I am just going to link you this before you continue to make a fool of yourself - Kings of Battle — Answering your questions from the dev server - #68 by Lolman345
2 Likes
very clearly states average G overload would not be 20g not max g overload, you’re kidding yourself if you think a stinger is pulling 20g as soon as it starts tracking. Tiny control surfaces deflect less air and as a result need much more velocity to pull higher lateral G overloads. Max target overload doesnt really mean a whole lot the Python 4 is rated to hit targets pulling up to 9g’s. Do you think the stinger is more maneuverable than a python 4 because it hit a drone pulling 10g? Do you think the Python 4 cant hit a target pulling 14g? Without conditions of the test beyond drone pulled 10g when the missile collided its not a smoking gun argument
Yeah DAP is missing a lot of stuff, considering how quick this patch went from dev to live im not surprised by how much half baked stuff got to live. JH-7 is in a similar boat. Luckily theres already an acknowledged report on the lack of MAWS.
anyways feel free to PM if you wanna talk more but I dont want to litter this thread with more unrelated things
F-14A-65-GR I believe.
(using InferNo’s historical localization mod and going off the VF-2 “Bounty Hunters” F-14A’s camouflage)
1 Like
No, it’s a 1977 model based on the '77 SAC.
I’m not too sure about that.
F-14A Early’s BuNo. VF-1 Wolfpack default skin says ‘158627’
Here’s an image of that exact F-14A-65-GR being used as air cover service at Saigon, Vietnam 1975.
F-14A BuNo. 158267 indicated by the green checkmark means that it was confirmed to be seen in service even as early as 08/1973 (the modification to Block 130 came way after the aforementioned date).
1977 would also indicate here that it’s at least an F-14A-100-GR.
Also, the F-14A ‘Early’ we have in-game only can equip the AIM-9H. The AIM-9L Sidewinder was already in full production and service by 1977 (I am aware the devs don’t add certain missiles of the correct matching time frame on jets for balancing but I felt this just adds more to my point).
The F-14A ‘Early’ has to be at a best guess (1972-1975).
2 Likes
The biggest issue is that the presence of the Nose Pitot tube is wrong, a more complete view of VF-1 #101
A Later config would likely include a Nose blister with the TCS and a revised radome /Nose fairing and DECM fitout / beaver tail / airbrake as the existing 3d model.
compare the following media.
and VF-1 including AC #101 (circa 1975) is featured in the following video, you can also see the AN/ALR-23 fitted to some VF-2 airframes in some of the shots as well so it really should be an option in game
F-14 TOMCAT PROGRESS REPORT #5 THE OPERATIONAL TOMCAT 79574 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
1 Like
I think its just a mix mash F-14 but its meant to be based off the 1977 SAC in terms of weapons
Many aircraft have skins from differing block numbers and model inaccuracies. Devs stated it is based on the 1977 SAC. That’s all. Not a definitive block number, performance and weapons is based on that SAC.
(Relevant to thread)… AIM-54A is the sole Phoenix model available to the F-14A/(early) in war thunder for the reasons stated above.
So going by ur logic the F-14A should get Aim-9L
No, the AIM-9L is not in the 1977 SAC.
I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.
ok
GJ based it off that variation to keep the (early) in a moment in history where the Aim7F was available, but not the L, better sparrows and Aim54Cs.
I suspect when we do get the proper F-14A, it will be the definitive war thunder variant with all of the above capability. its Radar modelled, aim54 modelled and sparrows M buffed/modelled.
They will also most likely add the Premium version, the legendary Iranian tomcat to further maximize sales armed with basic aim54A, Aim9Ps, lesser sparrows. However, it’s main selling point will be the unique one of kind weapon system, two Raytheon MIM-23 HAWK surface to air missiles converted to air to air/AWG9 capability housed on the wing pylons stations.
A very fast missile off the rail from what I read the Iranians reported and being that it is really designed to be fired from stationary positions on the ground makes sense.
I think you vastly overestimate gaijin.
Quite frankly, i think you all vastly overestimate gaijins willingness to properly model things they already broke.
