Large metal frame around the front of the cockpit.
What I like about the F-14 is when you're in the cockpit it looks like an F-14 should from the era.Īll analog controls. The Air Force already had its F-15C Eagle and the F-16 Viper. It was built as a better class of fighter/interceptor to replace the aging F-4 Phantom.
The F-14A/B still has all the analog controls left over from the 60s but the better performance maneuverability from the newer fighters. The purpose of these planes is they are all time period based. I agree with being OK with only having the F-14B. And I'm sure some others I don't know about. The only difference in the 14D cockpit was the addition of MFDs and the updated HUD. The F-14D had the same structural framework around the canopy as all the other models. Not sure what you're talking about with the all glass canopy. With having the later version of the TomCat/BombCat would allow for the F-14 to be utilized in both cold war scenarios as well as modern without feeling left behind technologically. With the coming addition of the EuroFighter and with already having the Hornet, Viper, and Thunder. I would gladly pay an up-charge for the development.
But a single air frame to fit every role? They didn't bother to read the history books to see how well that worked the last time it was tried.Īny chance at all in getting a F-14D with glass cockpit. Sure, the Super Hornet can do a lot of things, but compared to the other planes that it ultimately replaced, like the Tomcat, A-6 Intruder, and even somehow the S-3 Viking, it just doesn't have the range to do everything the carrier needs it to do, while keeping the carrier safe.īut, they see it as "Hey, we can save billions by making the F-18 Super Hornet a one plane fits all aircraft, so let's do that!", I can understand making certain things common across air frames, that makes sense in the long run. The further a carrier is from the action, the harder it is to target for retaliation. Case in point, why having a long-range, mult-irole, but slightly more complex aircraft on the carrier was a good thing. Not to go on a long political rant, but many politicians in the US don't understand why things were the way they were. Not anything wrong with the aircraft in particular, just the politicians being completely ignorant of how the military works, and it's still in effect now. This is the same thing that killed the ASF14E/F14E "Super Tomcat 21" Program. Hence that the documentation isn't available is most likely all down to silly beaucracy, with people having no clue on how the tech works (politicians) being the ones with the authority to decide when it will be available. In other words whilst the F-14D's IRST & radar were certainly impressive for their time (early 2000's), they couldn't hold a candle to todays sensors in both categories. That the F-14D documentation is still classified is a bit silly tbh when you consider the capabilities of the systems in the aircraft that are now being deployed (F-35, F-22, EF2000 etc.), all of which are equipped with much higher tech sensors. So strap in kids, it's gonna be a long road ahead. There's also the MFDs to program correctly, which won't be an easy task.īasically, if they go to make the D, they will need a minimum of 18 months worth of work to get it right, and there isn't a whole lot that can be reused from the B. And frankly, given all the work they have to do to make the F-14A, which is an engine change and some cockpit changes, the F-14D is going to rely a lot on 'under the hood' changes that we won't see, such as the handling characteristics and radar.
F 14d cockpit upgrade#
The exact nature of how they work can remain classified, but ultimately, the purpose of them is the same, and they can just keep it there (with an option to upgrade it later on should the information become available).Īs for the rest. On the subject of the IRST I saw earlier in the chat, I'd say just keep it to the basics of what those things do, which is to say: They help locate and track targets which can then be slaved to them to help lock on.
0 kommentar(er)
