probably because it didnt fit the f14’s primary mission of intercepting stuff at long rang
1 Like
Some cool footage of the f14 bol footage I thought I should share
For the 2 video 15:00
2 Likes
Even though wouldn’t it still be beneficial in some scenario like where a f14 shot down 2 su22
in the first one thats a british tornado
RAF = Royal Air Force
Oh yeah I posted the wrong video
7 Likes
Came up with this funny camo scheme for the F-14A (Was doing templates for both existing Tomcat variants as well as two fictional, heavily upgraded ones for a worldbuilding project of mine)
2 Likes
Carrying x4 heaters with BOL was quite rare because they had coolant issues for station 1B/8B.
They were able to carry and use chaff/flares but, they wouldn’t allow access to the cooling bottles for the AIM-9s.
However, it wasn’t huge issues anyway at that time, since F-14s were used as Bombcat already, mostly carry LANTIRN or SP/PH.
I started researching this comment on December 20th 2025. It is now February 15th and I feel I’ve properly addressed all loose ends as best as I can.
Why are Gaijin allowed to use the manuals (they cannot use per Distribution Statement C) to deny reports, but we can’t use them to bugreport stuff about the Tomcats?
I’m also working on a theory that the reason the flight performance numbers are so out of wack is because all sources that include flight performance of the F-14B and D are from BEFORE the F110 engine was finalized. They all call the F-14B the F-14A+ which the F401 F-14 was called. The F-14D SAC is from 1985, the performance charts are from 1987, and all the testflight data would’ve taken place before the General Electric motor was even an option.
Something is really off here and the most surprising thing is Gaijin having documents they absolutely shouldn’t have.
In addition, Gaijin really mishandled this report. They don’t use logic at all. They say the F-14B has a structural/stores limit of Mach 1.88. There is NO claim of structural stability being the reason for these limitations. There is no reason the F-14A could do what it does at Mach 2 with 2x the load and the F-14B cannot. It’s an aerodynamic thing. If I could show the graph I could, but it’s very obviously cut off at 1.88M, which is the known Inlet scheduling limit they developed because it was planned for maintenance reasons to shut off the inlets. This never became a problem once the inlets became functional, which they are ingame and were later in real life. It’s also funny because the 1997 F-14A Flight Manual has this same “limit” yet they know it can go faster. They also claim according to the manual the F-14B has a engine imposed limit of Mach 2.1. This is actually just not in the document… Can’t find a source for this anywhere. I’ve actually gone through the entire document and even translating the kph and IMN numbers into Mach I cannot find mention of anything besides an unrelated part of the manual saying the elevators are effective past speeds of Mach 2.
For the F-14A SAC, it’s funny. This is supposed to be a slam dunk:
“Ha! Look! It’s limit is 2.04 as indicated by E and only gets up to 2.25 at whatever #4 means!”
Is what I would assess if I had 5 minutes left to submit my 3rd grade homework assignment. Looking any further into this shows the true story. Now most obviously is that #4 line. It’s obviously been artificially pushed back and if you let the lines actually converge naturally you’ll see they at least get to Mach 2.35. Why would they do this? I’m not entirely sure, but it’s most likely because #4 isn’t for a clean config like Gaijin implied. Nope. If we go back up and look at what #4 represents we can see it represents #3 with the missiles retained. So this F-14A that is artificially limited to Mach 2.25 can get to that speed with 4 Aim-7s on (assumingely) it’s belly. I pointed this out in the report but I guess they just wanted to ignore that part.
For the 1.95M 1G level flight envelope, they would also need access to more illegal documents! Specifically NAVAIR 01-F14AA-1.1 and NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1. I wonder what great things the DoD will have to say about a Russian company illegally accessing these documents!
And finally the good ol’ F-14D SAC from 1985 that you’re using to model a plane with engines that had only been selected a year earlier and introduced into service 3 years later. Surely the testing of the GE engines (that merely started in 86’ IIRC) would be reflected in this datasheet!
No. They labeled it F-14A+ for a reason and I have a feeling it’s because “estimated based on flight test” being plastered everywhere in NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 is because instead of actually putting the new engine flight test data into the doc they decided to just adjust and recalculate the numbers (probably of the F401) with the specs of the GE-F110-400 in place. Why else say “estimated based on” if you actually tested the same vehicle with no modifications?
