Difference between A GR 135 Early and Late?

[Baco]

Hi, Is it posible to enumerate the differences between the early and late GR 135?

Reason is I am working on a "What If" story where the tomcat is exported.. but of course only A´s ad limited weapons.

SO I was guessing if the late s a good stand in for the early and what exactly changes. as far As I can tell the radar and the EWR will be less capable...

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Baco

[WolfHound009]

Hi, Is it posible to enumerate the differences between the early and late GR 135?
Reason is I am working on a "What If" story where the tomcat is exported.. but of course only A´s ad limited weapons.
SO I was guessing if the late s a good standing for the early and what exactly changes. as far As I can tell the radar and the EWR will be less capable...

I could be wrong but maybe the early one has ALR-45 and the ALQ-100 nub instead of the TCS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prez]

The 135/Early has the old ALR-45 RWR. Other than that they are pretty much the same. Same batch of aircraft, its just that half the block 135s came out before the introduction of the ALR-67 (i.e the Early model) and the other half came out when the ALR-67 was introduced.

 

[Quid]

2 hours ago, Prez said:

The 135/Early has the old ALR-45 RWR. Other than that they are pretty much the same. Same batch of aircraft, its just that half the block 135s came out before the introduction of the ALR-67 (i.e the Early model) and the other half came out when the ALR-67 was introduced.

 

The Block 135 and 140 were not delivered with the ALR-67, rather, the F-14A received the system in the mid-1990s as part of the upgrade program that saw LANTIRN/PTID integration¹.  Strangely, even after it became available, it was never added to the NATOPS (even its final 2004 version doesn't mention the ALR-67).  The thing is, Heatblur have actually pointed out that the "Block" designation isn't really reflective of a given production block, rather an easier way to bin the aircraft in general of an "earlier" F-14A and a "later" F-14A.  See here:

 

 

Sources:

1. Jon Lake (ed.). F-14 Tomcat Shipborne Superfighter. (London, England: Aerospace Publishing, Ltd., 1998), 83, 196.

 

EDIT: It is also worthy of note that pictures of F-14A cockpits as late as 2001 sometimes show no ALR-67 display, so I'm not sure it went fleet-wide, or only a certain batch received them.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Quid

[LanceCriminal86]

I've been digging into this a lot lately.

 

A proper "Block 135" jet from when it was produced is going to have quite a few little visual differences, and the aforementioned system differences.

 

To get to a mid 80s Block 135 as delivered, you'd need to take the existing jet and remove:

 

- The "blisters" just forward of the wing gloves that are part of the ALR-67 RWR.

- The blister on the left nose landing gear door.

- The GPS antenna on the spine that theoretically none of the represented A or B models should have.

- Disable LANTIRN, but potentially keep some / all of the A2G capabilities, even keep ability to carry GBU still as buddy lasing did happen in the first combat drop.

 

You also need to add:

- ALQ-126 antenna around engine intakes.

- Older gun ports, not the early early 7-port ones but the 2-port vents. NACA style were a 90s update across the board for in-service jets.

- Apparently ALR-50 blade antennas, one on the "turtleback" and one on right nose landing gear door.

 

As already said, later in the 90s various upgrades were made to some jets, to include ALR-67, LANTIRN/Digital BUS/PTID, some got DFCS, GPS, and a few other myriad changes. They weren't universal, they weren't fleet wide, but some of them were concentrated into the remaining A model squadrons in the early 00s. I've seen photos from Allied Force that Vflip has been using for his VF-41/14 skins, and there's a mix in there of the different antennas I pointed out above.

 

Whether we are going to get exactly that will be up to Cobra as it's going to require further reworks of the visual model in addition to a number of fixes needed. Some of the above are also related to the B external model, in theory an "updated" 135 as currently presented would be very close to the B that we have, with the same ALR-67 blisters and removed ALR-50 antennas, the same added ALQ-126 antennas, both missing the GPS (unless that was specifically part of the LANTIRN) integration.

 

And to go down another rabbit hole, the Iranian (or US version for that matter) Block 95 has a number of other visual changes, taking the "early" 135 and remove the ALQ-126 (like the current model), change the beaver tail to the older one without the blocky jammer antenna, the older gun vents, remove the small bulges in front of the glove vanes. There's a chance we may only get the "early" 135 with an Iranian paint job and some systems turned off but here's hoping we get the right visual model, as it would also be super useful for proper 80s Tomcat action with the US systems turned back on.

