I honestly advice you to reread all i wrote, cos the meaning cleary went over your head.
Then why are you angry. I can not see why you don’t want the F-14D(R) to have the planned D03 loadout. It was supported by tons of first-hand sources. It is a planned upgrade that didn’t go through.
It’s not a matter to what we want and if it was “planned” . It’s a matter that sources state that didn’t happen and GJ blocks and will block any attempt to convince them with that reason.
Instead the best we can do is push for fixes for the current.
For example better 54s according to real data.
What many people want the F-14D or wanted the 14D(R) to be… is more or less the NF-14D , which is a testbed plane and there are very few data on what modifications it really had . Most things around it are classified.
GJ may or may not give a NF-14D or 14A , but you can’t push the changes for the TT or the Premium because the planes showcased in the game are not NFs.
Now, if you tell me KH-38MT and Yak-141 i’ll say i agree GJ did BS with that, but still won’t make them make neither the TT or Premium a NF .
I call NF because that’s the only case they have the creators freedom to do changes like the ones you mention (the planned stuff) because those planes really tested the changes before they got cancelled.
However, since the IRIAF sold well, i can see them make an event NF. ANd they even have the creators freedom to use NF-14D with AMRAAM , because pictures or not those plane’s as weapon testers used a lot of stuff normal 14Ds didn’t. Or they can use NF-14A with AMRAAM and 9M at 13.0 with APG-71…because testbed…
F-14D with the original D03 software upgrade is the easiest implementation in the game.
AIM-120, HARH and Harpoon (maybe not) are existing assets in the game file.
Planned upgrades of the existing vehicles should already be sufficient to meet the suggested requirement. In-game vehicles with unrealised Upgrade Plan included:
Yak-141 radar+loadout, Mirage 4000 radar+loadout, SMS Sachsen AA defence, Gneisenau main cannon, RN Conte di Cavour AA defence, Me 264 (It should not have the Jumo 213E), Tiger II (Sla.16), MiG-29 9-12 with R-27ER, MiG-29G with R-27ER1 and R-27ET1, F-14 AM with R-27ER1, all WWII USSR destroyer with post war 130 mm ZS-46R HE-VT.
What are you trying to argue for? GJ must keep kicking a PR Hornet’s nest by selling out the F-14D premium pack buyer by putting a free, identical F-14D into the tech tree? How would a universal buff in AIM-54 fix that issue? They still spent $80 to buy a free identical F-14D.
Why would it suddenly be OK to put it into a magical testbed NF-14A with AMRAAM, 9M and APG-71 that is way more unrealistic than just F-14D(R)s with the original D03 software upgrade?
1 Like
Ok NF-14D. The only planes that used and tested parts of the upgrade. Make it a new plane , event toss it at 13.7 .
Why all the others that don’t want the NF/what if plane HAVE TO play that instead of the original?
And i’m all for it, but at least don’t kill the original ones.
And no it’s not the same to make a TT as NF. Either both , or the original only.
We can have both…
As i said myself GJ has done a lot of crap.
However you don’t understand what we tell you here.
You can have both the NF and the originals. You don’t have to mess the originals with the NFs.
Scrap the APG-71, i said a BS…trying to find a solution.
However ,
This is just as unrealistic… because it never happened. It was planned.
Did some NFs had those capabilities? As testbeds? Yes…
Ok then ask for the testbed for an event plane.
The 14D(R) NEVER had them.
The NFs with a little creator’s freedom, you can justify them…
That’s my point.
The NF-14A didn’t have APG-71, but you can say had AMRAAM and 9M.
It existed .
The D(R) with D03 never existed.
Best you can ask is a NF-14D with the extras it tested… and why not, AMRAAM . I think i’ve read somewhere they did tests (even without photos).
So as your magical NF-14D you just made up. You are clearly just arguing for your own preference instead of how GJ would act or their actual interest. The paid player hates to see the TT free F-14D to be the same as the premium version. What do you want? Your YAIM-54 to have a nuclear warhead? And people would suddenly forget they got ripped off?
You can’t into reading.
Block.
