Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet - Technical Data and Discussion

If that is actual definition of “two way datalink” then I stand corrected. Whether it will be modeled by Gaijin and in what capacity, remains to be seen. 9X block 2 already exists and battlefield datalink isn’t a thing, though missile itself has datalink capability.

Missile has high drag, yes. However as I’m fiddling with statshark, not the best tool but at least consistently not the best, setting loft angle from 22,5 to 27,5 (Derby value) for 120C5 usually result in speed loss compared to unmodified missile, despite climbing higher. Derby with 22,5 loft angle also arrives sooner and with significantly higher impact speed than regular Derby, for “BVR” scenarios like 11km alt, 1800kmh TAS, 50km launch distance. R-77-1 with loft angle of 24->29 also suffers in energy retention. Stupid values like 22,5-> 52,5 usually results in missile falling out of the sky during or shortly after climb.

Speed loss is smaller for low altitude launches, in some cases there was even small speed gain. So, for low air drag missiles like AMRAAMs extra loft is “it depends”, while for others you usually don’t want more loft. Another consideration, lofting extends time to impact, and here MICA in high alt, high speed within 30km shots reigns supreme, as it doesn’t bother with lofting, despite otherwise crippling air drag.

So… current values provided by the snail are actually probably decent middle ground, with Derby likely wanting to loft less. At the same time, when there’s significant altitude difference between attacker and target (4km or more?) lofting logic bricks itself and missile flies straight, resulting in drastically worse energy retention than missile launched at lower alt, but properly lofting.

To make things funnier, manual lofting by hitting ±45 degree climb of “broken loft” missiles seems to outperform intended loft trajectory.
-level flight, 9.1km alt, 1100kmh IAS (dunno about TAS as replay shat itself), about 3km altitude over target
-about 45 degree climb, 11.4km alt, 950kmh IAS for launch conditions

“normally lofting” missile leveled off around 15km alt, comparing to aircraft flying tad above 14km, other is still journeying into space

shortly before impact on non evading target

With this trajectory being kinda spicy, possibly entering RWR blindspots on Flankers

1 Like

The RAAF F/A-18F with AIM-120D AMRAAM coming in the first major update

1 Like

F/A-18E is really a present that keeps on giving
just found out the rocket pods are useless becouse the ballistic computer calculates the impact point to the center of the plane. but the rocket pods are pointing outside

so you can even miss bases if shooting to early

2 Likes

sometimes i think they unironically ctrl+c ctrl+v the hornets

I wish
Its actually a huge downgrade

Kinda funny how the early hornets are better than the late hornets

Kinda feel both late hornets need to go down a br step

And the irst pod they showed off last Dev server didn’t make it to the game

1 Like

Well, here it is, finally.

11 Likes

How many GBU-53 can F-18E/F carry?

id guess ~8 maybe 12
because ive only seen it with twin racks for them

vs 16 on an f16 and 28 on f15e

F-16 can carry 16? I thought it only carried 8.
RDT_20260515_2157108610294202985313818
Which weapon station carry another 8?

iirc it should be compatable with the inner wing stations too (the ones that normally have fuel tanks)

gaijin deciding those cant carry most weapons is purely a decision they made without supporting evidence

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet currently carries the GBU-53/B StormBreaker on BRU-55 dual racks. Publicly shown and tested loadouts usually carry 2 bombs per station.

A realistic maximum combat load for an F/A-18E would likely be around 10 to 16 GBU-53s depending on:

  • Fuel tanks
  • Air to air missiles
  • Targeting pods
  • Carrier launch weight limits
  • Mission profile

The Navy has also discussed future use of the BRU-61 quad rack, which would increase total carriage significantly.

2 Likes

image

JSOW coming for the Super Hornet in the next major update.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/AXvKJc2toQxe

4 Likes

maybe of topic question.
What decides the name of us radar’s?
Why is the golden eagle radar called apg63v3 but the f18e radar apg79

Even if the f15 golden eagle radar has more similarities with apg79 than the original apg63v1/psp

Wonder how long it take to fix the f18e rockets

what do you mean by fix them?

Hit in front of the plane instead of getting thosed out In a V chaped arc
above 3000m you cant even hit bases anymore

yes
they are fixed

superhornet pylons are angled outwards like that

1 Like

ah yes functional weapons are to much to ask at 14.3

thats how the plane is IRL…

2 Likes