[WolfHound009]

I've been digging into this a lot lately.
 
A proper "Block 135" jet from when it was produced is going to have quite a few little visual differences, and the aforementioned system differences.
 
To get to a mid 80s Block 135 as delivered, you'd need to take the existing jet and remove:
 
- The "blisters" just forward of the wing gloves that are part of the ALR-67 RWR.
- The blister on the left nose landing gear door.
- The GPS antenna on the spine that theoretically none of the represented A or B models should have.
- Disable LANTIRN, but potentially keep some / all of the A2G capabilities, even keep ability to carry GBU still as buddy lasing did happen in the first combat drop.
 
You also need to add:
- ALQ-126 antenna around engine intakes.
- Older gun ports, not the early early 7-port ones but the 2-port vents. NACA style were a 90s update across the board for in-service jets.
- Apparently ALR-50 blade antennas, one on the "turtleback" and one on right nose landing gear door.
 
As already said, later in the 90s various upgrades were made to some jets, to include ALR-67, LANTIRN/Digital BUS/PTID, some got DFCS, GPS, and a few other myriad changes. They weren't universal, they weren't fleet wide, but some of them were concentrated into the remaining A model squadrons in the early 00s. I've seen photos from Allied Force that Vflip has been using for his VF-41/14 skins, and there's a mix in there of the different antennas I pointed out above.
 
Whether we are going to get exactly that will be up to Cobra as it's going to require further reworks of the visual model in addition to a number of fixes needed. Some of the above are also related to the B external model, in theory an "updated" 135 as currently presented would be very close to the B that we have, with the same ALR-67 blisters and removed ALR-50 antennas, the same added ALQ-126 antennas, both missing the GPS (unless that was specifically part of the LANTIRN) integration.
 
And to go down another rabbit hole, the Iranian (or US version for that matter) Block 95 has a number of other visual changes, taking the "early" 135 and remove the ALQ-126 (like the current model), change the beaver tail to the older one without the blocky jammer antenna, the older gun vents, remove the small bulges in front of the glove vanes. There's a chance we may only get the "early" 135 with an Iranian paint job and some systems turned off but here's hoping we get the right visual model, as it would also be super useful for proper 80s Tomcat action with the US systems turned back on.

Would the 135-GR early still have the TCS?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LanceCriminal86]

Just now, WolfHound009 said:

Would the 135-GR early still have the TCS?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not "early", but "As it rolled off the Grumman line in 1983-85 or so".

 

And yes. But also no. Many jets rolled out with the "bullet fairing", and had the TCS installed in their destination squadron as they were available. Some were probably shipped out with the TCS complete. But the 135 should have either a bullet fairing or full TCS. Hell there were still Tomcats rolling around in the late 80s to early 90s with no TCS and just the ALQ-100 in the Reserves.

 

I personally have vested most of my time researching VF-201 and VF-202, who primarily received the early NATC/Pax River test jets that were rebuilt to Block 130 specs, each received 2 of the last 4 A models built, Block 140s right off the showroom floor. Those jets were delivered with bullet fairings and were seen that way for what looks like at least a few years (1986/87 - early 90s). They also had some other older block jets rotate through, including a Block 95 that was 6 jets behind one of the Mig or Sukhoi killers. That one was their last CAG jet in 1998, had no ALQ-126 antennas or the indicators of the ALR-45, the older beaver tail, and a TCS.

 

Many of their jets later went to VF-211, VF-14, and VF-41 where they were mixed in with other As that got the ALR-67 upgrades, and some may have gotten some upgrades as well for LANTIRN, but not the ALR-67 or other RWR/ECM upgrades as the photos from Allied Force and Global War on Terror don't seem to show those features present. If you are digging around and see BuNos in the 1586XX range from around 158612 onwards, very high chance it was a VF-201/202 jet and was a Pax River test jet. Some of them still had the old old 7 vent gun vents into the 90s before 202's jets were upgraded with the NACA style.

