F14D is BR 12 in GRB.
We talk about ARB. That now are have a very bad problem.
Either way the f14D w/aim120A would be put at 13.3 so it would do just fine (For ARB)
4 Likes
Okay. I don’t do ARB. SIM or GRB or GroundSIM. Sorry if ARB is screwed for you.
back in my day we used to say an amraam F-14D would be 13.7
3 Likes
Yeah that was until the su30mkk/mk2 plus other +13.0 arh using vehicles were added
4 Likes
Not trying to be argumentative, but did you read any of the 2700 messages in this thread? F14s will always be mediocre in this game.
Played a few in the f14b- phoenix hit no kill or assist. hit no kill again. In the bin never to be played again
1 Like
can’t wait to get killed by my F-15E?
2 Likes
just give the F-14D the AIM-120A and move it up to BR 13.3, the same as the Su-30MK2 I don’t see what the problem is what exactly is gaijin afraid of?
11 Likes
So far they only told me that because it’s a production vehicle that only prototype vehicles can get planned integration armaments even if their is 100% prove like aim120 on the f14D can work if the production vehicle didn’t use it in service it can’t use it in game. I think production vehicles should be able to use armaments that have proof of it working/functioning on the aircraft/armament itself. Than theirs the fact that they think the aim7p doesn’t work on the f14D even tho both missiles do
1 Like
every time I used the 54 I gotten two kills at most
1 Like
What about the Yak-141? It was only a prototype, tested only in flight trials, and never even entered service. Yet Gaijin added it to the tech tree and gave it the R-73. Apparently, that’s perfectly acceptable.
Now compare that to the F-14D. It was actually tested with the AIM-120, and the integration was real. Yet suddenly there are countless reasons why it shouldn’t receive it in-game.
If Gaijin ever reads this, here’s my point: it’s just a game. The goal should be to make aircraft reasonably competitive against their counterparts. Sure, the F-14D may not have used the AIM-120 operationally in real life, but if giving it the AIM-120A allows it to compete on a level similar to the Su-30MK2 and Su-30MKM, then players are happier—and happier players are more likely to support the game financially. It really is that simple.
Otherwise, why not remove the F-14D from the tech tree altogether and replace the premium with a completely hypothetical F-15C Late armed with AIM-120As? If we’re already willing to make exceptions for prototypes and “what-if” configurations, why draw the line here?
2 Likes
I imagine you mean f15C early w/aim120a and that would be hella hard to balance due to its FM,avionics,radar and armaments to try to put at 13.3 without a artificial nerf unlike the f14D.
1 Like
Someone check cobras f14d stats in a week 😂 I’ll probably forget
2 Likes
I like the idea of having two AIM 120s on each wing pylon. That would be a decent replacement for the AIM-7Ms it currently carries on those hard points. If that’s not possible, they’ll need to give us the AIM-7Ps instead.
The problem is that it didn’t proceed after that best we can say is that is the same as lau115 x2 lau127 that photo is supposedly from a expo or a show to show off the dual amraam or the fact if the navy proceeded to give amraam to the f14 it could of carried 8-12 missiles or harms,harpoons,agm62,basically be a f15E for the navy
1 Like
Would four AIM-120s, four AIM-54s or AIM-7Ps, and two AIM-9Ms be a little too strong for 13.3? I’m just worried gaijin would think that.
No f14D can have 6x aim120A,x2 bol pods/aim9m at 13.3 so along as the su30mk2/mkk is at 13.3 not to mention the other modern fox 3 carriers at +13.0 the f14D fm dosent improve and isn’t even as good as the f15A tbh yeah it could give the f15A a fight but not for most 13.7 aircraft or at least you would have sweet more than usual than in 13.3
1 Like
With that loadout, 13.3 would be a no brainer. I actually find the dual pylon on each wing hardpoint much more interesting and unique. Besides, stuff like this hasn’t really stopped Gaijin from adding similar things to other aircraft. For example, IIRC the Su-27SM never used the dual pylon because it was exclusive to the Su-35, yet Gaijin still added it.
They say they care about historical accuracy, but based on what’s been happening recently, they don’t seem to be all that consistent. The photo was taken at an expo, but what if this configuration was actually tested and we just don’t know about it? There’s got to be some evidence out there somewhere and if there.
Plus, it would look really cool.