUD that looked almost exactly like the F-14D's (Sparrowhawk HUD) with the same symbology as the F-14D. But it wasn't in widespread operation till the last 2-3 years of the F-14B's service. LNS does not plan to model it (very reasonable choice in my mind).

-Nick

That's correct, the F-14A and F-14B (pre-sparrowhawk in the early 2000s) did not have a separate HUD combiner - it was projected straight onto the windscreen. The F-14A was originally going to have a separate combiner and some early cockpit schematics show it, but there were issues (I forget exactly - maybe vibration or visibility problems?) Direct projection required a reflective coating on the windscreen for the HUD to be visible. You can see the tidemark in this photo - look closely at the upper windscreen and how it is a bit more reflective:

 

 

This reflective coating would cause some problems, it interfered with NVG a bit, would reflect some sunlight when flying away from the sun, and windscreen distortion at high speed would also distort the HUD images.

 

The F-14D had a much better HUD and also had a separate combiner as shown in your F-14D cockpit image - that is indeed correct. It also solved the issues that I mentioned above.

 

The F-14B would later get a HUD that looked almost exactly like the F-14D's (Sparrowhawk HUD) with the same symbology as the F-14D. But it wasn't in widespread operation till the last 2-3 years of the F-14B's service. LNS does not plan to model it (very reasonable choice in my mind).

 

-Nick

Yeah I agree with you, if they plan to model the plane from the 90s then it shouldn't really have it, but if I were them, I'd model the F14B from 2003 since it had the Upgraded HUD Thingy...

I talk about the F14D or more advanced versions of the F14B/A because well, when it comes, it will be going up against F15Cs, Su 27/33s and MiG 29s so I really do think the Tomcat should be at it's very best!

By the way, how do you guys think the combats with this beauty will be?

Against the F15 and the Russian Planes? :huh::book:

By the way, how do you guys think the combats with this beauty will be?

 

Against the F15 and the Russian Planes? :huh::book:

I think the F-14B in particular will be quite competitive. The avionics are older/simpler, but the radar and weapons system are quite powerful and help to offset that. Plus, the presence of a backseater (AI or real) will definitely help engagements - even just the benefit of another set of eyes for spotting.

F-14B aerodynamic performance/thrust to weight will compare favorably with the F-15C and Su-27/MiG-29, but it will be a less forgiving aircraft to fly.

The F-14A will probably still hold it's own under certain conditions (below 10,000'), but a well flown Eagle will be a tough opponent for the F-14A - hard to get around that. There are plenty of opportunities for the F-14A pilot, but less so than with the F-14B.

But take all of these comments with a grain of salt, we'll have to see once the modules are out.

-Nick

I was really confused as to why they chose to do that A and B models instead of the B and/or D.

But honestly I'll take any Tomcat. I can't wait to take you all into the danger-zone.

I was really confused as to why they chose to do that A and B models instead of the B and/or D.

 

But honestly I'll take any Tomcat. I can't wait to take you all into the danger-zone.

The A and A+/B vary differently enough from each other that you will notice a difference.

The engines are perhaps the most noticeable of these differences.

The F-14 A's TF 30 engines provided 20,840lbs max of thrust each, would compressor stall if, the AoA was too high, if the aircraft was above 30000ft and if the throttle was moved too aggressively - causing oscillations in yaw, general control loss and flat spins. It allowed a max speed of Mach 2.3 and the thrust:weight ratio (at max take off load) was only 0.56 (quite low).

The F-14 A+ (later B's) had the F110 engine which provided 20 (ish)% more thrust (about 26,700 lbs each). The engine was also much more reliable and could be handled more aggressively by the pilot. The Thrust:weight ratio (max weight) increased to 0.73.

Link to differences between the two engines: [ame]http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/engines.pdf[/ame]

While both aircraft may seem the same they are quite different from each other. yes the F-14D was the Rolls Royce model with all the gadgets but given that many/most of it's systems are still classified it would lack that authentic feel of the older and less classified models.

I was really confused as to why they chose to do that A and B models instead of the B and/or D.

 

But honestly I'll take any Tomcat. I can't wait to take you all into the danger-zone.

There are a fair number of people who actually prefer the F-14A to the F-14B or F-14D - I am one of those people. :)

I suppose it depends on your intended use. Those who think about multi-player duels want the F-14D - it has the most capability. But I think that the F-14A is a more entertaining option for single-player missions, etc. The F-14A is a much more challenging aircraft to learn, fly, and fight - which means much more reward for really learning the aircraft. The F-14A is full of pitfalls and "secret handshakes". The difference between your 1st or 2nd flight and 30th flight is really significant - I love things like that!