[IronMike]

Don't forget guys, we use block names to facilitate different variants in the mission editor, not to define what exactly they will or will not have. Like the B, they will all be an amalgamation of features that are most commonly found during a fairly generous time period. This best reflects the patch work character most Tomcats exhibited.

[Skysurfer]

I agree with Mike here. I wouldn't get too hung up about exact config and equipment in that regard. We already know the ALR67 blisters, old gun vents etc. will be an option or added later on to more closely reflect the B and late A. I'd much rather see actual fixed to mising textures or wrong cockpit instruments / typos than adding or correcting the model for a very specific A or B config. Not only does this add a lot more complexity and work but also requires a ton of time and fine tuning that could be spent elsewhere (and is needed).

Edited May 8, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Baco]

Yes, mi intention was to know what is already planned, NOT to reestablish the discussion.

I believe the Tomcat is already an exceptional Module. we really do not need every incarnation painstakingly reproduced...

cheers!

[CarbonFox]

Some electronic bits aside. Earlier F-14As used the P-412A version of the TF30 engines while the later models were equipped with the P-414A which was meant to fix some of the issues found in the TF30-equiped F-14.

[captain_dalan]

6 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

Some electronic bits aside. Earlier F-14As used the P-412A version of the TF30 engines while the later models were equipped with the P-414A which was meant to fix some of the issues found in the TF30-equiped F-14.

Very good points. Will the the two A models differ under the hood? Like, the efficiency of the ECM (if that is modeled in DCS in any fashion aside from 1 and 0), or the weight of the aircraft? Was there an actual difference in the early and late A's?

[Quid]

5 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Very good points. Will the the two A models differ under the hood? Like, the efficiency of the ECM (if that is modeled in DCS in any fashion aside from 1 and 0), or the weight of the aircraft? Was there an actual difference in the early and late A's?

The P414 was already standardized by the time the Tomcat was sold to Iran, so the earlier -412 shouldn't be represented (started with Block 95, actually).  As to the weights, yes, earlier As were lighter than later As.  The 1975 NATOPS gives a gross weight (including trapped fuel, oil, gun, and aircrew) of 40,070lbs.  The 1981 NATOPS has a gross weight of 41,587lbs.  By 1984 and until 2004, its listed as 42,000lbs.

[TLTeo]

6 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Like, the efficiency of the ECM (if that is modeled in DCS in any fashion aside from 1 and 0),

That is not modelled in DCS, as far as we know whether something is jamming or not is set exclusively by a boolean switch. The only exception may be the jammer in the Hornet, which appears to be a bit more realistic.

[LanceCriminal86]

16 hours ago, IronMike said:

Don't forget guys, we use block names to facilitate different variants in the mission editor, not to define what exactly they will or will not have. Like the B, they will all be an amalgamation of features that are most commonly found during a fairly generous time period. This best reflects the patch work character most Tomcats exhibited.

 

To be fairrrrr, Block does matter, as certain blocks "must" have certain features and equipment, while earlier Blocks "may" have been upgraded to a similar electronics or system, they also may not have received all of the visual cues or equipment of a later block. Just as the D model has features not seen on the B and A, some blocks and upgraded blocks had features not seen on previous blocks upgraded to the same "Standard".

 

Case in point, presenting a Block 135 in any for means, at a minimum, there were equipment features that MUST be there, the aforementioned ALQ-126 antennas by the intakes and beaver tail, the radome alpha probe. On the other hand, there were earlier block jets that did still serve into the 90s alongside the Block 110+ jets, but never received the same upgrades. One of those is 160396, which had the old beaver tail, no ALQ-126 antenna, and was flown to AMARG in 1998. And the early block jets rebuilt to Block 130 that I always like to mention retained some very early features while also having the Block 130 equipment like the late beaver tail and ALQ-126 ECM package. BUT, it wouldn't be appropriate to have say a Block 85 or 90 with the early 7 port gun vents, just as a Block 135 without ALQ-126 is equally "off".

