Grumman F-14D Super Tomcat - End of a Legendary Era

Suggestions Aircraft
212

Launcher compatibility =/= weapons integration

Integration means carriage, jettison, and launch flight testing. You can’t even prove a 9X was hung as a mockup, let alone any of that.

I’m well aware of what it does. I’m saying the APG-70 already significantly underperforms in both maximum detection and max track range. I see no reason to assume they would model the APG-71 as anything other than a slight(5-10%) increase in those aspects. The IRST being unquestionably an IRST is frankly more important given the devs current stance on sensor fusion.

It does matter.

2 Likes
213

You don’t need integration. Aim-9Xs are backward compatible with planes that support the Aim-9M. The Aim-9X was in service at the time of the F-14D.

I think you’re misunderstanding. It’s not a derivative of the APG-70. It’s an evolution of the AWG-9. It shares the most commonality with the -70, but it’s not a variant.

214

The one misunderstanding things here is you.

215

well then? Explain how I’m misunderstanding.

216

You take the brains(computers) of the APG-70, the antenna of the APG-70(scaled up) and the digitization of the APG-70 then pair it to the power supply used by the AWG-9. yes, it’s definitely not a derivative. It definitely shares more in common with an analog radar…

217

Wdym “q.e.d” like it needed to be demonstrated?

218

As I just said, it’s the AWG-9, just digitalized.

You can say that about any radar’s antenna with the way you’re using it.

I said it has more commonality with the APG-70. However, it’s not based on the APG-70.

219

Also isn’t the awg9 X band?

1 Like
220

You have no idea what you’re talking about

221

Well where are the sources to prove what you’re talking about? Can’t just say something and not prove at least one source

1 Like
222

That literally goes the exact same for what he is saying you realize?

The difference is we know the APG-71 uses the components and specifically the computers from the APG-70 which is what a make a radar a radar, genius

223

Still no source. And no I don’t know everything about radars witch is why I want you give something of a source so I can see weather this facts from wiki or something more solid

1 Like
224

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm%3FARC_ID%3D113&ved=2ahUKEwiLvMLXwpmMAxXfIjQIHZlvAPkQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3QTjMjwOdo2Ej1P8I3QFzS

I don’t much like forecast international, but it’s more than he has provided.

The APG-71 does not exist without the 85% commonality with the APG-70, and those components are what makes a radar a radar.

2 Likes
225

EFT has a crappy radar, the Rafale is great overall and the SU30 is, both the EFT and Rafale both have the advantage of amazing missiles (which maybe the F14D will get hopefully); while also adding that the SU30 has now great missiles.

The F14 airframe is still also competitive in dogfights as I can speak from experience, managing to outmaneuver small fighters like the F16, to the newly added SU30 and it’s TVC

Let’s see if and when it gets added and we’ll see how it is only then

226

Ah come on. If Navy used EGBU I’d try for those instead of LJDAM, since those were around when F-14D was in service

227

TBH main joke - gaijin doesnt even asks for ability to guide it(set GPS)… at least UMPK can got coordinates mid flight(in game, irl cant).

1 Like
228

it can get both.

229

I personally don’t understand why they won’t put the effort into modelling the CAPTOR-M, maybe because an EFT is in the British tree and therefore it musn’t be given proper attention

230

No, because LJDAM wasn’t even in prototype stage when F-14 was retired

1 Like
231
5 Likes