First off - stop conflating things I say. ‘theoretical’ and ‘paper’ are 2 very separate things, and I made that distinction very clear and specifically separated them out.
Second - I have seen that picture, long before it was ever posted in this thread. Problem is - I have never been able to run down a reliable source on the picture that shows it’s anything more than a mock up - a static display. There is that one document that says they could if they chose to expand the number of AMRAAM’s - but there is no document saying that they tried to. Clearly - someone who wrote the one document felt that the Navy could expand the F-14’s AMRAAM carrying capability to 8-10, and at some point - someone did at minimum a mock up that showed a potential option of how 8x would work. That is all still theoretical in my book.
It is neither paper nor theoretical if they literally put it on the plane. Do we need to pull out the R-27 R1 mount on the F-14 AM picture again to prove the point?
They said not to put them on Me 262 since it was more difficult to fly and due to speed pilot had much less time to actually guide the missile. Fw-190 was actually the one that used it the most after Ju-88 iirc.
X4 did not even pass the test phase.
The reason of rejection of the version I know is:
" The X-4 had originally been intended for use by single-seat fighters (including the Me 262 and possibly the, but the problems in guiding both the missile and the aircraft at the same time proved unworkable. Instead, the X-4 was re-directed to multi-seat aircraft like the Ju 88, while the unguided R4M rocket was to be used in single-seaters."
As long as the Fw-190 was a single-seat fighter, it should not be on the accepted list.
It’s crazy we keep repeating ourselves for the F-14 missiles. Even when people bring actual proof and documents, it just turns into continuous arguing while other planes in game get pass after pass on theoretical loadouts. Double standards get used whenever it suits a balance narrative, and its getting old.
I wish they had just made an F-14B(U) as the premium instead, but here we are. Now by next update we are going to have two identical F-14Ds at 13.0 sitting right next to the F-14B.
I’m just exhausted by the ARH meta gap at this BR. Having all three of these Tomcats stuck at 13.0 getting constantly up-tiered and forced to rely on AIM-54s, which are completely useless against anyone who isn’t completely AFK, just feels awful to play.
Somehow you managed to not understand a single point of what i was talking about.
I’m NOT disregarding your sources, i’m saying THEY ARE ALL SECONDARY ONES.
I’m NOT saying secondary ones are trash, or that they aren’t accepted, i’m saying GAIJIN WILL NOT CHANGE THE LOADOUT without a PRIMARY SOURCE. That’s their saying not mine!
How hard is it to understand?
We have PRIMARY sources that prove that the 54s are underperforming, by the way, as per dedicated thread, and Gaijin STILL haven’t met the proper historical settings, creating a ‘‘middle ground’’ approach by the implementation of the horrendous multi altitude differentiation we have in drag right now, and somehow you guys believe that Gaijin will add a completely new missile to a plane that is clouded in conflicting info and high tempers of the community by presenting ONLY secondary sources.
At this point, i can only believe you guys somehow STILL don’t understand how Gaijin works. And what baffles me is that you are being mean to people that ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO HELP YOU, like myself, cos you can’t comprehend how things work here somehow.
If only the Phoenixes were actually good, like we’ve been asking for tirelessly, with sources and documentation , and matched their respective real life performances…
This topic is so toxic that we even have people of the ''AMRAAM for the F14D" crowd fight each other in regards of the number of fantasy (until proven otherwise) missiles the plane should carry, and THEY ARE ON THE SAME TEAM! lmao
I shouldn’t even waste my time replying to you, but here you go:
This i won’t answer, as this is a matter of basic education and not technicalities in military ordinance.
This is based upon the fact that GAIJIN has, on multiple bugreports of the AMRAAMS stated that they won’t add it based on lack of sources, none of the sources you guys are posting are unknown to them, and they even quote some of them in the bugreports, feel free to look it up
By the way, i’ve seen you asking for ‘‘sources’’ in multiple comments, and in other discussions, my advice is that you at least learn what a ‘‘source’’, by definition, is, before instantly replaying while asking for it ad nauseum. Knowing the difference between a primary source and a secondary one is the bottom of it.
ad nauseum? I provided sources and pictures for every technical comment I made here. And you don’t even know what we are suggesting here. F-14 D(R) D03 was prototypes stage before F-14 D officially entered service in 1991. You don’t read, you don’t think, you don’t elaborate. What ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO HELP?
Now let me ask again:
Where are your sources?
The definition of primary and secondary source.
GAIJIN WILL NOT CHANGE THE LOADOUT without a PRIMARY SOURCE.
PRIMARY sources that prove that the 54s are underperforming.
You made many claims, yet fail to provide any evidence to support those claims.
I think its much healthier for the tomcat to only get sparrows and pheonix rather than a full fat amraam. i dont think any of us want a tomcat north of 14.0
If my quick google search is right - your talking about an Iranian F-14A mounting double racks of R-27’s. Which if I’m wrong - please, enlighten me. But an Iranian F-14 with double racks for R-27’s is not an F-14 with double racks for AMRAAMs. Which leaves us at a picture that can’t be confirmed as more than a mock up with 2x AMRAAM’s on a single launcher. I’m not saying it’s impossible - F-18 proves that alone and is US tech, but I have seen no source that can be backed up as to development of a dual launcher for the F-14. People want to propose a version with more than 6x AMRAAM’s - fine, I’m good with it, it has my support generally - but the one I know we can back up with evidence is 6x AMRAAM’s.
Says the guy that started calling us ‘Naive’, and is in his own way either very careless with what they type making things come across as insults - or is in fact insulting us. That, is what pushed me to go more on offense. But lets move past that.