 

There's nothing wrong or bad with selecting the Block 135, and then having an "as built" 80s version and a representative 90s to late 90s version, it's a logical block choice because many of the A model Tomcats that survived to fight past the late 90s into the 2000s in Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts WERE Block 130s, 135s, etc. Earlier block jets naturally were reaching high hours on their airframes and were not selected for upgrades versus the newer 110+ Blocks of Tomcats that already had the ALQ-126 suite and provisions to receive the ALR-67 RWR. If you look at photos from Allied Force as I mentioned before, you still see a mixture of features but most of them again were the later Blocks or the former VF-201/202 remanufactured 60/65 to 130 jets. All seemed to have ALQ-126 etc but only a few had the ALR-67 RWR features.

 

What I AM saying, is that if that's the goal, it should be done right. The good news is that Cobra doesn't have to rework as much stuff for the "late" or modernized 135 and B model because they did share a good number of features. That said, there are a number of D model features that will need to be trimmed out aside from the obvious ALQ-165 ECM vents, as the existing blisters ahead of the glove vanes are wrong for both our B and modernized A models. The A/B ALR-67 blisters were a different shape and position because the D didn't have glove vanes so they were positioned differently.

 

I also point that out because it might actually make more sense to have the "early" A model be a US Block 95. Why? If the work is to be done to have the Iranian A model exterior be "correct" by backdating the gun vents and beaver tail, then really you've done nearly everything you needed to do instead of also having to take the A model, add Block 135 features, and then backdate that model to Block 135 factory fresh by removing the visual vestiges of the ALR-67 system. With the Block 95, functionally the work done on the "early" 135 with ALR-45/50 can drop right on it, as there did not appear to be significant system differences between the 95 and 135 outside of the addition of the ALQ-126. Keep the TCS, tone down the jamming to represent the lack of the ALQ-126, and voila. A jet that represents the 80s Libya shoot down Tomcats, and made it through at least 1998 or so. Then your modernized 135 gets to represent the 90s upgraded jets that got LANTIRN and soldiered on through the early 00s, minus that pesky little PTID our A and B should have.

 

This probably isn't the most exhaustive breakdown of Block features, but it's a good reference to look for major system changes or at the least visual cues. I've been trying to dig in and see what other more in-depth changes may have been made from the -95 to the -135 that go beyond this list and would actually affect systems coding:
https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/fighter/gar14adiff.htm

 

[Cobra847]

6 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

To be fairrrrr, Block does matter, as certain blocks "must" have certain features and equipment, while earlier Blocks "may" have been upgraded to a similar electronics or system, they also may not have received all of the visual cues or equipment of a later block. Just as the D model has features not seen on the B and A, some blocks and upgraded blocks had features not seen on previous blocks upgraded to the same "Standard".

 

Case in point, presenting a Block 135 in any for means, at a minimum, there were equipment features that MUST be there, the aforementioned ALQ-126 antennas by the intakes and beaver tail, the radome alpha probe. On the other hand, there were earlier block jets that did still serve into the 90s alongside the Block 110+ jets, but never received the same upgrades. One of those is 160396, which had the old beaver tail, no ALQ-126 antenna, and was flown to AMARG in 1998. And the early block jets rebuilt to Block 130 that I always like to mention retained some very early features while also having the Block 130 equipment like the late beaver tail and ALQ-126 ECM package. BUT, it wouldn't be appropriate to have say a Block 85 or 90 with the early 7 port gun vents, just as a Block 135 without ALQ-126 is equally "off".

 

There's nothing wrong or bad with selecting the Block 135, and then having an "as built" 80s version and a representative 90s to late 90s version, it's a logical block choice because many of the A model Tomcats that survived to fight past the late 90s into the 2000s in Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts WERE Block 130s, 135s, etc. Earlier block jets naturally were reaching high hours on their airframes and were not selected for upgrades versus the newer 110+ Blocks of Tomcats that already had the ALQ-126 suite and provisions to receive the ALR-67 RWR. If you look at photos from Allied Force as I mentioned before, you still see a mixture of features but most of them again were the later Blocks or the former VF-201/202 remanufactured 60/65 to 130 jets. All seemed to have ALQ-126 etc but only a few had the ALR-67 RWR features.

 

What I AM saying, is that if that's the goal, it should be done right. The good news is that Cobra doesn't have to rework as much stuff for the "late" or modernized 135 and B model because they did share a good number of features. That said, there are a number of D model features that will need to be trimmed out aside from the obvious ALQ-165 ECM vents, as the existing blisters ahead of the glove vanes are wrong for both our B and modernized A models. The A/B ALR-67 blisters were a different shape and position because the D didn't have glove vanes so they were positioned differently.

