F/A-18A in late 80’s ?
But I don’t know located before or after F-14B & F-14D and battle rating
I might expect F/A-18C config in mid 90’s, without JHMCS and AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM
And USN F/A-18A+ config 2004 after F/A-18C, my guess
USMC F/A-18D from 2008 ~ 2009 similar to F/A-18E Blk I, and targeting pod unlike F/A-18C/D from USN
what’s so special about the F/A-18D? it’s just a backseater C is it not?
@oom1992 i think it best to add the early amraam F/A-18C with a F/A-18A with simple sparrows
F/A-18A with early AMRAAM and C with improved AMRAAM and AIM-9X
What’s your thoughts behind this btw? Just wondering; I don’t see how competitive an F/A-18A would be at the 13.3+ br it would be with AMRAAM’s.
Also it less fuel?
No but for real, two seaters may be useless right now, but if modeled correctly they would reduce your workload by simplifying/automating some tasks.
For example: Mouse designated radar lock for 2 seater jets
There is the Swiss gov and the Swiss trials to replace the F/A-18 state that it has no capability to use any A2G
https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=19943203
How would it not be competitive? What kind of silly question is that?
they do not say that, that link is specific for the AGM-65, stating that the integration would be technically possible, but would incur high costs. Furthermore they mention that the weapons no longer meet the operational requirements.
They do not define what would cause the costs, if its the technical integration, buying targeting pods to actually use the missiles effectively, retraining the pilots, buying new Mavericks since the existing ones are at the end of their operational lifespan, or even at the end of the missiles lifespan itself.
Remember the existing Swiss stocks are from 1984, those are AGM-65Bs!
Not to mention that the Hornets would only arrive in 1998, which is already after the slated shelf life of 10 years for the AGM-65 (EVALUATION OF SPARING MODELS FOR A MISSILE SYSTEMS US AIR FORCE INST OF TECH)
They would not get far with their existing missiles, so integration costs seem much more likely to be connected to that (combined with the fact that they are unlikely to be used since the Swiss AF simply doesnt have enough F/A-18 for both the primary mission of air defense and CAS, which is also stated in your link)
F/A-18A never got amraam, F/A-18C defo did, the only F/A-18As to get AMRAAMs were called F/A-18A+
@Fireball_2020 F/A-18A will be DOA no matter which way you try and fit it
That’s what I’m saying?
tbf when top tier gets to 14.3 the F/A-18A might be fun to play again since ARH will be much more balanced. plus the chance of adding EW in the next year is MUCH higher than it ever has
So, the F-18A got AMRAAM.
I want what you’re smoking.
Yeah so they did get it with A2G
Also the info from the Swiss trials to replace the F/A-18s states that it can’t be compared to other aircraft in strike roles due to not having any air to ground
The had weapons to use in tests for the Gripen Rafale and the Eurofighter but the Swiss F/A-18 can’ use any of it as they didn’t want to spend money to make it able to use A2G
DOA like the gripen right. It’s an american light plane, cant wait to see how much handholding its FM will get
F/A-18A’s flare/chaff quantity is too low. Currently it is almost impossible to survive in the top tier battle with 60 small caliber countermeasures.
I imagine they would just go with the BOL rails on the later variants, though i’m not sure the US ever used them on the F-18.
They did experimentally, should be enough for them to get it cause it would be BS if other countries get F-18s with BOL making them objectively superior to the US ones.
Well if it can be proven that they did them experimentally then fair enough. So far the only US planes I know that have used BOL was the F-15 or F-14B.
If the F-18 can be added to that list then it’s good. If it wasn’t actually done then I would disagree that it’s BS for them not to get it as it just wasn’t done though I think for balance they should.