Okay - and what primary sources do they have on something like the F-15C Golden Eagle? Cause the stuff they explicitly list, instead of falling under ‘etc’ doesn’t exist for that plane. It would have to be built from the kind of stuff listed more likely under secondary sources. I’d also point out that some of the newer aircraft still have classified materials - and so there is no access, legally, to primary sources, and so can only be created through access to secondary sources for information. It’s coming from books that have done research or other government documents in the public but not classified.
But y’know what - I finally found what someone else linked, and had been looking for. The 5 cleared for public release pages of NAVAIR 00-110AF14-2: the official U.S. Navy Standard Aircraft Characteristics (SAC) performance and specification chart for the F-14D Tomcat
As you can see on page 3 - the Ordnance is listed as the AIM-7F/M, the AIM-9L/M, the AIM-54C, and the AIM-120A. Page 9 also lists the AIM-120A - as well as the 6 stations it would be on, which are the same ones and configuration as the AIM-7F/M unsurprisingly.
So - even if you want to say the GAO reports are secondary sources, there is no way the SAC doesn’t count as a primary source, and if they say it isn’t - I call bull.
I know exactly how Gaijin works. Why do you think they made the changes they did to the F-14’s? Why do you think they initially locked it behind a paywall? Gaijin doesn’t care if it’s a single primary source or 3 secondary sources - which they lay out in that thread you linked, they don’t care how ‘real’ something is - they care about the money. They are a business, it just happens making the game is the business - or rather selling us things in it. If the cost of them making a copy/paste F-14D with AMRAAM’s could be cancelled out by 400 players skipping research with GE, and you had a poll with 500+ people saying they’d do it - we’d probably have it next week. It’s the real reason they bend the rules when they want - what will appease namely larger player bases like US, Russia, and China, or make changes like removing certain flags when one gets bent out of shape.
Great - then in the thread dedicated to the AIM-54’s, keep up the fight, cause the A, B, and premium D are still saddled with that garbage, and it needs to be fixed. Cause even with all of them being moved to 12.3 in Arcade - I’m tired of taking my 14A or B out, only to get my head caved in by mostly now R-77’s and the occasional German F-4 with AIM-120’s, with it mainly being MiG-29N’s at 13.0 in the Japanese tech tree, often pulling themselves down to a 12.7 BR for matchmaking cause how it works, and the Su-30’s and others bringing their lineups down to 13.0 from 13.3 usually.
AIM-120A however - is not a new missile, it exists in game, on a lot of planes. It’s just adding it to the F-14D in the tech tree, like how they added ARM’s and other weapons recently to various planes. There is no real clouded and conflicting information on this plane. There are multiple things spelling out 'it was supposed to have AMRAAM’s - many of them official government sources, and pretty much all of which state a carriage of 6x AIM-120A’s. The only remotely ‘cloudy’ part is the single line about the Navy being able to possibly increase it’s carriage to 8-10 missiles in 1 document, and the existence of a picture that could just be a mock up of a rail with 2x AMRAAM’s on it, or could be from an actual test aircraft. And at that point - you have 2 of us who disagree on a definition of ‘theoretical’, pretty sure all of us who want a variant with AMRAAM’s can agree that it should have at least 6x of them.
I don’t know about you - but I’ve played this game basically since it’s release, if not from it. And remember being told they’d never go past WWII, maybe early jets, and then Korea, and no air to air missiles, and no SARH missiles, and no ARH missiles, no boats, no bluewater ships. I’ve lost track of the number of things they’ve said no to, or that they wouldn’t add for which ever reason - but have since been added. Either because they saw profit in it, or because eventually - we dragged them kicking and screaming to it. Would I prefer a 1 round knockout where they look at the various sources - given that their update this past May to the source material thread says a single primary source or at least 2 different secondary sources are needed to make changes - yeah, but I’m used to us, the community, having to go the distance with them. Doubly so when it actually comes to making any NATO vehicle better or not making them worse.
We know that the R-27 R on the Iran F-14 picture didn’t work from a 3rd source. That info about the R-27R on the Iranian F-14 was worse than the dual AMRAAM on the F-14, yet it was still implemented.
That does not have anything to do with proving that the one picture of an F-14 with dual AMRAAM’s is anything more than a mock-up, or that there was anything done toward equipping one with 8-10 missiles as the one document suggests could be done.
That just gives grounds to argue for it to be implemented in game. Which I’ve never been against the idea of using the dual racks to up an F-14 to 8x AIM-120’s, I’m not one of the ‘it has to be 100% accurate to history’ absolute purists.
Okay - I feel like there is some kind of communication issue here, a language barrier, the fact I at times have issues conveying what I mean, whatever.
If your saying all there is, is an image of an Iranian F-14A with R-27R’s, with no other supporting documentation or context, and more so if the missiles are not correct (in terms of markings and colours - like those AMRAAM’s), then I would argue they too are a theoretical thing, just like the dual rack AMRAAM’s.
I would also argue then - that if that is all it takes for the Iranian F-14 to be equipped with them, or any other similar scenarios with other aircraft, then that is grounds for the F-14 if armed with AMRAAM’s to also have the ability to mount a dual rack to expand it’s carry ability to 8x missiles. Because I’m okay with theoretical stuff - where all we have is a something like a picture that shows possibility like the AMRAAM’s or even the R-27’s in that case, just as I’m fine with paper stuff - like the R2Y’s, so long as the rules are applied CONSITENTLY - which has been Gaijin’s issue to date.
As long as the Kh38mt is in the game then I think the TECH TREE f14d should be receiving amraams. Feel free to take it away once that curse from god himself is struck from the face of the earth. Every time I get killed by a kh38mt and then see Gaijin reject historically accurate things for nato it makes my blood boil