I also checked other docs like the F-15A/C, the F-16A, and even the Legacy Hornets. From what I can see, never has any other manual put “estimate based on” for the flight testing.
Back when I got this response I did not have the knowledge I have now. That’s how they get people and get out of doing their job. Now that I do, I can’t believe how badly they handled this, all to drop at the end “resulting in the current, accurate flightmodel.”
I don’t really know what to do with my findings here. Should I bring it to a highup’s attention? At the very least I want an explanation on why they’re allowed to use illegal documents to deny my reports, but I cannot use those same sources to buff the aircraft. After all this time I feel like I’ve done all I can with the materials allowed to me just for find the devs aren’t playing on a level playing field.
6 Likes
Also, I find this bugreport a bit weird, as it seems like they had the correct down low performance for the F-14B initially (Mach 1.2+ on the deck) but then nerfed to based on this report that only targets performance with missiles? That cannot be right.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OqwAVsDuWnL6
Will share more soon but the RIO in this iconic photo: https://www.f-14association.com/images/layout/stories_no3_02.jpg was answering a question about the F-14’s Maximum speed and had this to say:
3 Likes
Keas =Knots equivalent air speed . It’s the Indicated Airspeed (IAS) corrected for instrument errors and adiabatic compressible flow. Practically that’s the stractual limit of the plane and it’s over 1,3 mach /1602 km/h .
However , i don’t think GJ takes on account pilot statements.
1 Like
Hughes APG-71 Tech Sheet
Clear IRST footage from F-14D
Shows it has Imaging mode, TWS Auto, TWS Manual, and (Priority?) Mode.
Clearer look at this Aim-54C Diagram.
More AMRAAM x F-14 pictures
Look at real world testing as the F-14D and Aim-54C radars. They pointed them at active airspace and they basically tested them using airliners and transport aircraft in the area lol.
TCS Brochure/Ad directly from Northrop that talks about how it works.
Lastly, another image of the rare -1A flight manual. It does say confidential, but surprisingly doesn’t show any Distribution Statements.
Some cool images I found during the search so far if you’re interested:
Hope y’all enjoy!
5 Likes
Oh yeah I’m aware. I should’ve specified though.
2 Likes
What’s nice is that the technical data sheet confirms mprf mode for the apg71
(Apg 70 already had it so I would assume it was just carried over)
1 Like
F-14 Program Office (Directly Involved with Grumman) state Mach 2.34 Speeds.
Grumman themselves release this very interesting brochure:
I’ll just post this here instead of the Aim-54 thread, but Hughes themselves calls the Aim-54 a “highly maneuverable missile”.
Bringing these sources together, “from Cruise to Mach 1.8” means from Mach 0.75 to Mach 1.8 in 75 seconds.
4 Likes
In an update to this, finally figures other than the one in the Outsider’s View/the Aero Series 25 Grumman F14 Tomcat figure (90 N.M nominal for a 5m^2 target without any indication of radar search volume, target speed geometry ETC) which I assume is a cumulative 50% probability of detection.
F4X has a mention of the AWG9
111.3 N.M , Mach 3 closure rate, 40k ft, 5M^2 target and a Wide Scan search pattern. I wouldn’t say it’s under VS as its for a multishot which is TWS
Even if it said 90N.M and only mention is the pd, passing from 50% Pd to 85% pd is
Like before, 10 is 100% pd, and horizontal axis is km against a 19m^2 target. Blue is the Mig31s radar, red the old F14 info and dotted red is just shifting the F14s curve so that the 85% pd is at the range(purple vertical line) where the old 50% pd was.
And the dashed line is just the 111.3 N.M figure adjusted for target’s RCS(19m^2) and set at 85%Pd by the second vertical line
And here how it fares to all radar detection ranges I’ve been able to gathered (excluding mirage 3, F4J, mig 25 and mig 23)
10 in the vertical axis is 100% pd and horizontal is detection range in nautical miles. All for a 5m^2 target.
From left to right.
- Apg-66 (F-16A)
- N-019 (Mig-29)
- AI 24 stage 1( 1988 Tornado F3)
- APG-65 (F-18A)
- N-001 (SU-27S)
- N-007 (Mig 31 - 80s)
- AI 24 stage 2 ( value gotten from datamine)
- APG-63 (F-15A/C of 80s)
- AWG-9(F-14)
3 Likes
someone needs to put this on a shirt
2 Likes