It tops out in the cruise phase at Mach .85 (291 m/s, ~1050kph) and can reach 0.95 (~330m/s, ~1100kph) terminally. Also theoretically it could also be treated like the AGM-119A and use the INS selection to be fired beyond lock on range.
If it has access to the BRU-55 station adapter it can carry two per station.
I thought F-18Cs were limited in this to 1 per station regardless of adapter.
I’d have to see if I can find it again for the F/A-18 to be absolutely sure, but the BRU-57 for the F-16 can take 2x
I am pretty certain that with the BRU-55 adapter, the AGM-154 would be too wide to fit next to another pair of BRU-55 mounted AGM-154’s. Though, it (probably) would be able to carry six AGM-154’s, with one double rack and one single rack per wing. I was actually completely unaware of the BRU-55’s compatibility with the AGM-154 before you mentioned this, thank you for pointing it out, I will edit the OP post with this new information, thank you.
Those weapons would take months to develop and balance for BR placement; though of course they should be added when ready, I do want them after all.
The F-18C is already unkillable via SPAA in ground RB without any further weapons.
The AGM-65s and Kh-38s are equivalently OP in ground modes as well for the foreseeable future, due to SPAA ranges at this time.
Of course in a direct comparison Kh-38s are superior to AGM-65s, so it’s plausible SPAA comes that can defeat AGM-65 carriers but not Kh-38/Hammer/PGM_3 carriers.
but we need the best named a2g weapon ingame
Maybe, I can’t remember off the top of my head if they reuse the geometry of the BRU-33/A or BRU-33A/A, for the -55, as one is canted outboard slightly the other isn’t and so even though being externally similar have different clearance requirements.
The AGM-154 was a joint venture by the USAF and USN, but the USAF chose not to adopt it. Only the USN uses the weapon currently, so IMO it should’t be added to the F-15E as it was only really evaluated with it.
if it could use it, and it was in US inventory, it should get it
and didnt USAF only stop in 2005, and JSOW entered service 1999?
My bad, thought you were talking about 2x per station for AGM-84s.
The KH-38MT is NOT an AGM-65 equivalent, you have clearly only ever used Kh-38MT’s and not AGM-65’s. Come back to this argument when you have flown aircraft with both weapon systems.
I don’t think so, none of the brochure’s I’ve seen indicate anything other than BRU-61 on the wing station(s), though with UAI compatibility I don’t think that it would be particularly difficult to actually mount the BRU-57 if there was a need.
Yes, but it wasn’t formerly adopted, so I don’t think it really should be added. It really doesn’t need it either. Also not to mention, the USAF only tested the A variant, which is one of the wacky submunition variants, they never fitted the C variant to the F-15E.
nice, unrelated, but bottom one shows BLU-27 for F-15E. could be a nice option for it.
it might as well get it if its possible + some were in possesion of USAF during F-15E service life. if they give it to hornet (they should) they should also give it to the F-16 and F-15
I edited my post while you were posting this, the USAF only evaluated the AGM-154A which is a cluster bomb, which Gaijin has never added before and likely wont. The AGM-154C is the only variant that isn’t a cluster/submunition utilizing bomb and that was never tested or fitted by the USAF.
what about the B
It really depends on if you could prove a specific configuration exists, after all they denied the GPU-5/A (30mm gunpod)for non-15E’s due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
CBU’s have been mentioned on a few leak lists now (alongside Anti-Radiation Missiles)as being in the works so is definitely something that could apear at any time in the future.
The USAF only tested the A, as they stopped being involved during development of the B and C variants.
