I should say, thanks for the rundown though, I’m not the most up-to-date on F-18s
The F-18C with upgraded engines can absolutely outrate an F-16.
2 Likes
Ohh cool! So does that then mean it can outrate the eagle too?
This isn’t a game feature that is properly modeled. It won’t have such problems.
It of course depends on conditions. The F-18 will outrate an F-16 when both have similar payload weights but a clean F-16C with similar “%” of fuel fraction will beat the F-18.
The F-18 should beat the F-15 in turn rate depending on conditions as well.
1 Like
Thats all I want. Something that has parity, doesnt have to be the best at everything . As long as it has a chance, which it sounds like it totally does! (Unlike the ICE)
Thanks for all the info to you and all the others that replied to my questions
Just copying this down here for the performance numbers.
2 Likes
The only major difference outside A2G stores I can think of is that you get access BOL rails, a (potentially) slightly less modern RWR (ALR-67(V)3 vs ALR-67(V)2, which would potentially only impact the ALE-50; a towed decoy integration, and Pantsir’s Tracking radar detection in game) and Radar (pending implemented configuration(s)). and limited access to Later Sidewinders / AMRAAMs (would have to check arms sales listings to confirm).
For most intents it’s similar until various more advanced mechanics are implemented, especially with how the BOL-IR is implemented making more a proactive then reactive solution to IR missiles, and lack of MJU-12, and / or -17 (Larger, 1x2" (MJU-7) & 2x2" (MJU-10) Flares options vs the existing M206 in the MJU -11 Flare Magazine), or alternate Kinematic or Covert Flare variants are added, or the ALE-50 towed Decoy.
That second graph is slightly deceptive, the -18C is configured with 3x Fuel tanks in order to meet the listed range / radius criteria, where the -18E only needed one to do the same.
Which is obviously worth noting even if fuel weights are similar, the configuration is not (also CL tanks have somewhat greater impact in comparison to 2x wing tanks, at least in game, though may be due to their size differences for the F-15 / F-16) and since range is less of a concern in WT it’s likely to be less pronounced (in a clean, or Self-Defense + minimum [30% internal] fuel state) comparison, due to increased internal fuel of the -18E, the difference is likely to be less significant since we can’t (yet) dump fuel to take advantage, and use rates are relatively similar at Max power.
2 Likes
19.2 deg/s turn rate with that load of missiles and 60% fuel is a lot when you consider the F-16C should be doing 19.6 deg/s clean with 50% fuel iirc.
The US one should have BOL as well, experimental or not, it absolutely needs to get it if Sweden gets the Finnish one with BOL and Britain gets the Australian one
Which conditiions again?
mmm, i think it’s slightly higher than that, at 22klb its 21.7 degrees/s this is about 25% fuel clean
Then again the FF5 study puts the F-18C at 17.15 degrees at 60% + 4
One issue with the BOL (LAU-138) is that as far as I can find, they aren’t rated for use with the LAU-115 Dual Rail adapter, so would limit the station to a single missile which cuts into magazine depth, and that forces the use of a Sidewinder (or later AMRAAM with the LAU-127), which would cause issues for the F-/A-18A, since it would have to rely on Sparrows as its MRM.
Though there is the ALE-37A/A (as found in game on the CL station of the AV-8A), which could add 2 x 120 countermeasures per mid wing station (F/A-18 has four in total), and can accommodate both 1 x 2" sized Chaff and Flares.
But similar to the above issue its carriage reduces magazine depth significantly in exchange, though it uses “regular” sized flares instead of “small” as with the BOL rails so is slightly more effective (and further has a variety of potential improved performance payload options if CMs are ever revised in the future).
The what?
GAO report is using primary data references.
FF5, they had access to the manual data with 402 equipped. Proof being the included 402 sep curve
https://www.scribd.com/doc/258597673/F-18C-FM
They had access to data with the GE-400, not GE-402. The enhanced performance is extrapolated on their end and not accurate. Additionally, you are looking at an 8G maximum. They did not extrapolate beyond this in their chart.
mate they attached the sep graph from the 402 manual, not sure how they would get that any other way
The SEP graph does not match data from the GAO report - itself REQUIRING BY LAW that accurate performance numbers be presented due to the audit. It is likely an edit on their part.
Doesnt seem to matter because the graphing shows the decrease in rate just above that speed.