Jump to content

Eurofighter yes but F14D no


Rikus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Probably cause it wouldn't pay off to them to do another wersion of F-14 since they already have 2 versions. And Eurofighter is a money machine, same would be with Rafale or Gripen. And ofc any Russian modern jet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, they're made by different countries... Americas classification rules might be stricter. Look at the end of the HB know people want the F-14D variant, but there really isn't point in poking them constantly about the subject. I'm sure they're fed-up to a point working on the 14 and would a new project to work on 😄

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules are gunna really vary depending on the country, service branch and administration. Time isn’t the best thing to go by. The viper and hornet we have are from around when the F-14D retired.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they literally have the full Eurofighter consortium collaborating with them. Also because the F-14D for obvious reasons is going to be subject to stricter rules because geopolitics. Also because different aircraft and governments from different countries operate differently.

 

It really, really shouldn't be this hard to understand, and yet every week we have a thread like this. It's mind boggling.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they literally have the full Eurofighter consortium collaborating with them. Also because the F-14D for obvious reasons is going to be subject to stricter rules because geopolitics. Also because different aircraft and governments from different countries operate differently.
 
It really, really shouldn't be this hard to understand, and yet every week we have a thread like this. It's mind boggling.
Heatblur should be happy about it. It shows how well they've done with the A and B, and how happy the community is with it, that they want the D as well. It's a compliment.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rikus said:

Eurofighter is a very new jet with lot of classified info, and even that will be developed.

 

So, why F14D can´t be done too?

Theres your answer. Someone try to get the documentation, the US navy approves it, but then the US DOD redacted it

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Because they literally have the full Eurofighter consortium collaborating with them.

 

This.

 

HB + Truegrit are:

  • Licensed by the manufacturer to develop one.
  • Are in communications with the managament agency (NETMA).
  • Have Typhoon pilots on their team.
  • AFAIK are building a trainer for the Luftwaffe.

So we've got a brilliant set of fairly unique circumstances that has made the Typhoon possible. There's more to it than just the aircraft's age/generation/in service status. While the rule of thumb is the newer it is, the newer generation it is and if it's still in service, then the less likely it is to be feasible; but here, we've been given a set of circumstances that means the aircraft is possible. That doesn't mean they apply to other aircraft and it certainly doesn't mean that they're feasible either. There are different factors at play here.

 

IIRC HB were interested in doing a JAS 39A Gripen A, but some of the avionics were used in the JA 37 Viggen mod. D (a post 2000s upgrade to the JA 37) and that was classified. I may be misremembering the details as we're looking pretty far back now, but I think that was the case.

 

None of the above apply for the Rafale, nor any modern REDFOR aircraft and they are unlikely to be so in the near future (the latter is basically off the table at this point, so far the 9-12 MiG-29 from the early 80s is the best we're going to get so far, but even that is a 'hope to' that isn't confirmed). People really need to stop and think, and ask themselves "Why is the only place we see modern Russian aircraft, and even the Rafale, Ace Combat, Strike Fighters and maybe FSX with uber simplified avionics?"). RAZBAM got lucky even with their Mirage 2000C (which for our version is essentially from the end of the 80s), in that the AdA became interested in using it as a trainer and were able to provide much more insight into how the aircraft works, which led us to getting the more drastic improvements and even reworks of the RADAR, PCA etc, when otherwise RAZBAM would've been more stuck.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 7

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas, Caucasus

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you guys.

 

But for me is difficult to understando why NAVY say yes to Hornet, a much newer jet, also F16 and a NO for F14D.

 

Also for developer will be interesting, some people want more info in the HUD and newer weapons, so there are new customers.

 

Also actual customers could be potential clients too, with a discount code for having the A/B for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rikus said:

But for me is difficult to understando why

 

But you don't have to understand it - the USN doesn't care if you understand or not.  It's just no and that's all.  That's how classified things work.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 4

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Rikus said:

 

 

F/A-18C and F-16C has build by ED, and remember ED has some military contracts with USAF and other airforces to trainers. HB has build the F-14. Other point, the F/A-18C has actually a aircraft retreat for service on the USNavy, no a F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet.


