turkeydriver

HA HA HA, lol, that just would have made our CAS pilots even MORE deadly and on the ball, thats all, hehehehehehehe

The Navy however did use the glove vanes in A-G mode on its F-14As. Namely pretty much every A unit in some fashion before they upgraded, except for VF-103 Sluggers(before they took over the Jolley Rogers), and VF-74 when they got F-14A+and maybe VF-31 and VF-11 when they took the brand new F-14D's in the early 1990s. VF-154 and VF-211 continued to use the glove vanes(at least in the bombing mode) until they converted to Super Hornets in 2003-4.

The glove vanes were removed from the F-14B and D rebuilds when they went through the rebuild process. The new build F-14A+(F-14B) and F-14D never had them.

Interestingly the AST-21 model had a Super Hornet like "hood" that filled the area taken by extended glove vanes a larger LERX.......but back to topic, sorry, I just like to drivel about tomcats.

Nice Macross cross breed Talos. The AST-21 program was already on the way to making the tomcat an incredible machine. Grumman also had ideas about an F-14 jammer-with no pods on the wings but carried ventrally in a big belly pack. The navy has already submitted its requirements for a SUperbug replacement at around 2015-2020 and Boeing is putting designs together.

Man we need a tomcat-centered sim. Too bad it aint gonna happen. Thanks Iran and superuptight security measures.

OK, I give up, what is a FA.2?

Also, IIRC, the FA.2's radar is (at least up to the Typhoon's Captor, and F-22's APG-77) the best radar for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. I read a quote stating that from International Air Power Review. What that means, I do not know, other than it was probablly optimized to maximize all of the AMARAAMs modes of fire and provided the best track for the missile in all environments.-that is if it truly was the best radar for AMRAAM.

Sounds more like the carrier data.ini is broken. Broken weapons would dump you to the desktop.

 

So just to clarify: Do the A-7A and the F-4J start from the same carrier type?

 

S!

Thanks I'll check on the carrier data.ini. I'm so new at that game I didn't even realize there was more than one carrier in game.

As stated, my WOV worked flawlessly until the weapons pack resupply kicked in and I got all the new weapons for my F-4J. This is during Linebacker I, I think( the 1972 campaign). I can still launch and land from my A-7A with the new weapons, but the when the mssion starts in my F-4J, my jet explodes and the carrier sinks, sometimes it spawns on land too.

I have temp fixed this by starting in the air but then there is no carrier to land at when the mission is over-I have looked and looked, and swept with A-G radar, but its not there.

Has anyone else experienced this.

I apologize if this is an old topic, but I purchased the game ~7 months ago so I'm relativelly new to WOV.

I did a search and read the FAQ to no avail. Any help would be appreciated.

Hi guys, I've been wrestling with getting Burning Sands 1983 and I finally got it to work with only one problem that I can't fix.

The radar doesn't work in any aircraft in the campaign. It works fine for single missions and instant action, i just cant turn it on in the campaign. I can still select weapons though.

I have everything set on hard difficulty.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

This kid tried bashing me on the FighterOPs forums and then tried to slam me on the tomcat sunset forums. He has virtual VF-31 website with bogus F-14 information. There is a picture of this kid somewhere with the caption that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.......

Total disrespect to the athletes in the Special olympics.

I know the tomcat TCS will slave to the radar target or will "track" a target the RIo designates- I don't think it can provide any target information though. It's described to have a 10x zoom and allows crews to ID aircraft as far as 70 miles out for a big jet down to around 15-20 miles for a small aircraft.

I thought the TISEO was for A-G weapons, like TV mavericks, but I don't know much about it.

John Kerry walks into a bar. The bar tender is a horse. The horse says to John Kerry, "Why the long face?"

Oh no, I'm a tomcat guy. give us an upgraded tomcat-the ultimate swing role platform!

J/K, a prowler redesigned from the ground up would be nice, but the mission doesn't require 4 crew anymore. Three at the most.

The reason I say the SH is a trainwrecck as an airframe is because the wing, though bigger than a legacy Hornets, i still designed to cruise at a high Mach number, and the stores carried for any mission, plus the fact that they are canted out, mean the airframe is super draggy, so the wing will rarely operate at its most fuel efficient state. If you look at the old tomcat's wing, it is much thicker, because it is designed for a slower cruise and loiter speed, the weapons are carried in tandem in low drag configuration.