TT f14D being added after the community wanted it…
No just a f14D w/amraams because the only thing the production models needed was a software update they can make that exception especially when documents provide info of the f14 being capable of using AMRAAMs and guiding 4 (yes ik it didn’t get the capability) of them in testing as their is other more of a stretch especially the kh38mt,yak141,ho229(iirc) etc in the game
NF-14A with AMRAAMs is going to be atrocious because it likely has an AN/ALR-25 RWR and limited CMs.
1 Like
Huh? It would be like the f2a adtw and f2a you’ll still have access to a 13.0 premium f14D also all f14D should be capable of AMRAAMs theirs no special device the f14D needs like yall like to keep mentioning it is only missing the software update it needed, no documentation says a lot more modifications is needed other than just the software update
One thing I will say the flaw in the d03 tape is the harm did need a extra device and if (iirc) the alr67v(4) also so I could see it not getting harms for the harpoon I’m not sure how that work for it to work so frankly I would be okay with just getting f14D aim7p2 an aim120A at 13.3-13.7 without the lantern package for balancing
Plus a day ago someone leaked info of the manual f14D sms stating aim7,9,120 launchers and weapons
Proof that the f14D airframe can carry and launch aim120 has been done
Proof the f14D has tech for aim120 is their
Proof the apg71 can use aim120 and it limits is their (obv it needed software update)
Their is more than enough proof and it’s not a big stretch that people make it out to be compared to other stuff in game
Those who buy the pack don’t want their 80 usd F-14D identical to or worst than the free version. Which part of it you don’t understand
Yes and GJ EVERYTIME we come up with this, comes with it got cancelled and ignores us.
Yes a 1985 manual, and has were the missiles would be stationed IF the program came to life.
I’ll explain as simple as i can , maybe i’m writing wrong, maybe some read wrong.
I’m not against a F-14 with 120s or Harpoons or D03 or whatever.
The problem is they say no for a valid reason. The Tomcat they want those 14Ds they make , they want them without all that and whatever anyone will say they will keep dismissing it because their answer is valid.
So instead asking the 14Ds to have 120s etc. you can ask for an NF that we know it tested weapons.
With a stretch you can get it with 120s because it was weapon testbed. Now will it be more imaginary than getting the D03 upgrade that was cancelled in the 14D? Not really. At least the NFs we know they tested HARMs/HARPOONs and we don’t really know about 120s because it wasn’t only that 1981 test we have pictures of… someone had something about it in the forums , search it i cba now , i want to play.
Just ask for a thing they might say yes and they won’t dismiss just because they have a valid answer to spam.
The F-14D(R) are supposed to mean the NF-14As, which were later upgraded to D(R). That’s why F-14D(R) with D03 upgrade is picked.
1 Like
Just like the TT f14D. Plus witch just shows if enough people showed interest it can be made possible and keep pushing for it like even though it was cancelled it can still be added in game do to other stretch scenarios that could be found in game
Nope the actual Navair f14D manual and even the 2004 version still have it listed
Like I said above the whole f14D aim120A is less of a stretch than the ones that can already be found in game like just the idea of prototypes are a stretch and also giving them weapons they planned on having are a stretch hell the f-90/r27 are a stretch and some say the kh38mt are aswell frankly I don’t think it should get harms and harpoons because I do know the harms did need a extra device to use harms for harpoons tbh I don’t know how they function so I’ll leave that their. And btw they already have the f14D they wanted they could at least give what some the community will like to see witch is a f14D w/ aim120A an aim7p2
I mentioned before GJ has done a lot of BS. But you can’t force them do things if they don’t want to and it’s pretty valid that the upgrades didn’t take place.
They were tested though and i don’t think it has anything to do with their modelling and how they operate in game.
That’s why i’m saying it will be better to include the upgrades in one plane, call it NF ( there were many of them , they can just make them one plane…it’s a stretch but not as many BS they pulled off) .
And it will be a complete unit, that more or less existed but was experimental testbed.
Ofc they can still not give it, but i think it is a legit option for a high tier event plane.
I’ll tell you again, it’s not that i don’t want to , or what i believe they should do…
It’s maybe the best shot we may have for convincing them to implement a Tomcat with 120s.
