i would love to see the F14D with AMRAAMS as right now it wouldn’t be that much of a step up from the B as it would have the same loadout but with 9Ms
4 Likes
APG-71 and IRST would be very interesting. Didn’t it get another engine upgrade too?
Yeah it did
F-14D getting AMRAAMs wouldn’t be like MiG-29A getting R-27ERs, it would be like MiG-23ML getting R-27s.
Every MiG-29A built, no matter who operated it or what specification it was in, was equally able to operate the R-27ER. The pylon and software to launch the R-27 and R-27E in respective variants are identical, and any aircraft that can carry one on a given pylon can carry the other with no modification. The distinction in pylon capabilities between different R-27 pylons is solely that the rail launcher for wing mounts has the necessary cooling equipment to operate R-27T variants, while the catapult launcher for fuselage mounts does not.
It is not technologically wrong for the MiG-29A to make use of the R-27E, as it always could. The reason the R-27E shouldn’t be given to the MiG-29A in war thunder is that the MiG-29A is intended to represent the aircraft as it was in Soviet and East German service, and in service with them it was never operated with R-27Es (which were not even exported to East Germany). This is because the R-27E was specifically a part of the Su-27 program, and was intended for it, while R-27 was intended for MiG-29, and this was abided by in service.
While the MiG-29A should not be given the R-27E for the is reason, the logic by which the MiG-29 can operate the R-27E in war thunder does not translate to F-14D and AMRAAM. If you strapped an R-27E to the inner wing pylon of any East German MiG-29 9-12, it would work as intended. This is not the case with any F-14D, only those specifically modified for testing with AMRAAM.
3 Likes
True to a point, but the radar and its rMax/rMin/LSZ information (if it had it) would need to be updated so the FCS can give accurate targeting information to the pilot.
This is mentioned in my Tornado F.3 Tactics manual as they were introducing SuperTEMP they had to use the older TEMP rMax/rMin/LSZ information until the newer zones could be updated on the FCS.
Doesn’t make the missile incompatible but it isn’t as simple as it fits and launches the same way. Sure you could fire without updated rMax/rMin/LSZ and learn the rough ranges and target parameters.
6 Likes
That’s not right, all F-14D’s were wired up with AMRAAM compatibility seen with it being listed in the SAC.
What happened was that the pylons and full integration were not funded(reinvested into outfitting airframes with LITENING TGPs, for interdiction) and so it never saw service. with the photos we have its more than enough info for it to be at very least under consideration, considering the Harrier GR.1 with SRAAMs, F-5A with MER and other assorted ordnance items have been added, and we know with some certainty that in either case it was a very small number of airframes that were refitted to do so.
Though in the case of the F-14, the AIM-54 (if it actually functioned properly) is significantly better than the -120A on offer. Further if we’re going to be adding prototyped ordnance, the AIM-95 & AN/AVG-8B VTAS II HMS would be a better addition as it would actually be a significant upgrade to an existing capability.
7 Likes
Interesting i thought they only integrated the A
Only one A was retrofitted to fire AMRAAM and it was as a test platform, not operational. The Navy used the F-14 in a lot of testing. Shoot, the prototype D even tested out HARM, but it didn’t get implemented operationally.
1 Like
At least I hope gaijin implemented AIM-9M on F-14B with increase BR to 12.3 for major update “Alpha Strike” in live server
The F-14D fleet never got the AMRAAM pylon stored on their ships otherwise all they’d need is a software update and the missile itself. That’s how close they were to using AMRAAM. Just having a software change and the physical hardware for mounting them on the F-14.
Political red tape was the true defining issue that held the F-14D back from receiving AMRAAM.
7 Likes
it was that funding got limited and so they had to chose which capabilities they wanted, instead of the AMRAAM they got all of the models (F-14A, -B & -D) access to LITENING pods, which were probably far more useful IRL considering what they would go on to be involved in had comparatively few A2A interactions.
Though that choice probably did impact the decision to retire the F-14 early, once the AIM-54 inventory started to age out after 2003 or so, meant that it was stuck with Sparrows and Sidewinders and so have obvious shortfalls vs the F/A-18.
Its interesting they only listed single mounts as well, seeing as they apparently tested double mounts for the AIM-120 on the F-14:
Allegedly, there’s also a pic out there of this same F-14 with 8 AMRAAM’s across station 3-6, the dual AIM-120’s on 1B and 8B(as seen above), along with twin LAU-7 launch rails on 1A and 8A bringing the total carried missiles to 12x AIM-120A and 4x AIM-9M, but I’ve yet to see this picture, so take it with a grain of salt.
7 Likes
Has the issue of the engine temperature being way above what it should be, been brought up to the devs? Talking about the B model
2 Likes
I made a bug report about the A and they told me to kick rocks. Id expect the same treatment regarding the B.
The issue iirc is that gaijin uses instrumented temperature limits, and the F-14 has a turbine inlet temperature sensor iirc, which is one of if not the hottest places in the engine. Most other aircrafts take a temperature at a different, cooler spot, so they get to be colder in WT
2 Likes
lol, when was that ?
Yes, they won’t fix it since they lack info on other aircraft, and go off what was marked in the cockpit.
So that means that those that use Inlet probes run significantly colder than those that use Turbine probes.
Even for those that we have actual sources for(F-5, MiG-29, F-14A & -B etc.) they won’t change.
2 Likes
Oh, is that why F-5 is so friggin cold in this game?
It’s the most difficult aircraft to kill with Fox-2, from my experience.
2 years ago, looked into it again, the report was about AAM’s being able to lock the F-14A from much too far due to its absurd heat signature.
Here is an R-60M locking the F-14A at 33km rear aspect through nothing but clouds:
(missile lock indicators were bugged back when i did this test and the missile lock circle often showed up tiny and on your plane, but i very much could fire this missile, though it didnt have the range to hit)
Not my greatest bug report, but i figured gaijin could figure out that an R-60M being able to lock through 33km’s of clouds is not working as intended, but apparently they cant and the bug report was closed as “not a bug” and the thermal signature was considered “correct”
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ll7pOaGaWnna
I’d be curious if you can still do this…
1 Like
Yes, it doesn’t help that Flares run absurdly hot( though much of this is due to abstractions, and things not quite yet simulated)
what the hell kind of logic is this lol… They have the data but they wont use them ??? So if the gauge would read up to 5000 F then I guess the devs would go with that… Great stuff