With the E/A-18G, that was supposed to be able to operate in the swing role and also drop bombs( it wont, as it is too expensive to risk), will carry the HUGE draggy ALQ-99 pods, canted out, on the same wing designed for supersonic flight and high subsonic cruise. No one really thinks as to what a HUGE waste of resources(fuel) this is. So a draggy, unnefficient, tanker configured SH has to tank these guys all the time. I'll give it five more years before the tanker configured jets start cracking to pieces. I seriously doubt the Growler airframes will last longer than 12-15 years at the very most.

Well using a numeric comparison regarding engagement/kills when discussing the F-14 is just plain ignornant. The absolute truth of the matter is that the F-14 prevented more engagements than any aircraft mearly by appearing on the battlefield and turning on its AWG-9 or APG-71. F-15s main purpose in life is air superiority over the enemy battlespace so if they are not doing that, and doing that well, they are failing. So they better engage everything that gets airborne, and they better get the lion's share of the kills. They therefore also had more oppurtunity. The F-15C incorporated NCTR, from lessons learned in AIMVAL/ACEVAL when the F-15A lacked the F-14A in kills because the TCS on the tomcat allowed the crew to ID and shoot a bandit first. (unbeknowst to most is that the F-15 pilots where experessly forbidden to dogfight the F-14As due to the impending sale to Japan- at the end Hoser Satrapa challenged the leading F-15 pilot and after a bit , recorded a shot with the gun pipper tracking the F-15 pilots head!)

Back to the F-15, NCTR was automatic and better suited to a single piloted aircraft than a TCS. In Iraq, the enemy had no experience with the F-15 but plenty with the F-14(developing tactics using a minimum of four Mirage F1 to bounce the tomcat from four different directions and launch SARH missiles simultaneously to ensure a kill). The actual facts are sketchy, but Iranian F-14s scored between 50 and 150 kills over Iraqi aircraft with the F-14, including 3 MiG-23s with a single AIM-54 from long range (a lucky shot when the enemy was flying close formation and their RWR not warning them)

So when 1991 roled around, the F-15s only purpose was to kill MiGs. The F-14s first weren't allowed in country CAPs and were restricted to strike escort. The F-15 had the superior intercept package at this point as they could positively identify and shoot without permission from AWACs.

The Super Hornet is a compromise design, the only design left that the navy could risk, so they did. From an airframe capabilty standpoint, its just a trainwreck.

IIRC, one of the things the USN loves about the Super Bug vs the old Hornet is the bring back payload. The legacy bird had such a low payload bring back margin that yes, they generally had to dump any unused bombs before landing. The Super Bug can bring them back to use another day.

Eh, maybe an additional Jdam or HARM, but if you really pay attention to the navy web site daily photos, whenever a Superbug is loaded for a real mision, it has the SAME tank configuration as a legacy Hornet. Also, on the SH the centerline tank is extremely finicky-sometimes it will A-A fuel, sometimes not, for no apparent reason (most likely an EMI issue), so the tank is nothing more than drag after its used half the time. The SH is also maxed out on growth potential-Boeing and LM IIRC, are working on installing an IRST ( IRST are better "tuned" for A-A targetting, while LANTIRN and the like are better for A-G lasing and target ID) ON a 400 gallon centerline tank-its stupid IMHO-there isnt room in the jet, so they're putting needed avionics in a bigger, draggier tank, that will still offer 300 gallons of fuel.

The jet meets the current needs of the navy, and does have sweet avionics, but it is only "better" than tomcats that are a minimum of ten years older, with 1970s technology, because of its avionics.

Grumman dropped bombs off the tomcat in the 1970s because the marines were wanting it.

The AST-21 (final upgraded tomcat derivative-past Quickstrike and ST-21) was a higher-cost new build jet that would have paralleled the SH program in cost. It could easily carry more, and was also looked to replace the EA-6B intruder.

The maintenance issue is pretty much null and void-when the tomcat entered the fleet, it was advertised to be much lower in maintenance cost to the F-4, because it was new. The SH composite airframe simply CANNOT hold up to 30 years of stress. Yeah its cheaper in the short run-but will end up in the boneyard alot sooner. Remember, VFA-87 and VFA-15(115?) are active navy hornet squads that transitioned BACK to the F/A-18A+ because their F/A-18Cs have so little "trap" life left in them. One thing about that jet that still remains is that it cannot double cycle and still must return to the carrier more and launch more, wearing out the airframe.

Sorry, I'll admit the SH is a better CAS jet only because of avionics that any jet could get upgraded with, and its a good slow fighter(for a few turns before it runs outta schlitz), and its really nice to newbie pilots and easier to land on the boat,

But the raw airframe aand combat performance can't and were never designed to, replace the tomcat.

Its a nice stopgap though.