F/A-18E: 9,900 lb (4,491 kg) F/A-18F: 9,000 lb (4,082 kg)
Field Landing Weight
Field Landing Weight
Speed
Mach 1.6
Boeing themselves say Mach 1.6 so I’m guessing the manual you found was more speculative.
Or Boeing’s website is wrong, I mean the listed field landing weight is literally “Field Landing Weight”, hard to say really.
Ah man… You beat me to reposting my own topic
Was planning to do it at some point but thanks nonetheless
EDIT: If you would be kind enough, can you credit me as original maker of this topic (that was on old forums)?
@TyphoonCro and I have come to the agreement that I can continue to keep this topic so long as I give credit, which I have done at both the top of the post as well as in the disclaimer at the end.
The U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18D(RC), probably one of the most unique Hornet variant.
This is the F/A-18D Hornet with Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS). The ATARS is basically an reconnaissance system with electro-optical and infrared sensor, among with ability to record high-resolution SAR image in conjunction with AN/APG-73 radar. The M61A1 gun in the nose is removed to provide enough room for ATARS.
It retains all capability as a strike fighter except the 20 mm gun. Since ATARS is not a fixed equipment, it could be reverted to original F/A-18D configuration within few hours.
While there has been controversy over whether the F/A-18 should go below F-14 Tomcat or A-7 Corsair II, I think the F/A-18D(RC) may go below A-7.
The reasons are:
Dedicated U.S. Marine Corps variant; could be placed in same line with USMC Harriers
Better strike fighter than U.S. Navy Hornets; capable of LITENING AT pod
Based on two-seater F/A-18D; distinguished from single-seater F/A-18C
Unique variant with detachable reconnaissance equipment
I agree more commonwealth vics would be good in the british tree, even if Gaijin keeps not giving them to Britian. But I was specifically refering to the Swiss Hunter
Key word there being Swiss, unless Britain has some connection to Switzerland i don’t know about it belongs in the German, French, or Italian tree.
I was hoping you were referring to the Australian M1A1 which as a commonwealth vehicle belongs in the British tree.
It only makes sense for vehicles to go to the nation that used them, or if they aren’t in the game, the nation with the best connection to them.
It’s not uncommon for the best variant of a vehicle to be in another nation’s tree, currently the best F-104 is Italian, the best F-4 is Japanese, the best A-4 is Israeli, Britain moved on from the Hunter before it saw it’s peak, that’s just how it goes.
I’d guess the Hunter F.58 is the case for preparing potential Switzerland sub-tree for Germany, or planning to give a Swiss F/A-18C to Germany in any way.
It’s a good point, Britain, Germany, and Italy are likely going to struggle for new top tier vehicles until the Eurofighter arrives, subtrees would be a good way to remedy this.
Britain could get the commonwealth realms.
Germany could get some combination of Switzerland, Poland, Belgium, Austria and Netherlands
Italy could get any combination of Spain, Turkey, Portugal, and Greece.
There are a lot of options for subtrees if only for geographical reasons, Sweden and Finland don’t share many aircraft and culturally are quite different but because they’re neighbours the combination makes sense.
It’s a good point, Britain, Germany, and Italy are likely going to struggle for new top tier vehicles until the Eurofighter arrives, subtrees would be a good way to remedy this.
If it comes to that then yeah I think it’s a good idea not quite as ahistorical as the F-16AJ so definitely possible, but a sub tree would probably be better.
I’m not at all against jumping straight to the C variant. They essentially did this for Russia with the Yak-38, and kinda sorta for MiG-23 and MiG-29… lol