 

I also point that out because it might actually make more sense to have the "early" A model be a US Block 95. Why? If the work is to be done to have the Iranian A model exterior be "correct" by backdating the gun vents and beaver tail, then really you've done nearly everything you needed to do instead of also having to take the A model, add Block 135 features, and then backdate that model to Block 135 factory fresh by removing the visual vestiges of the ALR-67 system. With the Block 95, functionally the work done on the "early" 135 with ALR-45/50 can drop right on it, as there did not appear to be significant system differences between the 95 and 135 outside of the addition of the ALQ-126. Keep the TCS, tone down the jamming to represent the lack of the ALQ-126, and voila. A jet that represents the 80s Libya shoot down Tomcats, and made it through at least 1998 or so. Then your modernized 135 gets to represent the 90s upgraded jets that got LANTIRN and soldiered on through the early 00s, minus that pesky little PTID our A and B should have.

 

This probably isn't the most exhaustive breakdown of Block features, but it's a good reference to look for major system changes or at the least visual cues. I've been trying to dig in and see what other more in-depth changes may have been made from the -95 to the -135 that go beyond this list and would actually affect systems coding:
https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/fighter/gar14adiff.htm

 

This is the first I'm hearing of the blisters ahead of the glove vanes being incorrect. I'm not sure I agree- I modeled these, very strictly, off of available reference for -A and -B Tomcats. Can you elaborate please?

Additionally, we are in disagreement with the GPS Dome. This was linked to either having the LANTIRN or CDNU and is thus in our opinion correct. We may make it toggle-able for livery reasons.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Cobra847

[WolfHound009]

9 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

To be fairrrrr, Block does matter, as certain blocks "must" have certain features and equipment, while earlier Blocks "may" have been upgraded to a similar electronics or system, they also may not have received all of the visual cues or equipment of a later block. Just as the D model has features not seen on the B and A, some blocks and upgraded blocks had features not seen on previous blocks upgraded to the same "Standard".

 

Case in point, presenting a Block 135 in any for means, at a minimum, there were equipment features that MUST be there, the aforementioned ALQ-126 antennas by the intakes and beaver tail, the radome alpha probe. On the other hand, there were earlier block jets that did still serve into the 90s alongside the Block 110+ jets, but never received the same upgrades. One of those is 160396, which had the old beaver tail, no ALQ-126 antenna, and was flown to AMARG in 1998. And the early block jets rebuilt to Block 130 that I always like to mention retained some very early features while also having the Block 130 equipment like the late beaver tail and ALQ-126 ECM package. BUT, it wouldn't be appropriate to have say a Block 85 or 90 with the early 7 port gun vents, just as a Block 135 without ALQ-126 is equally "off".

 

There's nothing wrong or bad with selecting the Block 135, and then having an "as built" 80s version and a representative 90s to late 90s version, it's a logical block choice because many of the A model Tomcats that survived to fight past the late 90s into the 2000s in Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts WERE Block 130s, 135s, etc. Earlier block jets naturally were reaching high hours on their airframes and were not selected for upgrades versus the newer 110+ Blocks of Tomcats that already had the ALQ-126 suite and provisions to receive the ALR-67 RWR. If you look at photos from Allied Force as I mentioned before, you still see a mixture of features but most of them again were the later Blocks or the former VF-201/202 remanufactured 60/65 to 130 jets. All seemed to have ALQ-126 etc but only a few had the ALR-67 RWR features.

 

What I AM saying, is that if that's the goal, it should be done right. The good news is that Cobra doesn't have to rework as much stuff for the "late" or modernized 135 and B model because they did share a good number of features. That said, there are a number of D model features that will need to be trimmed out aside from the obvious ALQ-165 ECM vents, as the existing blisters ahead of the glove vanes are wrong for both our B and modernized A models. The A/B ALR-67 blisters were a different shape and position because the D didn't have glove vanes so they were positioned differently.

