Non of those missiles would integrate on the Tomcat and it would be simply not worth it trying to implement it on their aging F14 fleet
Tho the r37m on a Tomcat sounds funny
With Su-35S being in their inventory, especially if it comes with RVV-BD supply, it indeed would be quite pointless. But if there is no access to long range missiles like that, upgrading F-14s would be reasonable to keep Fakour/Phoenix in the arsenal.
I don’t think that it would be worth it for Iran to keep their few remaining Tomcats combat ready
There is certainly a lack of replacement parts and probably knowledge on how to maintain the f-14.
This is especially true if Iran is also going to buy the J-10
We’ll see I guess, Iran is very fond of F-14s after all
Sounds like a bad guide to make tomcat worser
Yeah phoenix/fakour is straight up worse than the 37/37m in every way
Is any one else experiencing this?
Just saw an AIM-54 (and Zuni / Sparrow) self destruct almost immediately off the rail. (should rename the report as it seems to effect all projectiles, as detailed in the report)
F/A-18A AIM-7M instantaneously self destructing causing death
4 Likes
Saw it happen on a su34, but I think you have all the clips you need now
The have a single factory to make parts that’s still active for the tomcats.
They finished it themselves in the 90s after the Iran/Iraq war. I doubt it can keep afloat their entire fleet of around 40 Tomcats. They definitely know how to maintain it though.
Normally these deals with buying new aircraft have to come with infrastructure and ordinance though. I was just spitballing since Iran loves their F-14s a lot.
You’re dead wrong
1 Like
had missiles self destructing randomly, pulling AOA that it shouldnt to target the nearest planet
missiles just bugged again seems nato ones only
1 Like
Does anyone know of any sources say that the F-14 could carry the GBU-31 with the DSU-33 Airburst sensor?
I don’t see why not…
It’s just that I can’t find any images with F-14s carrying JDAMs with the DSU-33, and the JDAMs the Tomcat carries in game have it
Only those refit with the GPS antenna were authorized to carry JDAM, so the F-14B(U), F-14D & F-14D(R).
Yes, the AWG-15H was equipt to manage the use of all JDAM certified fuses, though the DSU-33C/B (200 +/- 5 second operational life, as modeled in game) is very likely to be “anachronistic”, so if it was to be modeled the earlier -33A/B or -33B/B would be modeled with a 60 and 90 second battery respectively. Much reducing their effective range.
Both fuses may be employed with the DSU-33A/B proximity sensor to provide an airburst capability. Currently, the specified battery life for the DSU-33A/B proximity sensor is 60 seconds after release However, demonstrated battery life is greater than 90 seconds and the technical orders are being updated to reflect the new time. The 90 second battery life is a limitation to JDAM employment, and must be considered during mission planning.
The BLU-109 JDAM variant is compatible with the FMU-143 tail fuse, with impact delay fuse settings. The FMU-152/B is a multiple arm time and a multiple delay time fuse, with cockpit-selectable settings when used with JDAM"
Though it is worth considering that Height of burst functionality is not actually implemented at this point in time, though would be a nice thing to have as it would avoid the occurrence of “Plinking” in game entirely.
1 Like
But also in terms of historical accuracy though, I can never find a picture of the F-14 carrying the GBU-31 with the sensor, and not to mention it’s modeled in game with the white thermal coating, when they should look like this:
Mostly because in service the GBU-31 is set aside for the semi-hardened target, thus is assembled using the BLU-109 warhead (I don’t think the NAVY / Marines stock the 2000lb GPHE Mk. 84 warhead anymore, as an airburst Mk. 83 is practically as good and sores just as well; and so is passed over for the Higher penetrating 2000lb form factor options within the magazines to increase inventory), and so uses a Nose plug to maintain penetrative capabilities.
From memory this is a “known issue”, there isn’t much of a significant difference as the Pale coating denotes a bomb from USAF stocks, which can be filled with certain compounds that are not cleared use on carriers by the USN, and they use a dissimilar banding set up so there are further issues.
would be cool if they did, because gaijin models HOB sensors as proxy fuses, and proxy fuse GBUs would be really fun against helis
I honestly thought that most of the bombs had that coating to slow down the cookoff time in case of a fire onboard the ship. Obviously, the laser guided 500lb GBU-12 and 500lb GBU-38 JDAMs had this but that’s because it was probably the same bomb-different kit.
It does, its also an option that the USAF exercises occasionally as some portion of their ongoing order(s), as not all of their dumps are up to modern codes, and so will preferably store them there where possible. But is generally seen as individually excessive and adds a not-insignificant amount to both the weight & cost, and additional care must be taken to not damage and maintain the coating.
It really depends on the age of the warhead, and if the bomb itself had been reconditioned previously (e.g. replaced fill with alternate or more modern composition) as much of what ages out of inventory can be practically be refurbished, from the more well maintained stockpiles at least at fairly low cost and returned to inventory as long as physical damage and rust isn’t evident upon inspection, and even then they can be used with priority in Live training so they aren’t wasted.
It changes the variant (e.g. GBU-31 “C” (V)2 /B) of the “configuration” (the specific version of the add on kit used, normally used for minor successive changes, with the JDAMs this tends to indicate the use of successively improved Anti-Spoofing / -Jamming GPS receivers (KMU-556"x"/B); for example. The thermally protected USN variant of the Mk. 84 warhead is designated the BLU-117A/A
But the exact order to this mostly depends on as to which service the particular program office in question belongs to, and the age of the system as some prefer, sequential designs (or the differentiation of “dual source” suppliers) to be different variants, others different configurations, or under entirely different designations for example the;
- GBU-12A/B (Paveway I kit)
- GBU-12C ~ -12E (Paveway II kit) indicate which seeker code ranges the seeker has access to, and are classed as US, NATO or Export, and so support some specific range of code(s).
- GBU-12F/B (Lockheed “Dual Mode LGB” Kit [Laser + GPS])
- GBU-49(V)/B (Raytheon “EGBU-12” kit [GPS + Laser])
- GBU-73/B (Lockheed “DMLGB+” / “Paragon” Kit )
But all in all the only people it really matters to is the ordnance technicians that assemble the AURs, and pilots that may or may not have access to particular methods of delivery & Handoff / update capability.
2 Likes