Edited by Silver_Dragon

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rikus said:

Thank you guys.

 

But for me is difficult to understando why NAVY say yes to Hornet, a much newer jet, also F16 and a NO for F14D.

 

Also for developer will be interesting, some people want more info in the HUD and newer weapons, so there are new customers.

 

Also actual customers could be potential clients too, with a discount code for having the A/B for example.

I'm not sure if the Navy said 'yes' to the Hornet and even if that was the case, as far as I'm aware they're not supplying ED with technical data, other sources are.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is weird. If ED makes an F14D, then Iran can upgrade its ancient A versions by playing DCS world?

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64D

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 2x 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a relevant question.  Various govt's/agencies don't care what you think is weird.  They don't have to explain themselves, that's the nature of secrecy.   Their concerns may or may not be justified in your eyes, they don't care, and your opinion on the subject doesn't matter :).

 

ED/other 3rd parties probably don't care to cross those lines (ie. publishing based on info that isn't permitted to be used) since that could end up costing them future business.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I reconcile the decision of the DoD;

 

1. Radar based stealth has been a requirement of 5th Gen and future designs

2. IRST technology is rapidly being developed as a viable counter to radar Stealth

3. of the US fighters of the 90's/2000's the F-14D is the only one equipped with an integrated IRST (and a reportedly pretty good one - was able to track F-22 at useful range in testing)

4. IRST capabilities now becomes something of a sensitive subject based on US reliance on radar stealth force multiplier strategy

5. F-14D IRST maybe 30 years old but if it works why give your opponents any clues what it is A. capable of (even 30 years ago), or B. potentially capable of given 30 years more development?

 

It's a good a reason as any to explain the clamp down, and as Tharos points out, their bloody right to.

 

Amazing how some here measure their computer game desires as more valuable than the security of those who might be called on to give their lives for our freedoms....


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Here's how I reconcile the decision of the DoD

According to the guy who submitted the FOIA request, the IRST is the only piece of equipment that is still classified. So all those parts would have been redacted from the manual. The issue is that it's an item on the USML, which means that they won't release it to the public. The same thing goes for the A-6E manuals, those don't have any game changing tech (especially considering that those are mids 80s docs) and they still got it denied with similar reasoning.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

According to the guy who submitted the FOIA request, the IRST is the only piece of equipment that is still classified. So all those parts would have been redacted from the manual. The issue is that it's an item on the USML, which means that they won't release it to the public. The same thing goes for the A-6E manuals, those don't have any game changing tech (especially considering that those are mids 80s docs) and they still got it denied with similar reasoning.

 

 

Some of that reasoning may be flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.... as people don't read or just chose to ignore the sticky about the F-14D not happening, why not merge all the requests, slap a top post over that thread that says "not happening" and then merge every new request in that thread. Honestly it's becoming not just irritating but also cluttering the threads with the same question over and over again 😕 

  • Like 5

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

Modules in waiting: MiG-23, A-6, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Here's an idea.... as people don't read or just chose to ignore the sticky about the F-14D not happening, why not merge all the requests, slap a top post over that thread that says "not happening" and then merge every new request in that thread. Honestly it's becoming not just irritating but also cluttering the threads with the same question over and over again 😕 

 

The standard reply for all current and future F-14D wish threads should be links to these two posts:

 


 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome!

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

Modules in waiting: MiG-23, A-6, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, fat creason said:

 

The standard reply for all current and future F-14D wish threads should be links to these two posts:

 


 

 

Cleeeeeeeeeeeeeearly you guys need to create a FAQ... oh wait.... you have one....

 

Seriously people, freaking read the blasted thing, or better yet, try looking into the very reasons why Heatblur has said they won't be able to do it the way they want to.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/24/2021 at 4:40 PM, IronMike said:

Data can be unclassified and still not legally available.

Thank you.  There are many levels of information restriction.  Even around unclassified info.  It might be export controlled.  In which case it's a no go.  Even if it's unclassed.  It's not free to be shared outside of a country's approved interests. 

  • Like 1

Cheers,

 

Rick

CSEL\CMEL\IFR

Certified Airplane Nut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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