Grumman F-14D(R) Super Tomcat — Ah Here We Go Again

Suggestions Aircraft
189

“Datelines, a History of Navy Missile Testing at Point Mugu, California” is valid proof that the F-14D has tested-fired the AMRAAM in the 1989 4-on-4 test, and should not be confused with the F-14A AMRAAM STT mode test-firing in 1981.

Given that the following progress report was written in 1988

image
image788×1010 153 KB

Source: Department of Defence Appropriations for 1989: Chemical weapons and demilitarisation.

While “The Datelines, a History of Navy Missile Testing at Point Mugu, California” was written in 1992 and stated that the latest F-14 AMRAAM test was conducted in 1989. It should supersede any source stating that AMRAAM was only test-fired on the F-14A model in STT mode, written before 1989. Those outdated reports were the main reason the F-14D’s involvement in the AMRAAM 4-on-4 test statement was previously dismissed.

With this new publication date comparison, the only source that can dismiss the AMRAAM 4-on-4 test statement must have been written after 1989.

2 Likes
190

If I remember correctly a few documents after testing say it can guide multiple amraam like this one

IMG_8605
IMG_86051179×1667 122 KB

IMG_8606
IMG_86061179×1988 623 KB

192

“Will be”. This one won’t make the cut. It is like the onion of defence. We got the planned layer long ago. We need to get to the test fired on TWT layer

193

Don’t forget it still missed the software update so no documentation won’t say “will be” as it was the last step for AMRAAMs to be integrated into the fleet but even with this like I said multiple time theirs bigger stretch that are in game

194

It was already there with the proof of 1989 test. It reached the prototype state.

The other source is still in the planned level. Test run level evidence is what needed.

195

Oh yeah, I’m not denning that part.

196

Next time you want to post the 1989 4-on-4 test as a proof. Post the whole chain of events. You need to show that that the 1989 test and 1981 test are different test.

198

Some more point to the line in FY 1988.

FSD flight testing program with F-14 and F/A-18 live missile firings.

image
image781×1113 203 KB

Source: DTIC ADA210490: Supporting Data for FY 1990/1991 Biennial Budget: Budget Estimates Descriptive Summaries Submitted to Congress January 1989, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy

1 Like
199

And how is that different than what was stated before. This clearly states the F-14D was being planned on carrying AMRAAMS (as we all, extensively, know), and that other model, most likely the F-14A, as we have video/photo evidence of it, tested it.

Either you guys find some overwhelming evidence that CLEARLY show a F-14D carrying/firing AMRAAMS, or gaijin won’t even add it. That’s how it works.

It’s not about what i or other people here think about it, we are just triying to show you guys, who apparently (by the way you are handling this, but pardon me if i am wrong on this) have less years of treating with Gaijin in this forum, that those kinds of ‘‘reports’’ won’t ever sway gaijin, on the contrary, the company usually shut themselves even more to changes when people just keep spamming the same info over and over. This is just how they work.

That’s why i, and others, have trying to argue that, in this moment, asking for a revised, historical accurate AIM-54 is the best way to handle the F14D problem, cos` by the way you guys are doing this, probably by naivity, gaijin will simply not add the AMRAAM, and not fix the Phoenixes, and we will all end up with nothing.

200

Furthermore, as a tip, you guys need to follow the proper Gaijin documentation for source material, this can be found here:

Summarized here:

This is VERY IMPORTANT to gaijin.
As i’ve been seeing, all of your sourcings stating the F-14D carried/tested AMRAAMS are secondary ones, and Gaijin will simply never accept them, you guys NEED to find a primary, unrestricted, source for it.

201

Giving aim120 to the f14 won’t affect the aim54 getting buffed or not and people been pushing aim54 buffs long ago. The aim54 even with it historical performance will still struggle in 13.0+ matches

202

Going to go in order of what I talked about in my post.

The F-14D with 6x AMRAAM’s, is well confirmed and fact. While not implemented there has been documents shown for a 6x AIM-120A loadout, as well as the simple fact that AIM-120’s were designed to replace AIM-7’s 1-1.

In terms of ‘theoretical’ as I specifically mentioned in that portion - is the 8-10x AMRAAM’s as mentioned in here , while there is photographic evidence of a rail designed to carry 2x AIM-120’s on an F-14 - which would bring it to 8 there is nothing that shows it being more than a mock-up, and there is nothing that lays out exactly how one would carry 10x AMRAAM’s. The document itself states ‘could be’ - this is ‘theoretical’, it could, in theory, have 8-10 AIM-120’s instead of the 6 we know for fact it could possibly carry with the software patch.

The ‘paper’ projects I’m referring to are things like the jet powered R2Y’s that were never built, or the Tiger II with the 10.5cm gun that was proposed and blueprints drawn but never manufactured - aircraft and tanks that remained ‘on paper’.

