Yup they love to contradict themselves
14 Likes
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-cp-d-pilot-02.htm
This is HUD MFD and ejection seat that are correctly.
10 Likes
Yep love how most of the time it’s Russian items get the pass but items like this do not.
9 Likes
There’s an obvious reason for this.
1 Like
Well people did ask for it. I like to think the majority said it would be a dumb idea and not work but alas I think that might be the opposite. Now we had wasted manpower on this useless mode that plays awful.
5 Likes
By that logic, the F16CM, F15E, F15C GE, EF AESA, SU30SM2, F15JM, J10C, J15T, Rafale M, and the Gripen E were all pointless additions that should have been premiums. But hey, all those upgrades were just extra “things” on the wings ;D
4 Likes
people did ask for Inf I asked for 10 years
1 Like
I already posted some reports of F-14s or AIM-54s with NAVAIR manuals and smt but, they are just lazy to fix.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dNDEDPs3VxUd
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/JJEkUSIRqYYX
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hTyfJU29QHKH
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oV40xnBcOyQe
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/buIYXizvc3bA
I mostly use NAVAIR manual or textbook that uses in tomcat squadron, official documents from Grumman or navy.
If you think they have a more reliable source of information than those, that’s a ridiculous delusion.
14 Likes
Yeah they want written statement from the engineer at this point with both classified and unclassified until its russian then they will even a printed paper is enough. Nato = marketing lie .
6 Likes
Basically at this point I feel like I given enough info for f14D w/aim120 to be at least consider and added at 13.3 till rank 8 gets decompression
or the F-14A with the 120 it tested as a squadron Vic
No because I’m pretty sure it didn’t have the full tech unlike the f14D to use aim120A I’m pretty sure it was only supposed to test if the f14 airframe could carry and launch the amraam for the f14C/D since not even the B was available at the time AMRAAMs project existed since the (but the C never existed or the f14 would had a asea radar) 1976 and the apg 71 was supposed to be next gen it was supposed to carry everything the navy had to offer in its inventory because the fact of it turning into a digital capability gave it more options till funding cuts happened but unlike other weapons the f14D end getting everything it needed to use aim120A but its software update
Ok, i hear it,
but the same goes for R-27 for example (and other missiles as well ) but they gave it the 35G overload of the dual plane maneuvering anyway.
If anything the AIM-7F/M getting rolled comes from the innability of the missile to get diagonal easily , so it can’t change direction effectively on a single plane to take the diagonal fast enough. So yes if you perform it right , you’ll roll the 7. And even if it may be a bit “overshown” in game , mostly because the planes are more agile as well (pulling stractual Gs , instead of pilot Gs) … but it is a good show of what single plane means and what it loses.
Now in the example, a single plane R-27 would pull 25G , like AIM-7 and it would miss the same(or similar) shots AIM-7 would most likely.
But you gave it 35 anyway , even if the dual plane doesn’t exactly work…and it has let’s say worse performance than 35G dual plane , but hell a lot better than 25G single plane.
Why at least till you figure out the dual plane (which it may needs time, it’s acceptable) , you don’t give 54s 25 single?
It would still be worse than 25 dual…
Dual gives better energy retention , no blind spots in target approach (like getting rolled) , and as a value 25G in dual is more like 30+ in single…
(yes if dual comes in in general forget escaping the dual palne missiles) .
On the other hand for AIM-4G you give a statcard of 27G, in game is more like 11-12…
Kinda pick-ish approach if you ask me.
And really, even if you give them the dual plane in single plane (like R-27 does - and it does) , still will be weaker than the same value in dual plane , because dual plane on its own gives you 1/4 of the written performance more , just by the other features it has .
It is wrong, but it is more close to realistic than just limit the missiles potential.
2 Likes
We have more info the F14D can use aim120A than the f14A-65-gr can
1 Like
Also the igla (that is used has a base for nerfing the stinger and mistrial) can pull some crazy shit no 10g missile should
1 Like
Given the huge popularity of this thread, I’d like to ask you guys to bring the F-104G/S topic back to the forefront. Specifically, reports proving that these fighters were equipped with IRST & EEGS were accepted over two years ago, yet these changes still haven’t been implemented in the game… I get the impression that the “flying pencils” are one of the most overlooked aircraft in the game today, yet they’re so unique, and in my opinion, they’re worth paying attention to. Do you think there’s any way to get through to the game’s devs? The F-104S/G even has a modeled IRST module in the game, but it’s not active; EEGS is also a fairly simple matter to implement…
PS: Sorry for going off-topic—let’s get back to the F-14D :)
6 Likes
Please vote and spread the word because we need to get this to more than 1,000 YES votes. 👍
On a related note, I don’t want to bite the hand that feeds us, but the F-4J (UK) will definitely need some attention before the new update arrives. There’s a reason many players call it the “F-4 Junk.” Morvran_ effectively moved the discussion nowhere by repeatedly recycling the same arguments without adding anything new to the conversation. He also voted against the tech-tree F-14D, which is worth keeping in mind when evaluating his stance on the F-4 (UK).
8 Likes
Dont we already have some missiles using BTT/dual plane max g values? IIrc R-27 for example was supposed to pull 35G with dual plane and thats exactly what we got in game.
BTT as a visual feature doesnt have to be modelled for it to be implemented and functional in my opinion. Blocking every report for dual plane/BTT pull just because they havent modelled it yet is not an excuse.
1 Like
I mean they could just give phx better seeker and better’ pull and make it a aim54c+ along with that a aim9m that will be good enough because if it’s not a russian things having such big dreams that they will give aim120 just because it was tested is absurd that is only reserved for Russians non others but would I want aim120 definitely it will make it a capable plane at 13.3 along with what show has gaijin created at 13.3 by adding flankers and all from 12.3 , 12.7 suffering along with it even 13.0 because some barely gets arh then there are those su 30 to absolutely massacre
2 Likes
This might be the most discussed pre-order bundle topic I’ve ever seen. I’m shocked — and there’s also another Jean Bart that’s the same.
8 Likes