Don’t mess with their Premium/TT supposed wannabe balance or how they think of it and them practically giving a copy paste plane with “new weapons”…
Very appealing to them. And again the planes (NFs) existed and they did weapons testing for the cancelled program. So it’s not that they are fake .Way less stretch than other things you mentioned as well.
I just try to give you an option for proposal they will be more inclined to accept.
Now is like you headbutt the wall. It’s GJ.
No AMRAAMS on any tomcat in any variant but sure yeah let’s add fake russian ships and add a fake hyper-accurate missile
1 Like
Actually that just worse and bvvd said they not interested in adding nf14 due to the fact of them being experimental laboratories although a few weeks ago I think a suggestion moderator did post the nf-14A as a suggestion but my only question is where they got that a f14A has a apg71 or how they can prove the awg9 works with AMRAAMs
Never said you are against the idea I’m just saying you wrong to say their justification is correct for no f14D w/ AMRAAMs and that’s just my opinion as they have added stuff more of a stretch like I keep saying
I’m not being defensive - that makes absolutely no sense. That’s like saying it’s okay to run red lights in a red car cause the colours match but blue cars have to stop. Gaijin employees have been the ones talking about ‘standards’ and what does, or doesn’t, meet them. Clearly - the Yak-141 meets those standards, the F-15C GE meets those standards, the F-16AJ meets those standards, the XF5U meets those standards, how many other planes and tanks that fit the same profile that have made it in to this game, and in to the tech trees or whatever else, since tanks and planes use the same relative system unlike ships. They have through these additions shown us what the ‘standard’ is, and set precedent, that something like a damn software patch shouldn’t be a disqualifier. And completely invalidates their counter arguments that all hinge on ‘but it didn’t happen’ because if that’s a problem - then they need to say they are removing all these planes, and refunding people where needed.
It’d be the same as them having all those Russian battleships and battlecruisers - who meet the looser rules they have on ships which is basically ‘they at least started it’, but then saying we can’t have the Lexington class battlecruisers which were in fact started, but due to the Washington naval treaty were completed as CV’s. They meet the same exact criteria as those Russian ships, and I believe a couple others in other trees that were never actually finished or not finished as what they started as, so there is no reason for it to not be included.
I’ve seen that (did not see the specific document Knuckles posted right below this before) - but that is still ‘theoretical’ and even in that document is ‘should the Navy decide to fund further modifications’ which is basically a more political/professional way of saying ‘if’.
We can point to plenty of stuff that says it would get AMRAAM’s, I’ve seen at least one thing posted that spells out 6x AIM-120A’s, and because AIM-120’s were 1-1 replacements for AIM-7’s, even without that 6x AIM-120’s document, the fact we have all the stuff going ‘it was a software upgrade they were going to make and had funded’ is a far easier argument to win and push on for the 6x AIM-120’s on them.
To be clear - I’m not against 8 or even 10 if someone figures out how they’d be carried (I’m guessing similar to F-15’s with some of their other mountings). I’m not an absolute ‘purest’ I’m the guy that want’s things like the Ho-Ri - even if it has to change based on new data, or the 105 Tiger, the R2Y’s, etc. I want things like this, the XF5U - the still somewhat tangible but not overly fantastical ‘what if’s’ that ideally made it to at least models and mockups, maybe the occasional paper thing more where needed or as some event vehicle or the like. I’d even say make it 2 planes - the F-14D (Early) with the 6x 120A’s at whatever BR - as an Arcade player I’d say 13.0 in Air Arcade to go against the MiG-29N, and then add a late model to the tech tree representing more what it would have looked like then in 2006 with newer AMRAAM’s and maybe using even the dual racks for 8x AMRAAM’s or if they can figure out the where 10x AMRAAMs.
The F-14D with 6x AMRAAM’s is an argument with a better footing because it’s what it would have had with just the patch. But I ain’t gonna try and stop or slow down anyone that wants to push for 8+ if they got enough evidence.
What paper and ‘theoretical’ are you talking about?
This is the X-4 on Fw-190 level modification. German said no to put X-4 on the Fw-190 and guess what in the War Thunder?