 

I also point that out because it might actually make more sense to have the "early" A model be a US Block 95. Why? If the work is to be done to have the Iranian A model exterior be "correct" by backdating the gun vents and beaver tail, then really you've done nearly everything you needed to do instead of also having to take the A model, add Block 135 features, and then backdate that model to Block 135 factory fresh by removing the visual vestiges of the ALR-67 system. With the Block 95, functionally the work done on the "early" 135 with ALR-45/50 can drop right on it, as there did not appear to be significant system differences between the 95 and 135 outside of the addition of the ALQ-126. Keep the TCS, tone down the jamming to represent the lack of the ALQ-126, and voila. A jet that represents the 80s Libya shoot down Tomcats, and made it through at least 1998 or so. Then your modernized 135 gets to represent the 90s upgraded jets that got LANTIRN and soldiered on through the early 00s, minus that pesky little PTID our A and B should have.

 

This probably isn't the most exhaustive breakdown of Block features, but it's a good reference to look for major system changes or at the least visual cues. I've been trying to dig in and see what other more in-depth changes may have been made from the -95 to the -135 that go beyond this list and would actually affect systems coding:
https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/fighter/gar14adiff.htm

 

 

Do u mean these blisters ?

ECM.webp

[Spiceman]

I can speak for fleet Tomcats between 1984 and 1995 with the ALQ-100 and pre-GPS. There were no blister radomes anywhere. All ALQ-100 antenna radomes were flush, not that it really mattered... the ALQ-100 avionics themselves were just ballast... in the airplane for weight and balance but not connected. The radomes were all just painted over and you’d never even know where they were by looking at the jet. 
 

All fleet jets had the TCS, only the RAG didn’t have it. We never had to remove our TCS to “share” the system due to lack of supply or anything like that. Our jets had the ALR-45 and 50. 
 

I agree that to get to the next earliest versions of the Tomcat from where we are now would be to remove the blister radomes, add the ALR-45/50, put a blankoff plate in place of the ALQ control box, add the HSD/ECMD control box and functionality, and you’re pretty much done. 

[Skysurfer]

Based on pure photo evidence, most if not all ALR67 A's and B's have said ECM blisters. If you look at archived photos for each Tomcat squardron you'll most commonly find planes with them rather than without them, uless we are talking non ALR-67 jets.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Spiceman]

7 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Based on pure photo evidence, most if not all ALR67 A's and B's have said ECM blisters. If you look at archived photos for each Tomcat squardron you'll most commonly find planes with them rather than without them, uless we are talking non ALR-67 jets.

 

Yes, if you’re referring to my post, I’m talking about ALR-45/50, ALQ-100 jets. 

[LanceCriminal86]

5 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Based on pure photo evidence, most if not all ALR67 A's and B's have said ECM blisters. If you look at archived photos for each Tomcat squardron you'll most commonly find planes with them rather than without them, uless we are talking non ALR-67 jets.

 

 

 

So first, I must ceremoniously insert foot into mouth, if we go off of the ~1999+ timeframe of A models and LANTIRN, then the GPS dome does appear prominently. I was under the impression those domes were tied to the integrated GPS in-cockpit that replaced or supplemented the INS system but it appears it was needed for the LANTIRN's GPS. Around that time RIOs were using store bought GPS units (which might be fun to try and model).

 

 

I also retract my statements about the ALR-67 blisters by the glove vanes, I went back and did a closer comparison to the F-14D areas and they are pronouncedly different. The D model ones stretch further up to the tips of the intakes, while the A/B ones are closer to the glove vane openings. It doesn't seem like there was a 100% deployment of ALR-67 upgrades to A models though, but rather some jets got it, others did not. Allied force in 1999 shows only a couple out of VF-14 and 41's contingent of A model jets.

 

That said, It looks to me like most A models representing the early half of the 1990s shouldn't have them, so whatever is done with the "early" 135 or whatever Block is chosen to be the earlier US jet, would need that area reworked. I still think a Block 95 would well represent the 80s timeframe of the Libya shootdowns, and into the 90s, right up to LANTIRN adoption and the shift to Air to Ground quite well, before the upgrades that currently make the "late" -135. While older blocks with ALR-45 do appear to have that same area bare/ochre, they are not the pronounced bulges we're seeing on B models and the As that appear to have the full ALR-67 upgrades.

