Well, if we think about the JA37DI case, if we burn the forum like morning light, there still would be a chance of getting a regular one
There’s about a month and a half overlap between F-5C’s in USAF service and the AIM-9E having arrived in SEA if you cross reference the relevant CHECO report.
Also AIM-9E’s were later delivered to the VNAF, so potentially could have occurred afterwards, but not in US service.
It depends on what specifically is actually being implemented in game, is it a generic airframe that represents a specific Configuration at some point in time, or a particular airframe somewher in its service life.
The problem comes about when Gaijin is inconstant and so implements certain characteristics that are effectively exclusive with one another.
You have a better chance asking for aim9m-10 than getting aim9x and just because it doesn’t have hmd doesn’t mean it won’t make the aim9x weaker
Exactly my point in saying the f-14D got digital technology while the f14A the regular one had analog the f14A that tested amraam and had f14D technology
I my be wrong about this one but last time I checked it’s upgraded focus more on air to air compared to apg70 also the awg9 did have some sort of gps and ground mapping it’s even designed in game if you change the mfd of the radar it pulls up a map
Still dosent change the fact that amraam project went as far as the lantirn program I’m not saying the lantirn program was a bad choice
Expect the fact is it was a extremely heavy missile to the point in some situations they would have to ditch them in ocean for landing and expensive missile the aim120C came on what 1996 they should’ve dropped the aim54 the moment they knew about the aim120C it would’ve been financially better but that just a personal pov
It was, carriage went up to 6 and their even a document saying it could’ve gone up to 8-12 missiles and also for 6 aim120
Seems F-5C with AIM-9E are in fog of war then!
Still, no CM pods on both F-5C, USAF or VNAF.
I think you got what I meant by that context.
Yeah, thanks to that inconsistance
We have other examples of sad planes
Such as F-4J(UK) which was basically EX-USN RAF F-4J but cannot use AIM-7F because RAF didn’t bought which was technically inferior than skyflash
Or F-100D(France) which cannot use AIM-9E while F-100D(USAF) can because france went to design R.550 instead of buying 9E
Gaijin’s inconsistence built up all of these rubbish shitestorms
I want AIM-9M on F-14B but Gaijin wouldn’t
I don’t want AIM-120 on F-14D but Gaijin probably will.
Seing how both american squadron planes are below 9.0, and Russia is getting their second 13.0+ br squadron plane, I have a bad feeling we’ll get a high br squadron soonish, and it might as well be the F-14D at 13,7
AIM-9M-10 is no improvement to the kinematics of the missile so doesn’t help, it’s effectively the same reason as to why we’ve reached the AIM-120D in short order Due to Gaijin modeling things erroneously and so not actually covering the weakness of the sidewinder in comparison to it’s counterpart like the R-73 or MICA-RF.
Also unless we’re going to pull out the AIM-95 Agile there aren’t any other options.
If you are stuck trying to get the nose on (due to being stuck with Boresight only (and no SEAM)), or get a sensor lock on a threat is in close. and even then can’t make use of the entire gimbal (Pre-flaring will steal a lock on) massively constrains the ability to make full use of the improved kinematics.
This is due to the French F-100D not having the correct adapter to run the AIM-9E’s it changed from a 9 Pin conduit to a 14 pin design, installed as part of changes made to the fleet with the the F-100D(I) remanufacturing program.
Also the baseline Aero-3 rails would interfere with the changes to the fin and Rolleron hold-back detent of the AIM-9E, though I don’t know which version was purchased.
There is an adapter that would need to be mounted to make the Revised rails compatible with the AIM-9B.
It’s certainly possible but the F-14D has a bunch of features that the F-14B doesn’t have modeled. I’d personally say that its more likely that we’d see a “late” (USMC) F/A-18D. Since a properly implemented F-14D would require actioning near 40 assorted issues with the F-14.
Like I said each their own choices and it not a sad comparison their literally better fox3 in 13.3 even if the f14D came in 13.0 you’ll still being fighting against them even IF the su30mkk/su30mk2 went to 13.7 guess what you’ll still be fighting against 13.7 vehicles and even 14.0 with the same amount of time you fight against 12.7 or lower even with the aim54c+ it’ll still be the same when it comes to speed the only thing that supposedly to change guidance/radar being better while the sealed part just makes it heavier so unless they rework aim54 I think it’s gonna be the situation as the aim54c to aim54A
It had time until someone had a grudge against it and wanted to see it get scrapped and for money we don’t have free healthcare for a reason
Why would it be 13.7?
