Alright my bad, the NATOPS for the A though as provided by tripod is not DS C. Its basically the same document though when it comes to the issue at hand…
Interestingly, it appears that some F-14As were able to have the BOL that the F-14B/F-14D had.
7 Likes
Sure, but the specific model of F-14A that we have in-game did not have this capability. It is modeled off the 1977 F-14A / early standard aircraft characteristics… the best pylon they had mounted AIM-9H.
Future potential additions, premiums or squadron vehicles could include such a model of F-14A. That would be cool…
Its not, its a franken-plane, as it is currently as Airframe S/N #158627 ( the default skin) Is a Block -65 airframe (produced 1973), which was later refitted to Block 130 standards as seen as the in game 3d model which erroneously includes the Beaver tail mod, and nose pitot tube among others, the issue is that Block 130 (re)manufacture only began in 1983 and so is out of place for the proposed '77 SAC timeframe, further it can be cross referenced by looking at the Planforms in the SAC as well.
It is also theoretically missing access to either the AN/ALR-23 IRSTS or AN/AXX-1 TCS blister it should have, as an option, but doesn’t.
8 Likes
Errrrrng, wrong.
Tech moderators already explained that they are aware of camouflage and 3D modeling errors. They are aware of these issues and have explicitly stated it is configured to the 1977 SAC.
Feel free to report any not-yet covered discrepancies.
And so when are they going to correct it? I know it took, what 22 months for them to adjust the F-4E(Its still not quite right either, and doesn’t actually represent any specific configuration) but going on a year and a half means its probably a pretty low priority and so is not likely to be touched any time soon.
Which is a bit concerning considering that DECM equipment has been seen in the files and the configuration the F-14 is in leads to questions about what systems & capabilities may or may not be correctly modeled.
It was all covered while the F-14 was on the dev server, and there are other things that were reported that they have since made worse (e.g. Flap / Slat vs wing sweep limitations and the AoA Indexer), or just not implemented like the fuel totalizer.
3 Likes
It may very well never be fixed.
Ok, so then there is nothing left to be done.
1 Like
I have been using the “tacview” a lot lately and its absolutely funny how dumb the phoenixes behave… Their radar often goes from track back to search mode and looks all the way to the right and the missile also starts turning to the right XD… I wasnt sure they could break this any further but somehow they sure did
7 Likes
can you link a clip, i can’t use tacview since im on console it’s extremely buggy
Here they appear to be ok and on the second pic a few moments later they all point their radar to the right and start turning lol
3 Likes
OFC later A models got them
1 Like
7 Likes
Great video show how the F14 was just ahead of its time
1 Like
Yeah! I did not expect it to be so technical and in depth.
1 Like
One of my major complaints about using the Phoenix is that players can just shoot off a missile and the Phoenix will go after that instead, or alternatively it goes dumb. As far as I know RADAR does not behave like that, it should know that’s not the plane. Maybe they’ll adress it once other ARH missiles drop, but that’s been said before.
1 Like
You are correct. Missile seekers passive and active do not go after missiles easily and is actually quite improbable.
IR seekers seek infrared emissions consistent with exhaust & afterburning engines of aircraft that burn on a different IR wavelength to that of a small missile. Seeker logic such as the missiles we are using in game in the upper tiers are programmed to completely ignore these emissions and seek those only consistent with exhaust emissions of aircraft. Flares are designed to burn to near exact of the aircraft they are equipped on.
GJ modelled IR missiles tracking other IR missiles as a Hollywood “wouldn’t it be cool” feature that is unrealistic. Like shooting missiles head on at each other as seen commonly in game.
As for SARH missiles. If a target is close enough to another object such as another missile or aircraft that is caught in the illumination of the launching aircraft’s illuminator, the missile may go for one or the other.
As for the Aim54. It has its own radar and highly advanced fire control that can differentiate the between a rapidly accelerating small missile and a much slower closure rate and larger radar return of a fighter. The Aim54 can calculate and determine range unlike CW illuminators used by aircraft guiding SARHS.
The Aim54 is underperforming and its tracking in any phase of flight whether it be supported by the AWG9 or its own radar should be second to none in accuracy at moment. It should be the hardest missile to defeat other than being limited by its weight and slower acceleration compared to other missiles.
1 Like
yes it doesnt even matter if you keep the aircraft highlited on tws, the phoenix will do its own thing… I did some testing with a friend and the results were stunning… First of all, the radar can only spot another F14 at ~60 miles or less. Even though this probably isnt a problem with the current air rb setup, it goes to show how bad of a job they have made with the AWG-9.
Apart from that, we both fired at eachother at the same time and cranked. Both missiles went after each other… Then we tried again without cranking and sometimes the missiles went for eachother while others they tracked. It appeared to be random. There are just so many things that need to go right for the missile to work that its not even worth the effort.
By the way, our tests were conducted at an altitude of 30-35k feet with a speed of mach1+. The missiles lofted a little bit since we were firing at 50 miles from eachother and they never reached their supposed top speed gaijin has given them of mach 4.3. The fastest I saw a phoenix go was mach 4.03 if im not mistaken and that was only for a second before beeing violently slowed down by what can only be described as an invisible drag chute being deployed after the motor stops burning…
In comparision a 27ER has actually a higher effective range than the phoenix currently, on top of being an incredibely hard missile to out maneuver or defend against in general. Couple that with all the gimmick features it enjoys and it pretty much leaves the ER users uncontentested… In a match, by the time an f14 is on missile launch parameters to have somewhat ok chance of hitting anything, the ER is already at 5 miles from the Tomcat… Good luck dodging that…
Its not even funny at this point, I can see why they didnt want to add tacview compatibility all these years. The sensor view was their biggest mistake. There is no hiding things anymore.
3 Likes
That’s not entirely true. The Tornado tactics manual even mentions situations where it recommends firing a Sidewinder to improve success in missile evasion. Should still be in the Tornado thread.
1 Like
It’s too excesive in game
1 Like