Someone’s literal voice isn’t a credible source, as reliable as people saying the T-72s autoloader chops arms.
Remember that the Fakour-90 is the same AIM-54 except that it has an aditional boosters implemented on it, thats why its performing that, you will have to show more proof of it.
What’s funny is how gaijin has it with the same G-Pull as the Sedjil, when it should be identical to or lower than the Aim-54, not the Sedjil/Hawk. It uses the same control surfaces after all. But gaijins too lazy for that it seems, they just copied and pasted a few stats and called it a day… (and if they give the Aim-54 and this missile the dual plane G-Pull it’s lacking, both missiles would have ~24.7Gs & ~21-22Gs of pull respectively. Fakour 90 buff when gaijin lmaooo).
1 Like
Just googled it and there’s basically nothing on the missile. Just seems to be a local production of the AIM-9P
Can it even get flare pods?
Yeah the RWR on the F-14 is really shite. You will detect MiG-23’s but not most other aircraft. You’d expect it to be able to detect the F-14 but no.
2 Likes
There’s very little information, but multiple images of multiple variations do exist. It’s speculated to be a Aim-9P with some form of IRCCM.
I find the proposal to add the Fakour-90 to the F-14D to be quite far-fetched, so, I’ll have to disagree with it.
While I appreciate the engagement with this suggestion, this discussion is not directly related to the topic at hand. I’d like to ask everyone to stick to the subject of the F-14D, please. Thanks.
3 Likes
Id rather see the aim-120 or even the aim-152 on the F-14D than the fakour-90 on it. The aim-152 would be more unique, but sadly was only a mock up to my knowledge, while the AMRAAM while not fully intergrated with the F-14D, to my knowledge, had some of the software to guide it, so itd be more plausible. 4 underbelly amraams, 4 under each wing and 2 sidewinders would make the F-14D quite potent.
5 Likes
I think there’s a basis to say there could be a dual rack of Aim-120s on the back underbelly pylons too. Totaling 10. Plus, I mean this photo exists…
4 Likes
The End? I think not the f-14 will always like on in our hearts
2 Likes
That would be rather nice. 8 amraams and 4 sidewinders. The F-14D would practically be a NATO flanker, in regards to size and weapon capacity.
2 Likes
Holy shit. I just found this
we already know it can carry 8 because of these pictures
Is it too big of a stretch to say 10 Aim-120s in the fighter config is possible with dual racks on the 5 and 4 pylons? That area can definitely fit them geometrically and that area is known to have a positive effect on reducing drag on the weapons stationed there.
7 Likes
The launcher is LAU-7, which does not supports AIM-120. Proposed dual racks for F-14 utilized different configuration.
Actually there was an early concept for carrying 6x AMRAAM under fuselage station with new launchers(3 front, 3 rear), so the potential of 10x AMRAAM probably relates to this. However neither of them made it to the stage of a functional prototype due to lack of sufficient funding. In the case of the expanded AMRAAM carriage for the fuselage station, there wasn’t even a single mockup.
So I’d say the 6x AMRAAM would be the limit even under the most generous interpretation of the F-14 and AMRAAM. This is especially true given that the only real meaningful attempt to integrate AMRAAM on the F-14 is the PDU software, which would infer that the AMRAAM would have simply utilized the hardpoints for AIM-7.
3 Likes
I would rather gaijin take the semi historical leap and allow the F-14D to take 8 amraams, 4 underbelly and 4 on the underwing pylons, along with 2 aim-9s to allow the F-14D to act as a sidegrade to the F-15C, trading some maneuverability and an HMD for 2 extra amraams, a great radar, and the cool factor cause its a F-14 ;) . But in all seriousness The F-14D without amraams would honestly, in my opinion be a worse F-14B as it would most likely be 13.3 with the one worst active radar guided missiles in the game. The F-14D with 8 amraams would make it worth the grind, and even make gaijin consider buffing the F-14B (it kinda sucks atm, AIM-7Ps, 9Ms or 54C+ would make it ever-so-slightly less painful)
5 Likes
omg yes NEED.
Good job on the really good breakdown! +1
1 Like
Are you sure? It doesn’t look like the LAU-7. That’s for the Aim-9s. It looks more like the LAU-93:
I feel like at minimum it should get 8. I know 10 is pushing it, but 8 seems reasonable.
2 Likes
Yeah seems like that it would from the testing of AMRAAM on the F14 using the same AIM-7 rails
There is a LAU-93 adapter, but I was referring to the rail launcher for AIM-9.
1 Like
I think we might be talking about different things. I was referring to this photo of dual rack Aim-120s. This is on the LAU-93 pylon for Aim-54s.
For this picture,
I think this is a custom rack attached to the LAU-7 launcher.
It doesn’t look like these pylons would be conflicted at all, since the Aim-120s would be on the lower 1B and 8B LAU-93 pylons, and the Aim-9s would be on the higher 1A and 8A LAU-7 pylons.
3 Likes
Yes, there was some confusion.
However the adapter with the AIM-120 dual rack is not a LAU-93, because its shape is lot different and able to accommodate a bomb rack (BRU-32?). This one is most likely a new mock-up made up for the concept demonstration, so we need more material to prove its workability.
3 Likes
Quick summary for the F-14 and AMRAAM:
- F-14A-65-GR BuNo 158625 performed an eject and ignition test for AMRAAM, utilizing a LAU-92 launcher.
- During the 1980s to early 1990s, plans called for the F-14D to be equipped with the AMRAAM.
- Pre-Deployment Update software was required for the AMRAAM capability, but it was not completed and no F-14D ever had it.
- There were several ideas to expand the F-14’s AMRAAM payload up to 8 or 10. However, none of them were proved to be functional and not a part of the actual integration effort.
- Therefore, if the F-14D had been equipped with AMRAAM in real life, most realistic loadout would have been 6x AIM-120 + 2x AIM-9.
4 Likes