 

 

On the GPS dome I do see them on some of the 1999 and 2000 A models from Allied Force and VF-211's millennium cruise, in 2002 with VF-154 and VF-103, with LANTIRN pods hung.

https://www.airfighters.com/photo/63232/M/USA-Navy/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/162696/

 

The problem is, again, everything I'm reading points to those jets having PTID in order to even use the LANTIRN.

 

At what point is it not better to have a WIP/Incomplete PTID based on as much information as can be gathered from SMEs and NATOPS and documentation, than to have a patently "incorrect" fishbowl? I know it's a loophole to give us LANTIRN, but I'd rather have an incomplete PTID that gets built out as more documentation becomes available.

[Naquaii]

12 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

 

So first, I must ceremoniously insert foot into mouth, if we go off of the ~1999+ timeframe of A models and LANTIRN, then the GPS dome does appear prominently. I was under the impression those domes were tied to the integrated GPS in-cockpit that replaced or supplemented the INS system but it appears it was needed for the LANTIRN's GPS. Around that time RIOs were using store bought GPS units (which might be fun to try and model).

 

 

I also retract my statements about the ALR-67 blisters by the glove vanes, I went back and did a closer comparison to the F-14D areas and they are pronouncedly different. The D model ones stretch further up to the tips of the intakes, while the A/B ones are closer to the glove vane openings. It doesn't seem like there was a 100% deployment of ALR-67 upgrades to A models though, but rather some jets got it, others did not. Allied force in 1999 shows only a couple out of VF-14 and 41's contingent of A model jets.

 

That said, It looks to me like most A models representing the early half of the 1990s shouldn't have them, so whatever is done with the "early" 135 or whatever Block is chosen to be the earlier US jet, would need that area reworked. I still think a Block 95 would well represent the 80s timeframe of the Libya shootdowns, and into the 90s, right up to LANTIRN adoption and the shift to Air to Ground quite well, before the upgrades that currently make the "late" -135. While older blocks with ALR-45 do appear to have that same area bare/ochre, they are not the pronounced bulges we're seeing on B models and the As that appear to have the full ALR-67 upgrades.

 

 

On the GPS dome I do see them on some of the 1999 and 2000 A models from Allied Force and VF-211's millennium cruise, in 2002 with VF-154 and VF-103, with LANTIRN pods hung.

https://www.airfighters.com/photo/63232/M/USA-Navy/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/162696/

 

The problem is, again, everything I'm reading points to those jets having PTID in order to even use the LANTIRN.

 

At what point is it not better to have a WIP/Incomplete PTID based on as much information as can be gathered from SMEs and NATOPS and documentation, than to have a patently "incorrect" fishbowl? I know it's a loophole to give us LANTIRN, but I'd rather have an incomplete PTID that gets built out as more documentation becomes available.

 

Our intention is to have the Late -A and -B to be ALR-67 and ALQ-126 equipped and the early -A to be ALR-45/50 and ALQ-100 IIRC. When everything is finished externally that is.

 

As for the LANTIRN it indeed used the same antenna as the CDNU upgrade if that was also present, otherwise the antenna was just for the LANTIRN.

 

As for the LANTIRN with the fishbowl we always knew it was an experimental thing that did not see extended fleet usage but we are quite sure that's how it was tested at first even if it was later decided that it wasn't really good enough to display it and thus later relegated to PTID birds. So a loophole? Not necessarily, but the decision was between not including LANTIRN or including it in a version that did exist, if only very briefly.

 

As for the TID in general it was in use right up until very late, there's even photos of a -D model with a fishbowl TID.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Naquaii

[near_blind]

18 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

As for the TID in general it was in use right up until very late, there's even photos of a -D model with a fishbowl TID.

 

From what I understand the D models were given the lowest priority for PTIDs until after the retirement of the As and some Bs as the RIO had an MFD that was 'good enough' for the task. 

[Naquaii]

Just now, near_blind said:

 

From what I understand the D models were given the lowest priority for PTIDs until after the retirement of the As and some Bs as the RIO had an MFD that was 'good enough' for the task. 

 

IIRC it also had to do with if it was newly produced -Ds or conversion -Ds.

[near_blind]

Clearly HB needs to make a spin off: F-14 Depot Maintainer so we can properly experience all the permutations