Jump to content

AIM120A Capability?


Tank50us
 Share

Recommended Posts

Although fleet Tomcats never fitted them, would it be at all possible for the F-14 to get the AIM-120A added as a weapon choice? I ask because an F-14 was used as a test-launch aircraft for the AMRAAM, and equipment was designed and built for the Navy to fit into the Tomcat (but never fitted).

1024px-F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg

And given that we now have the capability in the mission editor to limit what weapons can and can't be fitted to the plane, I think this would be a very welcome ability to make available. After all, while the Navy never fitted the equipment, the equipment was built and stored 'just in case' the Navy needed it for the F-14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to what I have read and seen in videos, the Navy had the choice of funding either the AMRAAM or LANTIRN capabilities for the Tomcat. Dale Snodgrass was heading a program to give the Tomcat precision guiding capabilities. So the Navy went with LANTIRN.

At around the 8 Minute timestamp 


Edited by Jayhawk1971
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

According to what I have read and seen in videos, the Navy had the choice of funding either the AMRAAM or LANTIRN capabilities for the Tomcat. Dale Snodgrass was heading a program to give the Tomcat precision guiding capabilities. So the Navy went with LANTIRN.

This. Just having a picture of an aircraft carrying a missile doesn't show whether that missile was fully integrated, or what needed to be done to have that happen. It also doesn't provide HB the information they would need to model that integration. If a picture and some vague claims about testing were enough, we should also expect the MIM-23 to be carried by the Iranian variant. Except HB have stated repeatedly that won't happen either.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, near_blind said:

F-14A_AIM-120_Test_2.JPEG?width=881&heig

 

Screen_Shot_2021-09-13_at_7.png

 

Screen_Shot_2021-09-13_at_7.png

Screen_Shot_2021-09-13_at_7.png

Screen_Shot_2021-09-13_at_7.png

 

:music_whistling:

The thing is that the F-14 never operationally carried the AIM-120A. The F-14, however, was the aircraft that fired the AIM-120 in tests at the Pacific Missile Test Center at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California. Heatblur isn't Gaijin Entertainment, they aren't going to add the AIM-120 to the F-14 simply because it carried it and fired it in a testing environment.

Spoiler

image.png

 

Spoiler

F-14A_AIM-120_Test_3.JPEG

 

Here's what Naquaii said on the topic in January:

image.png


Edited by DSplayer
  • Like 3

-Pilot and RIO for the SPQR Competitive Team
-Tinkerer

-i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3200Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56, TrackIR + TrackClipPro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

The thing is that the F-14 never operationally carried the AIM-120A. The F-14, however, was the aircraft that fired the AIM-120 in tests at the Pacific Missile Test Center at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California. Heatblur isn't Gaijin Entertainment, they aren't going to add the AIM-120 to the F-14 simply because it carried it and fired it in a testing environment.

Hey! This is DCS. Recent experience shows if I show a picture of something on a test jet and then make loud enough of a ruckus, then it gets added to the plane!

 

 

2 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

How about a pair of B61’s? I’d own all of the Persian Gulf scenarios…

B-61s, some Harpoons, a couple HARMS, a Walleye or two. You think an SM-2ER could fit in the tunnel?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, near_blind said:

B-61s, some Harpoons, a couple HARMS, a Walleye or two. You think an SM-2ER could fit in the tunnel?

But muh capabilities. What's the point of bringing Harpoons, HARMS and Walleyes when I can just load 4 B-61s in the tunnel and 2 on the wing pylons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

But muh capabilities. What's the point of bringing Harpoons, HARMS and Walleyes when I can just load 4 B-61s in the tunnel and 2 on the wing pylons?

Lull them into a false sense of security with the conventional weapons and then _*boom*_. Hit 'em with the ol' fission boosted razzle dazzle. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.....they did carry nukes in that Buck Danny comic book... 🤔 

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, Tank50us said:

Although fleet Tomcats never fitted them, would it be at all possible for the F-14 to get the AIM-120A added as a weapon choice? I ask because an F-14 was used as a test-launch aircraft for the AMRAAM, and equipment was designed and built for the Navy to fit into the Tomcat (but never fitted).

1024px-F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg

And given that we now have the capability in the mission editor to limit what weapons can and can't be fitted to the plane, I think this would be a very welcome ability to make available. After all, while the Navy never fitted the equipment, the equipment was built and stored 'just in case' the Navy needed it for the F-14.

Oh boy, how about using the forum search function? This topic has been debated to death already:

 

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Oh boy, how about using the forum search function? This topic has been debated to death already:

The entire reason I raised the question anew is because now DCS has the capability in the ME to restrict weapons availability, ergo, a mission designer can just go "Yeah, sure, SomeDude199 may have it available, but not in my mission!", which I think is a smart move on EDs part. HeatBlur could, in theory, add the capability, and then leave it to mission designers to decide if the capability exists in their missions or not.

 

16 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

Tank50us, I hope you have an NBC grade bunker in close proximity available to you.

Meh, my place has some thick walls....

 

As I said in the original post, I am aware that the aircraft never carried them in combat, and never had the capability to carry them added to the fleet. However, the equipment and software necessary was developed and shelved (more details may be in the USN Archives somewhere if anyone has access). I also doubt that the tests were purely separation tests, the AMRAAM does work in a similar fashion to the Phoenix (flies for a bit guided by the mothership and then switches on its own radar in the terminal phase), and I can imagine that in tests it would've done it's secondary function (switch on a second or two after launch), especially if they were firing at a live target (which the USM would've had plenty of by that point).