With the Aerosoft F-14A (for P3D/FSX) there was a huge change in my flying, I used to get flame-outs all the time, but after a few weeks of practice I almost never experienced an engine stall. This is much more rewarding IMHO.

I still plan to fly the F-14B a lot and for MP stuff, the F-14B has most of the F-14D's strengths. But for me, the flaws of the F-14A are both endearing and irreplaceable. It will be great fun learning to bring her aboard the boat (especially since none of us have to worry about getting hurt in the process). ;)

-Nick

Yeah I agree with you, if they plan to model the plane from the 90s then it shouldn't really have it, but if I were them, I'd model the F14B from 2003 since it had the Upgraded HUD Thingy...

 

I talk about the F14D or more advanced versions of the F14B/A because well, when it comes, it will be going up against F15Cs, Su 27/33s and MiG 29s so I really do think the Tomcat should be at it's very best!

 

By the way, how do you guys think the combats with this beauty will be?

 

Against the F15 and the Russian Planes? :huh::book:

The F-14's main strength is its turning performance below M 0.75 where it will outperform most other aircraft including the F-15C, and likely also the MiG-29. (Unsurprisingly it probably won't supercede the Su-27 in this area however, but very few aircraft will)

Against an F-15: If you survive past the BVR segment and achieve a merge then it will be about pointing your nose around at him as quick as possible for a rear aspect shot before he can climb away. The F-14 should be able to get on the F-15's tail within a couple of turns if he chooses to enter a turn fight with you. However the smart F-15 pilot will take it into the vertical, which you then have to discourage him from doing with some sparrow shots.

It would be an interesting fight no doubt.

I think the F-14B in particular will be quite competitive. The avionics are older/simpler, but the radar and weapons system are quite powerful and help to offset that. Plus, the presence of a backseater (AI or real) will definitely help engagements - even just the benefit of another set of eyes for spotting.

 

F-14B aerodynamic performance/thrust to weight will compare favorably with the F-15C and Su-27/MiG-29, but it will be a less forgiving aircraft to fly.

 

The F-14A will probably still hold it's own under certain conditions (below 10,000'), but a well flown Eagle will be a tough opponent for the F-14A - hard to get around that. There are plenty of opportunities for the F-14A pilot, but less so than with the F-14B.

 

But take all of these comments with a grain of salt, we'll have to see once the modules are out.

 

-Nick

I think the F14B will be competitive too. :D

By the way do you think the MiG29s will survive AIM-54 impacts? LOL

MiG29s and their broken damage models xD

The A and A+/B vary differently enough from each other that you will notice a difference.

 

The engines are perhaps the most noticeable of these differences.

 

The F-14 A's TF 30 engines provided 20,840lbs max of thrust each, would compressor stall if, the AoA was too high, if the aircraft was above 30000ft and if the throttle was moved too aggressively - causing oscillations in yaw, general control loss and flat spins. It allowed a max speed of Mach 2.3 and the thrust:weight ratio (at max take off load) was only 0.56 (quite low).

 

The F-14 A+ (later B's) had the F110 engine which provided 20 (ish)% more thrust (about 26,700 lbs each). The engine was also much more reliable and could be handled more aggressively by the pilot. The Thrust:weight ratio (max weight) increased to 0.73.

 

 

Link to differences between the two engines: http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/engines.pdf

 

 

 

While both aircraft may seem the same they are quite different from each other. yes the F-14D was the Rolls Royce model with all the gadgets but given that many/most of it's systems are still classified it would lack that authentic feel of the older and less classified models.

How about the F14B's Thrust to weight ratio with guns only?

How about the F14B's Thrust to weight ratio with guns only?

The lighter the aircraft the better the ratio. So guns only it would perform better than fully laden. With reduced fuel it would again perform better as well.

As to the exact numbers? I am unsure as to exact numbers but IIRC, With fuel/minimal weapons I believe the F-14 A's Thrust:Weight is about 0.85 the F-14 B's (and D's) is about 1.10.

That may not seem like a big difference, but it is. Those F110 engines were magic with the F-14. The B's will be a significantly better performer in the multiplayer arena - though I wouldn't write off A's as sitting ducks - if you can fly it to it's strengths it will perform very well.

The lighter the aircraft the better the ratio. So guns only it would perform better than fully laden. With reduced fuel it would again perform better as well.

 

As to the exact numbers? I am unsure as to exact numbers but IIRC, With fuel/minimal weapons I believe the F-14 A's Thrust:Weight is about 0.85 the F-14 B's (and D's) is about 1.10.

 

That may not seem like a big difference, but it is. Those F110 engines were magic with the F-14. The B's will be a significantly better performer in the multiplayer arena - though I wouldn't write off A's as sitting ducks - if you can fly it to it's strengths it will perform very well.

