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
- 2x BOL pod
1 Like
that looks like it’s the same adapter used to carry the lantirn pod.
1 Like