I mean if you use tws or acm lock you can get situations where you have enough time to fire a fox2 in close range then their the fact that aim9x seeker are strong and are hard to notch and then theirs the fact the f14D has irst
If it gets aim-120 and aim-9M i see it at 13,7 if not then lower of course
Why are you trying to notch an IR missile?
And the F-14B has the AXX-1 TCS chin blister modeled, yes? So where is its search and independent tracking capability that it should have.
The F-14B should be impacted by this change to IRST/EOTS
"Presently the F-14B doesn’t use its EO tracker as part of its STT automation. As such isn’t subject to the fix requested.
The fix for the aircraft mentioned in this report is only to resolve the automation rapidly changing between radar and IR/EO while in STT. It isn’t to grant full launch capabilities in those modes and doesn’t allow for it when manually switching to IR/EO modes."
It’s not like it was reported on the old forums right?
Oh, wait. It’s been nearly 3 years now.
With Gaijin’s glorious technical compatibility with inconsistency, probably tying it with F-100D(USAF) would be drastically easier to balance.
Also, there is F-100F(ROCAF) which is an event vehicle, used AIM-9P IRL but which stuck with 9E by Gaijin and ended up with worse F-100A/D.
Their inconsistency is just bullshit
If we go 100% balance
Yes AIM-7F to F-4J(UK), yes AIM-9E on F-100D(France), Yes AIM-9M on F-14B, and yes AIM-120 on F-14D
If we go 100% historic
Only AIM-9M on F-14B can be Yes.
But Gaijin just cherrypicks shits up. ffs.
Honestly tired of this…
Yep… I agree about this part even though I still want to push no 120 on 14D…
Well, about this part, both F-14 and F-18 are cool, aren’t they?
Just… F-14 was cooler and cost more money when the war against commies turned tide to war against terrorism.
It was flown on the F-14D
http://www.midkiff.cz/obj/firma_produkt_priloha_6_soubor.pdf
And there’s pilot testimony of having used It I’ll see if I can try to find the particular interview.
So, according to Raytheon’s AIM-9X Brochure, was the F-14D AIM-120 capable?
Which it was published in 2000.
What I meant is, was AIM-9X or AIM-120 proven as standard weaponry of F-14D by NATOPS…?
I know F-14D probably will eventually get AIM-120 bc Gaijin wants to give them but calling them ‘historical’ is a bit debatable term.
Anyway, since this topic is originally about F-14B’s AIM-9M, we might need to agree to disagree and concentrate on 14B.
And just saying, about the original topic, I am 100% agreeable for 9M on 14B
I don’t, it’s comparable to su30mkk/su30mk2 and some other arh plane Carrying that are at 13.3 hell if the f16A adf also used aim9m in irl I see it still being 13.3 if it every got them in irl and in game
We don’t have a NATOPS for the F-14D, and the SAC we do have is from '85.
I honestly don’t have anything against f18 their cool just how I see it they replaced the a6 more than they did the f14 I think AMRAAMs and other missiles replaced the f14. I wish the f14D continued so we could’ve also have seen st-21 and asf-14
It could’ve been but like I said the funding went to lantirn. F14 had been testing the amraam since it started I believe in a video with Dale Snodgrass when he went to see if he could get funding to implement lantirn to f14’s he went to if I remember right was the dod and talked to one of them to convince them to give funding for the lantirn and they said their wasn’t enough funding but that they were about to spend that funding to fund the amraam to the f14 but he convinced then that the lantirn was better. Also you won’t find testing weapons in the f14 manuals but I found other type of documentation
I never seen gajin be interested in giving the f14D AMRAAMs I seen people of the community but not gajin also AMRAAMs on f14 is historical as it heavily tested just didn’t end up in service with them
Why not add a poll?
Yup, F-14s are cool. Seeing the upgrade of the F-14D would be hype.
Because tested weapon isn’t serviced weapon…
It is clear that Navy wanted to add AIM-120 into F-14D
Many documents from the 80s could prove it
And also clear that F-14D didn’t get AIM-120 at the final.
In Gaijin’s standard, maybe adding AIM-120 wouldn’t be a problem.
Seems it is only me who wants to see F-14D on service loadout…
Just like how Gaijin went with the F-15E’s engine
Probably Gaijin will end up adding AIM-120
Because they want to do a lazy job, while the community wants it
Giving F-14D AIM-120 will be drastically easier than
Fix AIM-54 and decompressing.
If you want to keep talking about the f14D getting AMRAAMs we should move this over to the “should f14D get AMRAAMs” forum’s it honestly got of hand
1 Like