better than f14a technically yes, better than f14a ingame i dont really agree, 12.7 is a much better matchmaker and f14b isnt competition to other 13.0s
1 Like
Orange is the F-14B. Blue is the F-16C Barak. They have the same engine ingame. WHAT in GODS name is this thrust curve bro.
It just gives up and goes sub-F-14A levels lmao.
Hopefully I can get this fixed immediately.
3 Likes
that’s kinda “feature”. CADC limits the engine
That’s stupid. Why can’t the Navy let the Tomcat cook…
This is next level cope. The only world in which the F-14 survives as long as it did, is this one. In some fantasy scenario where the Navy gets a “super fighter” it’s not F-14 based, I can promise you. If they were to actually get their original F/A-XX program funded(NATF), it would have been much more in line with a navalised F-22. Also pretending like the AIM-54 was still required for long range AAMs, when its own replacement the AIM-152 would have been able to be carried on much smaller aircraft is again cope. Hell even 120Ds are exceeding AIM-54s long range potential. The F-14 design was a dinosaur, necessitated by the requirement to carry Phoenixes, which in 2000s are a dinosaur which have no advantages compared to its contemporaries. Pretending like you could somehow update it to make it relevant against a peer threat now is ludicrous. It and the F-15 have only survived as long as they did/have because of idiotic procurement decisions in presidential administrations. And unlike the F-15EX, the F-14 doesn’t get the benefit of airbases, or an aging F-15E fleet to backfill, so the question becomes why take up already limited deck space for a supposed “F-14EX” when those could be NATFs or now F/A-XXs.
Lmao “cope”
You just completely ignore that it thrived precisely because of adaptability.
The F-14D’s digital avionics, APG-71 radar, IRST, and AMRAAM integration plans already showed it could’ve evolved well beyond a “Phoenix truck.” The NATF program was never realistically funded, and a navalized F-22 faced immense structural, cost, and carrier suitability hurdles, making Tomcat upgrades a far more viable path in the 1990s–2000s. (Not to mention it’s literally just a stealth F-14 since a fixed wing version was not possible). The AIM-54C+ and ECCM-equipped Phoenix remained relevant well into the 2000s, and the AIM-152 program was only started because of the F-14. It was canceled because the F-14 was going out of service and the companies didn’t see the value. The AIM-120D may rival the Phoenix in some ranges today, but during the F-14’s service life it did not, and Tomcat’s radar/missile pairing was still unmatched. Calling the design a “dinosaur” ignores its large growth margins, two-crew workload distribution, and upgrade potential that even the F-15 leveraged in parallel. ST21 would’ve been an F-15EX with better engines, flight performance (thrust vectoring), and have an actual use case. The F-15EX is a good aircraft surely, but it’s outclassed by the F-22. The F-14EX would be superior to the F35 and Superhornet/Growler in most cases while fulfilling all of their roles besides stealth. Dismissing a hypothetical “F-14EX” ignores that the Navy already invested heavily in the Tomcat, unlike the unproven NATF, the Tomcat’s proven airframe could have offered an effective and lower-risk bridge until F/A-XX, avoiding reliance solely on Hornets/Panthers during the fleet’s most critical transitional period with very valid threats from China’s Navy and Airforce.
To be fair, the Phoenix was retired in September of 2004, mainly because the threat of Iraqi and Afghan air assets during OIF and OEF was 0. It did lose its relevance but that’s not saying that it was bad in any means.
1 Like
In use from 1963 (testing), service (1973), to 2004… That is almost four decades of use. Similar to the F-22, it was never needed for a peer conflict.
It did its job for the entirety of its’ service life. It was a deterrent.
2 Likes
Follow up, why do other CADC aircraft not have this massive dip then? I don’t find any other 4th gen with this drastic engine curve. Not even the F-14A. Something is horribly wrong.
2 Likes
Nice footage of F-14 BFM and Radar Screen: https://youtu.be/8CIqK6FVcdA?si=tiGaIC2F4V0AO6mT\
more: https://youtu.be/5tPxX9Dtxeg?si=zM-7dS3tdln_ijyo&t=277
1 Like
noticed this in gameplay, when actually at mach the differences in the engines is negligible, which is weird as hell
I really hope even just a little something gets added or updated for the F-14 this update. Even just giving it 9Ms would be huge
7 Likes
They buffed flight models at high speed.
Where did you see this? Like turning or how fast the can go?
Current dev server changelog
I see it now. I didn’t scroll down that far when I first saw it. Nice. Maybe 9G turns above Mach 1.6?
looks like F-14 got waay harder to get dropped on side with high AOA sustained maneuver
That’s great! We finally have that adequate 4th gen stability that those massive twin rudders should provide. Maybe now they can drop the BS excuses and add the AoA button since stability isn’t a problem…
i mean, it’s still possible, but way harder now. could be a placebo tho.
i wish it had autoflaps too
1 Like
Following up on this 9G footage, I’m going to use this to bugreport the F-14s G pull. It currently sits at 12G max. We saw the F-14 peak at 9.2G during the pull before. Using the figure, 9.2 x 1.5 = 13.8G. Rounded up, that’s 14G.
I plan to do the same for the F-14A/B’s VNE. The F-14A VNE currently sits at 2.25. 2.25 x 1.05 is 2.36. Hopefully, we will get a F-14 with the correct G pull of 14G and correct top speed of 2.36 in future updates.