Wow! 1.10?! That's amazing, if im not mistaken the F14 weights about 72000 Lbs, those engines are beasts!

And that's almost the same as the F15, I think the F15's is arround 1.14 :O

God I love the F14 talk I can't wait. I love my f15 but she may be parked for good when this baby comes out.

How the Aim54 will compare depends on a lot of things, but primarily on two. First of all getting its flight model right, or more accurately its range. Considering the current state of BVR missiles in DCS this is something Im lately very worried about.

Secondly it depends on the implementation of the TWS mode of the radar. Does the F14 radar switch to STT before initiating launch, or can it launch in TWS mode without giving off a launch warning? Depending on the range of the missiles and how stealthily they can be fired the F14 will either be a very scary opponent, that needs to be respected as soon as they show up on your radar or RWR, or a predictably tame turkey. Excuse the pun ;)

One other thing to consider, a nimble and maneuverable fighter could probably defeat the missile kinematically or by notching however I do hope that they make the missile fairly chaff resistant, as chaff has lately been eating all radar missiles for breakfast.

The lighter the aircraft the better the ratio. So guns only it would perform better than fully laden. With reduced fuel it would again perform better as well.

 

As to the exact numbers? I am unsure as to exact numbers but IIRC, With fuel/minimal weapons I believe the F-14 A's Thrust:Weight is about 0.85 the F-14 B's (and D's) is about 1.10.

 

That may not seem like a big difference, but it is. Those F110 engines were magic with the F-14. The B's will be a significantly better performer in the multiplayer arena - though I wouldn't write off A's as sitting ducks - if you can fly it to it's strengths it will perform very well.

The TF-30 doesn't just make 20k of thrust at every airspeed and altitude- It makes 30000lbs of thrust at Mach .9 at sea level. A light clean F-14A has a T-W greater than 1 if you're low on gas.

The TF-30 doesn't just make 20k of thrust at every airspeed and altitude- It makes 30000lbs of thrust at Mach .9 at sea level. A light clean F-14A has a T-W greater than 1 if you're low on gas.

Correct, it isn't a set amount of thrust at all altitudes and conditions; the attached chart I put in an earlier post provides info from the USN on the performance difference between the engine types and some basic altitude differences - At sea level and at altitude. It isn't a be all and end all of various configurations, fuel loads etcetera as that certainly does sway the T:W result.

The F110 engines were a great improvement over the TF-30's in terms of reliability and usability . It doesn't mean that the TF-30 didn't have it's advantages though or that the F-14A was a useless combat aircraft.

The F110 engines were a great improvement over the TF-30's in terms of reliability and usability . It doesn't mean that the TF-30 didn't have it's advantages though or that the F-14A was a useless combat aircraft.

Very true, the TF30 can make impressive power at low altitudes or high speeds as Turkeydriver said. Static T/W ratios give a rather incomplete view of aircraft performance since so many factors effect actual engine thrust. The F-15C's T/W ratio at combat weight is actually 0.6.....@25,000' where it's engines make less than half of their rated static thrust.

The T/W ratio is helpful for comparisons and guestimating relative capabilities, but not something to dwell on IMHO. Different airframe/engine combinations will have different ideal altitudes and conditions.

For the F-14A and the TF30, it loves the air at low altitude and it's performance is much better. The TF30 gets a surprisingly big boost at low altitudes or high speeds. However, the TF30 also sees more deterioration in thrust with altitude than most other afterburning turbofans. Both reliability and power are at their best below 10,000', but US training doctrine dictates that all ACM training have a minimum hard-deck of 10,000' . As a result, the F-14A almost never got to fight under it's ideal conditions (though many Tomcat drivers did have the chance to engage closer to the deck during some international training missions, etc). However, in Fleet and RAG training, F-14A's would still routinely beat F-14B/D's in ACM training.

And of course this is worth considering:

And this:

Gunning down eagles...how it all started :)

The F-14A has fewer tools to work with and A LOT more gotchas than either the F-14B/D or other 4th gen fighters, but it was still quite capable if operated properly.

-Nick

the story is great and all but how come we only got 2 lines about the actual title and 3 paragraphs about hoser ?

the story is great and all but how come we only got 2 lines about the actual title and 3 paragraphs about hoser ?

Not sure, I didn't write the article. Though I suppose that there may not be very many details concerning the actual encounter, no one was supposed to talk about it publicly, mostly because there was a fear that it would hurt international F-15 sales.

Plus, the article title is about both Hoser and the Tomcat's success in the first Tomcat vs Eagle hassle.

Maybe I didn't sell it right. ;) But I liked this article so I figured it was worth sharing.

-Nick