There is a very clear trend in more and more copy paste vehicles with more and more modelling issues requiring more and more bug reports as gaijin speedruns their way to modern vehicles with apparently no actual thought placed towards gameplay or balance.
Everyone keeps saying “oh just wait for x to happen, THEN gaijin will fix the AIM-54C/F-14/insert broken vehicle, sensor, weapon, etc… here” but meanehile the devs are caught arguing that they “dont believe” primary or secondary sources, major well documented bug reports are left to rot for months or years, and things that are extremely important for the proper functionality of certain things are left unmodelled for years for whatever reason, such as the lack of regenerative stearing DRASTICALLY reducing western MBT’s mobility advantage over russian ones, or the Puma IFV being so badly modelled, a dozen or so major bug reports about all facets of the vehicle have been open for a year+ and nothing short of a near total rework of the vehicle could fix it.
Vehicles that shouldve been added months or years ago are left unadded, while vehicles which should not have been added yet are added in a butchered state, argued to be that way for “balance” purposes (F-14B).
Yet we keep hearing the same damn song everytime anyone complains about the state of these things. “Dont worry, gaijin will get to it eventually, itll be fixed, idk why you’re complaining about this, just trust them!”, speaking of the company that needed to have their game review bombed into the ground to finally make some positive changes…
That or the comment gets flagged into the ground by the people who adore abusing the flagging feature of the new forums because there is literally no consequence for doing so.
7 Likes
Like this. Because engineers at hughes/westinghouse/raytheon FM’d radar signals for shit&giggles and just to make shit worse right lmao. They were also incapable of using matrices to make range-doppler maps because no such things exist and there are only drawbacks.
Or
Lmao I want to see the original apg66 have more range than the mig 29s HPRF in a high alt look geometry.
all radars are capable or tracking a target at 70% of the max detection range of the target
This 30% figure comes from mig 29s manual. Before it was 20%. Mind you, that with this the max range shot of the F14A with the phoenix wouldn’t be possible. At all. The F14 detected the target at ~130NM and fired at 110NM. 130NM*.70= 91NM. Doesn’t add up.
3 Likes
iirc, applying nerfs to western equipment based on soviet equipment is also what lead to the A/FIM-92 stinger and Mistral getting their max g-limit dropped to a measly 10g’s to match the 9M39 Igla figures, and the devs recently borderline denied improving the stinger/mistrals max (key word being “max”) pull
Although they state they may FINALLY adjust something with these missiles so they aren’t so worthless, which may include the g pull, though considering the wording up until the last sentence, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Only took them like 4+ years, and multiple bug reports…
2 Likes
Unfortunately, like I previously mentioned, the devs dont seem to really care much about what western sources say anymore if it doesnt match up with what eastern sources say about completely different weapons or systems, or just what the devs believe to be true…
Even just to keep it on topic of the AIM-54, we’ve been arguing about dozens of different issues for months now, and seem to be no closer to any of them being fixed. Issues such as the 54C’s max G-pull, the smoke profile of the motor, the seekers capabilities, and more recently, the directional warhead and smart fuse for very low altitude intercepts.
I doesn’t help that many players here just hurl insults and doubts about any and all claims that may result in the AIM-54 being buffed/fixed or flag everything they don’t like though
Has this source in particular been Considered?
It is in the report for it so I guess so?
Likewise I don’t think the dev’s interpretation is correct. By design the Stinger constantly rolls (I gather at many revolutions per second) as it flies. Therefore manuals / reports specifying the g load as the maximum g load the missile can pull when the control surfaces are perfectly aligned with the target plane wouldn’t make much sense. The fins would never be aligned with the target plane for more than a tiny fraction of a second.
Also as you know that excerpt comes from the Jaguar Tactics manual, which is meant to brief pilots on the Stinger’s capabilities and how to counter it. If you are a pilot then you don’t care what the missile can pull for a tiny fraction of a second, you want to know how many g’s it can sustain while it’s chasing you down. So in my mind that supports 20g being the average acceleration.
3 Likes