It’s not surprising, people ask for changes that could make the game better and then these people come out, I see they’re still traumatized by IRIAF
1 Like
In fact, he simply has no way of defending his point and was starting to be disrespectful
?? Nobody’s traumatised by Iraf it’s bad, and being at 13.7 is an outrage
Objectively speaking, the debate simply makes no sense, the only missiles that can be added are the AIM-7P and the AIM-7MH
Ok
You’re right, the F-14D would be better with the AIM-7P, But I’d still like the AIM-120 because the AIM-54 is a joke compared to the other Fox 3 rifles. If they improve the AIM-54, then I wouldn’t complain
But f-14D never use AIm-120 only NF-14A ( from the manufacturer ) and program for airforce it was cancelled
I know, but that would make it more competitive; they could convert it into the F-14D Quick Strike, which among its proposed features was the AIM-120. The other option is simple, Give the AIM-7P to the F-14D, which, based on the realism of the era in which it was in service, it should have
You see, that is the problem…
They don’t fix the AIM-54 properly and it’s not a big fix, most likely a drag profile issue …With the new system altitude affects the missile’s performance and 54s can give the official specs performance but they are 2-3km outside the launch altitude a Tomcat had ceiling. Tomcat’s max ceiling was 15-16km. The Missile starts to perform according to data if the launch is at 18-19km.
That should be a minor fix. Yet…
People ask for 120 just before GJ refuses obsessively to fix Phoenix to realistic specs…
But:
F90 doesn’t have official specs, just claims…yet they use them 1:1.
There are many of planes that use wrong armament or armament they didn’t have at all (M2000-5EG for sure didn’t EVER have ARMAT capability , it has Rafale’s computer and the missile needs instruments in the cockpit the plane doesn’t have and the missile - even 2K-5F which is older can’t use it, since the missile was already phased out by the time of it’s introduction) .
I can use plenty of example’s that are worse than AMRAAM in F-14D , which really had technical/mechanical compatibility but lacked software (only) , because the others didn’t even had the physical capability to even carry the weapon …
.
They can solve all the whining with fixing 54s and properly implementing 7P-2 (14D could , AWG-9s run in compatibility mode… yet for some reason somehow people made out it talks about 14D in the paper , it doesn’t even say 7P-2 or D , just P and F-14 and ofc the paper talks for CATM simulation…which M/P or whatever used the same SIM as CATM-7F-3) .
The annoying is that they make it like they hate the plane. And that pisses off people even more.
And Btw about if F-14Ds tested AMRAAM…
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-squadron-vx4.htm
The tests started on 14D in 1990 and continued in F/A-18s in '91. It states OpEval continued in 14D as well.
That’s not justification that fleet used AMRAAM on Tomcats, it states that they tested in F-14D and after the “picture or it didn’t happen” in the 80s…
The plane was fully , physically capable… THE FLEET didn’t buy the software.
(And personally i can’t understand the mentality of people that can’t understand that USN or any army/navy/air force HAS TO give info about all the tests they do and under what conditions in detail to the public … from my time i served i can tell you A LOT of things the public doesn’t know, you won’t find written , but we did and simulated in training , even about systems that were not under my command).
2 Likes
No, the F-14D never tested the AIM-120, and only two Grumman F-14As fitted with avionics from the planned F-14 D a project that was cancelled due to the success of the F-18 did so
The F-14D doesn’t even use the AIM-7P to its full potential, you are completely crazy, and whether it’s physically possible is something that doesn’t even make sense. For a missile, what’s physically possible is the least important thing
2 Likes
Aim-7p is ok but F-14D no have link16 dl shouldn’t work
AIM-7MH would be more than enough, there’s no need to add a datalink less AIM-7P
1 Like
Gaijin need add loft to mh ( add míssil first) and p
1 Like
14D has link16.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/joint-tactical-information-distribution-system-class-2-terminal.
Let’s Get Linky! - Armada International
Spoiler
go to data link integration in the video.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/september/f-14d-exploits-passive-sensors
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14d.htm
States JTIDS , the hardware that uses the “link 16”
https://www.scribd.com/document/739532553/f-14d-Manual
In this search for JTIDS.
You can say what you want f-14D dont have link16 support
1 Like
If you say so i can’t disagree… sources are wrong, BAe is wrong, pilots are wrong! We are all crazy! You know!!!
1 Like
Men found a manual which states that the F-14D is technically equipped with Link 16. There were plans to upgrade to Link 16, but the aircraft was never upgraded and the software was never ready.
men check our fonts