As a side note - the X-4 was tested on the Fw-190, which is the likely loophole they use but that’s besides the point. The 6x AMRAAM’s on the F-14D is something that was supposed to happen, that is fact that can’t be denied - even if Gaijin wants to keep trying, and as I’ve said before - the 14D with it’s software patch is way less of a stretch than the Yak-141, F-15C GE, F-16AJ, and a number of other vehicles, and so should be included in the game.

A variant with 8-10 AMRAAM’s is more theoretical - we have a single document that mentions it as a maybe if the Navy pursued further modification, and an image that may just be a mock-up that shows what a loadout with 8 could look like. And this game has used ‘paper’ vehicles in the past - such as the R2Y’s that were recently removed. But as I was trying to make clear - I support the option of adding these types of vehicles, such as maybe a variant of the F-14D with 8-10 AIM-120’s that on the arcade side could further help fill a massive gap the Navy fighter tree has, or things like the R2Y being brought back in to the game as parts of the tech tree, event vehicles, whatever. So long as it’s within reason (nothing insane like the ‘Ratte’ outside April Fools) - I don’t think think proposals (F-14D with 6x AIM-120/F-15C GE), theoretical (F-14D with 8-10 AIM-120’s, possibly better ones being later in aircraft life span), and paper vehicles (R2Y, 10.5 Tiger) should be disallowed from the game, If they want to limit them out of super historic accurate things fine, but for the rest of us in random battles and arcade - let’s have a little fun with some more of the ‘what if’ type stuff being added, and not just in the hands of a select few who happened to get them before they were removed in cases they were.

203

Yeah, okay, now I’m gonna have a tone. You want us to clearly show an F-14D carrying or firing AIM-120’s. Sure, how about this, we’ll do that just as soon as you show us an operational Yak-141 with a radar and weapons, or a Japanese F-16 - not F-2 - actual F-16, or an F-15C with the 2040c/Golden Eagle upgrade package. Except - that’s right, we know you can’t, because those things never happened either. And yet - Gaijin added them anyway.

2.2.4. Information or content that is based on, and properly cited from, the following sources:

  • Websites of manufacturers of military equipment/weapons (and other related products).
  • Official government websites and portals or other government sources (e.g., speeches, statements, letters) related to documents produced by the state.
  • Public conferences, forums, exhibitions, etc.
  • Documents held in national public libraries.
  • Literature legally sold or otherwise available to the public.
  • Legally published media materials.
  • Official publications, including scientific publications.
  • Information or content that does not fall under the above categories but cannot reasonably be considered export-restricted military-technical data by the laws of the applicable jurisdiction.
  • Information that is otherwise permissible under this Military Restrictions Section.

Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc.

Secondary sources are more than allowed - per the very things you linked. So - secondary sources aren’t a problem.

On that note -
“The Navy does plan to add the capability to launch the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
(AMRAAM) to F-14Ds when their computer software is updated. (AMRAAM is the Defense Department’s newest air-to-air missile.)”

  • Source: GAO.gov website, “NSIAD-95-12 Naval Aviation: F-14 Upgrades Are Not Adequately Justified”, October 1994 report to Congressional Committees, bottom of page 4.

At the top of page 5 is a chart listing weapons systems the F/A-18C has, the F-14 A/B, and the F-14D - in which the F/A-18C and F-14D are listed as being capable of launching AMRAAM’s (per the planned implementation of the software upgrade mentioned). As well as another chart on page 7. The ‘not adequately justified’ upgrades it is referring to are improved ground attack capabilities. I have no reason to believe the source is classified or restricted, being as it’s on the General accounting Office’s public website, has no indicators of anything classified or restricted, etc - but I’m airing on the side of caution. That is more than enough information to go to their site and find the report. Given it’s a government document I’d think that’s a primary source - but even if it somehow isn’t per the stuff you linked I have book marked at least another 2-3 separate documents from the GAO website that also point to the F-14 to be armed with the AIM-120 in very plain text. If you want those too - I’ll happily give you the details to go right to them, even though it only took me about an hour to find them and go through just typing in things like ‘AMRAAM’ or ‘F-14’ in to the GAO’s website search bar to find things - could even be more I missed as I did not go through every single file that popped up.

Let’s put aside even that trying to make it ‘more historically accurate’ is why we have the current AIM-54 performance with the new mechanics that apply to no other missile in game as of yet. We can fight for the AIM-54 improvements - because the currently in-game 4 models will still be limited to AIM-54’s as their ARH missile option, and for AMRAAM’s on the F-14D going in to the tech tree - at the same time. Saying ‘if we argue for one means we won’t get the other’ is like saying if we argue for AIM-9E’s on the F-111A they won’t give us better AIM-54’s’.

2 Likes
204

The F-14 8x AIM-120 non-paper nor ‘theoretical’ proof is just 1 post below the post you’re referring to. 10x AIM-120 is mostly just a joke with the given information on hand

205

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.

206

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?

207

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.

208

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.

209

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.

3 Likes
210

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.