CF-188A and RAAF F/A-18s: Commonwealth Calling!

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
121

When I was gathering BR ideas, they ended up at 9.7 (MK 1) and 10.0 (MK 2), respectively. They might be able to come down in BR due to the F-106 for “reference”. This is in part do to the slightly better loadout than the (C)F-101, with its fewer missiles.

For comparison:

CF-101 (huh the F-101B can take more, I thought the CF-101 was a C&P of the F-101B)

Ordnance:

Rockets: 2 x AIR-2A Genie nuclear rockets with 1.5 Kt warhead

Missiles: 2 x AIM-4D Falcon AAMs

VS

CF-105:

Ordnance:

Rockets: 2 x AIR-2A Genie nuclear rockets

Missiles:

8 x AIM-4 Falcon AAMs

3 x AIM-7 Sparrow II D AAMs

4 x Canadair Velvet Glove AAMs

Depends on which variant, as there are more than a few, you’re listing the Mk 4. Although 7.0 for the Mk 4 A or B is a little low, maybe the Mk 3 A, but 7.3 at the lowest is more likely, for what I recall when comparing specs for the airtree.

For the possible CF-100s

CF-100Mk 3A/B - 8x .50 cal

CF-100 Mk 4A/B - 8x .50 cal and 2x FFAR

CF-100Mk 5 - 2x FFAR

CF-100Mk 5M - 4x AIM-7 Sparrow II and 2x FFAR

Note the difference between the A and B variants is the engine, which affects top speed and other things. That gives us 6 Canadian CF-100s and the Belgian CF-100, giving us a total of 7 CF-100s that can come to WT. Is it overkill? probably. Will all of them come? probably not.

122

So in those cases you’re counting on the Sparrow II, best described as an “idea for a Fox 1,” that could never be gotten to work even in early trials, and/or Genie nukes to make viable aircraft weapons loadouts. (The Velvet Glove, a Canadian Korea-era SARH research program, would be possibly equivalent to the earliest SARH Falcon GAR-1s in game, so that’s no improvement over the earliest Falcons, really.) F-102 has the same problems, but yeah. 1950s jets were just weird sometimes. I mean I’d like to see the Boulton Paul Defiant in game too, but I’m not sure anyone, including me, would have any fun playing it. Cheers.