F-18C has a better time to climb, more missiles, and of course better energy retention.
Even IF F-14D got AIM-120s, it’s still not compared to F-18C, and is at best on-par with F-16C.
F-14D isn’t even F-15C equivalent. Minimum 2 less ARHs, and of course a significantly worse TWR.
F-14B time to climb [10,000 meters]: 2 minutes 8 seconds.
In that time F-15E is at mach 1.5.
F-14B time to mach 1.5: 3 minutes 35 seconds.
F-16C time to mach 1.5: 2 minutes 58 seconds.
F-16C tine to climb: 1 minute 42 seconds.
I’m creating a spreadsheet of all this data this year.
Here are the videos made thus-far:
Yes, F-18 will have a slower top speed, but it will accelerate faster, climb faster, and turn better in both energy retention and AOA.
1 Like
I highly doubt that. Maybe if you’re talking about the F-14B we have ingame with the nerfed engines by approximately 35%. I was referring to real life.
And if you want to use more missiles than the F-14, you’re always going to perform worse than the F-14D in the Hornet.
And last time I checked, the F-14D doesn’t bleed more than 54 knots per second of speed on the deck.
The F-14D can carry 8-10 Aim-120s. That would put it on par/above the F-15C/E and F/A-18C.
That’s great. I assume it will be updated when Aircraft changes are made.
F-14B’s engines are not nerfed in-game. They have the exact performance they should have. F-14B’s acceleration in-game matches all real-world data within margin of error.
F-14D has no engine upgrade.
That’s not energy retention, that’s AOA.
F-14D can at most carry 6 AIM-120s claimed thus far.
The outer most stores are IR only to knowledge present.
It’s recorded as 6 in the SAC, but did test dual racks at one point which bumps the numbers by 2.
Also
4 Likes
Wasn’t that rack mockup only made from polished wood?
If I’ve read correctly, they’re saying it could with some modifications. Did they actually do these modifications afterward to allow this?
And? Show me a Yak-141 carrying live ordnance.
Only partially, The needed wiring and software was implemented for provisional carriage (as seen in the SAC it was planned and funding set aside for installation) to all F-14D’s when they were built. But the actual racks were never procured. and so the AMRAAM never mounted in service, in place of that; LANTIRN, GPS, PGM and other capabilities were installed instead using the diverted funds.
To which considering what they were about to be sent into definitely worked out for the better, since After the first few days there really weren’t many aircraft to be concerned about.
3 Likes
The F-14B’s engines should produce 30,200(x2) pounds of thrust at sea level. They do not do this in Warthunder. Even the F110-GE-400’s thrust is rated for 28,000pounds of thrust. In Warthunder they only produce ~45,000 pounds of thrust with both engines. That is a significant amount of thrust lost. Just over a third or aka ~35%. This brings its TWR to 1.37-1.4.
No… It’s not. You know the document I’m referring to right? The one that says in the title the Superhornet is a marginal increase in performance over the F-18C.
@tripod2008 perfectly explains it below.
I’m realizing rn that the F-14D is not in the game yet. Do you really think it should be added? I mean we already have two tomcats… if it’s added anyway it should be packed with the F-14B
We already have like 4 Flankers in the game. Several F-16s. Several F-15s. No difference.
4 Likes
That’s true… B and D should still be together imo (by together I mean like the F-16A and F-16A ADF)
3 Likes
Also the flankers aren’t all the same… for example the su-34 doesn’t count
1 Like
Yeah I was talking about like Su-27,SM,33,and J-11s
1 Like
First off, it’s 28,950 not 30,200.
28,950 / 2.20462 = 13131.5kgf.
Would you look at that, it makes that thrust. It’s missing no thrust.
13500 x 2 = 27,000kgf total, or 59,524lbf total.
Superhornet is inferior to F-18C in flight performance.
@tripod2008
Show us evidence that F-14D was never produced since you’re now claiming that by citing Yak-141. That or your post is claiming Yak-141 was put into service…
Your post is wrong.
Also a mockup isn’t evidence of usability. Similar to how F-1C is limited due to computer, we need evidence via manual or non-mockups for usability of production aircraft.
Yes, It should though. The US tree has had issues with significant powercreep for a while now (The jump from the F-86F>F-100>F-4C>F-4E really jumped the shark, and made obvious that the US tree was not the one driving that pace) that made obsolete a number of potential additions in short order.
I personally think an F/A-18A in it’s initial entry into service configuration (AIM-9L / -7M), or F-111F should have been added in place of the F-14B (in order to avoid multi-role additions until it’s time), and had an A2A interceptor been needed the F-15A would have been fine.
Depends on how they go about adding the (Super)hornet and if the F-15E has the B-1B or F-15EX next in line.
2 Likes
Though if we add the fa18a, fa18c and fa18e that means no hornet for the av8b+ branch
???
The Yak-141 saw a limited production run of Four Airframes, so it’s not actually paper. Though the configuration portrayed in game absolutely is.
The SAC sheet was linked in a prior post, wasn’t the issue of how the 8-10 AMRAAM figure was arrived at, which should at least be self evident.
Let me guess evidence of carriage / release by the F-14A &-14B don’t count, for the F-14D do they considering we can’t prove that they successfully guided to the target, or that the AWG-9 can guide the AIM-120.
F-14A-65-GR #158625
Note Specifically the AIM-120’s compatibility with FM-CW guidance methods is directly mentioned, and that F-16A-15ADF’s in Italian service did mount them, so it is likely that an unmodified AWG-9 could provide a suitable guidance signal.
4 Likes
@tripod2008
Yak-141 is not a paper aircraft in-game.
The configuration in-game is a historical loadout for the prototype.
It’s an unfinished prototype, not paper, not production.
The Marines use a number of completely bespoke configurations (from the USN), and two seater hornets still exist as options, so they wouldn’t be a complete mirror of one another.
1 Like
Ok, so which airframe mounted the IRST?
3 Likes
