Block :)
1 Like
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
Same as that IRAN R-27 R image; it can just be a mock-up without further context. That is the whole point.
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.
4 Likes
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
3 Likes
I am Soviet main so I personally dont care much about F-14 but honestly, the F-14D(R) should get the AIM-120. It was technically capable of carrying them, what is enough reason for me. TT should have most advanced version.
5 Likes
3 F-14’s at 13.0…just remember how dumb that sounds.
2 Likes
So since this suggestion thread isn’t closed I’m assuming we’re not getting a f14D(r) we’re getting a c&p f14D with a few more camos for tech tree?
No. To close the suggestion thread, the specific F-14D model in question must be released in a live update.
We don’t know the specifics of the F-14D TT yet, let alone whether it’s F-14D(R) or production F-14D.
3 Likes
Oh okay thanks for answering
Suggestion mods are yet to close last major update vehicle suggestions anyway so they just behind schedule aswell
4 Likes
Oh okay thanks for letting me know
1 Like
So like can we push for the f14D to get aim-7p now like would that be a suggestion form or a bug report?
2 Likes
Comment to gear up the topic:
F-16XL is getting an AIM-120 despite it stopped development 8 years before the official service imtroduction. Therefore any argument against F-14D having AIM-120s are purely based on developers’ vibes and do not reflect a non-existent in game rule
2 Likes
Well, after what they are doing with the 16XL they should probably add AMRAAM or equivalents for other nations and planes to anything that was “compatible” . Either it used it or not.
That cherry picking they do doesn’t really make sense. That surpasses even specific nation biases and turns to “whatever they like” bias . They like the plane ? They do whatever… They don’t? they butcher it…