I'd say this would be a good compromise: Add the capability, and by default have it deactivated in the ME. Then, when someone wants to add the capability, they'll have to go in an manually add the capability to each aircraft via the weapon restrictions page. I'd say that would be a good workaround.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

The entire reason I raised the question anew is because now DCS has the capability in the ME to restrict weapons availability, ergo, a mission designer can just go "Yeah, sure, SomeDude199 may have it available, but not in my mission!", which I think is a smart move on EDs part. HeatBlur could, in theory, add the capability, and then leave it to mission designers to decide if the capability exists in their missions or not.

You're opening flood gates there. It starts with the AMRAAM and ends with the B61 that @Victory205 proposed above.
In short: This would be a nightmare.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 2

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tank50us said:

The entire reason I raised the question anew is because now DCS has the capability in the ME to restrict weapons availability, ergo, a mission designer can just go "Yeah, sure, SomeDude199 may have it available, but not in my mission!", which I think is a smart move on EDs part. HeatBlur could, in theory, add the capability, and then leave it to mission designers to decide if the capability exists in their missions or not.

And yet, ED is not adding "what if" weapons to their Viper like LJDAM, APKWS or SDB, because they were not active on the aircraft they want to simulate. In the same way, HB won't add AMRAAM or HARMs to the F14 because want to simulate a jet from the active fleet, and those aircraft never went anywhere near that capability.

That ME feature is mostly meant for somewhat unit-specific/unclear situations like carrying 4 HARMs or tripe Maverick racks. It's not really there to allow users to turn modules into what is effectively a prototype.


Edited by TLTeo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

That ME feature is mostly meant for somewhat unit-specific/unclear situations like carrying 4 HARMs or tripe Maverick racks. It's not really there to allow users to turn modules into what is effectively a prototype.

Or for specific scenarios, where stores are limited (e.g. because of a historic setting).

  • Like 2

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 10:33 AM, Victory205 said:

How about a pair of B61’s? I’d own all of the Persian Gulf scenarios…

That would rock. Would a B83 fit in the tunnel? 

Specs & Wishlist:

 

Core i9 9900k 5.0Ghz, Asus ROG Maximus Xi Hero, 32GB G.Skill Trident 3200, Asus RoG Strix 2070 OC, 1TB x Samsung Evo 970 M.2 boot. Samsung Evo 860 storage, Coolermaster H500M, ML360R AIO

 

Samsung Odyssey+ WMR; VKB Gunfighter 2, MCG Pro; Virpil T-50CM v3; Slaw RX Viper v2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 7:16 AM, TLTeo said:

That ME feature is mostly meant for somewhat unit-specific/unclear situations like carrying 4 HARMs or tripe Maverick racks. It's not really there to allow users to turn modules into what is effectively a prototype.

I mean... is it though? You have to remember that in the real world you have F-16C Block 50s that are able to launch the Harpoon, while the same block in another air force can't. What the end user ultimately does with their aircraft is up to them, which is why I think that feature in the Mission Editor should be taken full advantage of. If you don't want (aircraft) to have (ability) then that should be up to the mission designer to sculpt the scenario as they see fit. As discussed earlier in the thread, the USN had the choice of either going with LANTIRN or AMRAAM capability on the Tomcat, and since historically the greater need was for mud moving, the LANTIRN was chosen. But what if the situation was different? What if the USN was facing a different threat and needed to improve the Tomcats air to air capabilities? In that scenario, they would've chosen the AMRAAM compatibility. It's no different than Islandia deciding that the F-16s they just bought need to be able to defend against Mainlandions huge navy, so they adapt their F-16s to use their large supply of Harpoons they bought from the US. 

 

Is that such a bad thing to allow mission creators more freedom in the crafting of their scenarios? As I said, by default, the capability can be turned off, and if the mission designer wants to turn it on, than that is their call.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Is that such a bad thing to allow mission creators more freedom in the crafting of their scenarios? As I said, by default, the capability can be turned off, and if the mission designer wants to turn it on, than that is their call.

In this case, yes.  The only F-14s that received the software compatibility were the Ds, and we don't have those in DCS.  Everything that is eligible as an F-14 payload has the data to match available; the 120 doesn't.

If it were a matter of having the basic software information for how any additional information was presented to the crew, and DCS having the D model, you're now in the realm of a viable doomsday scenario where it's down to a squadron running off with spare Hornet LAUs for the tunnel recesses and going to work.  Neither piece of that puzzle is in place, meaning the exercise is moot. 

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

On 10/15/2021 at 3:41 PM, Tank50us said:

I mean... is it though? You have to remember that in the real world you have F-16C Block 50s that are able to launch the Harpoon, while the same block in another air force can't.

Foreign customers get the Block 52 Vipers. We have a Block 50, which has a different engine. Most interesting national variants are Block 52, a few are early blocks with MLU (and those are downright weird). The only notable variation in Block 50 at this level is whether a certain bundle of wires is present, which is there in some squadrons and in others it isn't. This is a common situation with military hardware, aircraft are hardly homogenous even within a block, and it makes sense to account for those small variations.

I'm all for those small variations being handled by editor checkboxes. However, this only goes so far. There was never an F-14A/B squadron that had birds which could mount AMRAAMs. Therefore, no Slammers on the kitty. We're not doing alternate history here, at least not to the extent that it alters how a certain aircraft was developed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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