Heatblur F-14 and Forrestal Update



Heatblur posted a pic of the RIO Cockpit on Facebook.


That’s a lot of stuff. Are all those little posts circuit breakers?


Yup, and we’ll be breaking our necks if we gotta use 'em.


what a tremendous amount of work to make it to look so… terrible! looks like an amateur pitbuilders first try with that excess room between the modules. Fantastic :grinning:


Clearly Heatblur are selling second-hand Tomcat modules. I wonder if they will also offer new ones and what the premium will be.

Hope they will at least be detailed with that “New Tomcat” smell.


You mean Tomcat 21? :smiley:


AIM54 was designed to shoot down bombers, not fighters.




I was intrigued by Jabbers analyses actually, although the PoK is a little low against more modern fighters the aim54 could be quite effective to surpress pitbull solutions for modern ARH missiles. I know the modeling of that is a little sketchy at the moment but still, the f14 could be quite a good fit in the mix for any team.


In today’s world, it’s arguable if the F-4 counts as a fighter.

They never did those tests against post-1980 Flankers and Fulcrums, let alone anything that flew after Y2K.


One of the RIOs in VF-32, who was a skydiver and private pilot, actually wrote up a proposal to test an AIM-54 against a bomber target. First we needed a functional B-52 that was otherwise destined for the boneyard. The idea was that the USAF would teach the RIO how to take off, climb and level out a B-52. Once at altitude and after he had set the thing on AP, he wold jump / skydive out. After that, a Tomcat would shoot an AIM-54 at the B-52…and we would see what happened.

The proposal was turned down…strange that. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


That would of been awesome


Realistic tactics be damned, the aim-54 will provide a distinct advantage in pvp multiplayer. If you have 6 of them, you just launch one every 10 miles or so from 75nm out, and the enemy will be forced to evade or die. Designed for bombers or not, you better respect the capability.


While interesting, also utterly irrelevant. This isn’t DOTA.


This, exactly. Missiles as suppressive fire works. When there’s no cost or quantity limit, you might as well launch, shoot, recover, ad infinitum. The only wild card being that in the online arena, most red side players are already flying low and using IRST anyways.

It works against the AI very well. Using AMRAAM, you can fire from a great distance and force the AI to go on the defensive early on.


In today’s world the AIM-54 doesn’t exist anymore, and now we use AIM-120Ds. FWIW the AIM-54A has demonstrated the ability to kill fighter sized targets, including a QF-86 in a sustained 6G turn. The C introduced improved capability against fighter sized targets on top of that.

The motivation to start using Phoenixes in the anti-fighter role was, ironically, motivated by the increasing numbers of Fulcrums and Flankers. Imagine an exposed carrier group fighting superior numbers of highly maneuverable targets with a credible BVR threat in the AA-10, and it doesn’t take long to understand the desire to move away from SARH, at least until the AIM-120 came on line.

The Phoenix is not the best missile for that job, you can read HB’s kinematic document on how it struggles at low altitude, but F-14 community decided that the benefits it brought to the table made it a better choice than the Sparrow (payload permitting).

Still, it’ll be fun to see how the Phoenixes and AWG-9 play out in DCS.


Some more fun snippets about the AWG-9 operation. The more I read of them adding these nuances, the more excited I get.

Originally Posted by Blaze1
I see.

Sorry, my previous message wasn’t very clear/specific. The limitations I was thinking about are those imposed because of TWS being sensitive to aircraft (ownship) motion, so there are pitch rate, roll rate and g-limits in place to prevent venturing into antenna stabilisation problems, which will cause loss of TWS processing and the dropping of tracks.

Originally Posted by Naquaii
Ok, yeah, because of the nature of the TWS track and that we’ve actually modelled the track files and so on in the AWG-9 that’s kinda already in.

Like in the real aircraft the best TWS results are if you fly straight and level and we are tuning it to try to be as realistic in this regard as possible.

Originally Posted by GGTharos
Why would ownship maneuvering cause problems? The radar should have plenty of torque to deal with maneuvering, and a missed hit shouldn’t cause huge deals for a track, should that happen.

Originally Posted by Naquaii
It has more to do with the precision of the F-14 INS and it’s ability to correlate new returns with old track files. It’s not necessary to see the target with each radar sweep but when you’re maneuvering it adds errors to the system.

That and the fact that this is one of the earliest examples of a system like this.



I don’t think suppressive fire is really unrealistic at all, to keep the opponent at bay by disallowing him to point his radar at you is the whole point of BVR tactics AFAIC :grin:.

Especially if you have your element lined up in a grinder/pincer, teamplay will save the day.


My ejection seat wholeheartedly agrees with this statement.

Walking back to Base.


…and this is why I’m not a big fan of the focus, for lack of a better word, for HB’s F-14 development. I feel that we are getting Maverick’s F-14 from Topgun, not a sim of the real F-14.

The thread is discussing how the AIM-54 will perform against FLANKERs. @BeachAV8R has done a test and the answer was Not Good At All. He also did a test against 4 x BACKFIREs, splashed 3 with Phoenix and 1 with a Sparrow.

Or looked at another at, historically speaking, if one compared the number of F-14A intercepts on BADGERs, BEARs, and MAYs versus against FLANKERs of any kind and FULCRUMs… myeducated guess would be the former greatly outweighs the latter.

  1. Will this be a great sim of a great fighter? Absolutely!
  2. Will this be incredibly fun to fly? Without a doubt!
  3. Will users find “new and creative” ways to fight this jet that may pretty unrealistic? You bet!
  4. Will that be a bad thing? See question 2. :grin:

I would be interested in some cooperative MP where we go up against the “un-Godly communist hordes” of Soviet BACKFIREs someday. For me, that would be fun. :sunglasses: