I love how you put this
what are we classing as “such good low altitude performance”?
If we ever get the F/A-18A, this could make for a decent GE/unlockable camouflage:
(It should be mentioned that this is not an Adversary Hornet, this was used by on deployments)
4 Likes
AIM-260 is made to be mounted on the F-35 and F-22. In the weapon bays basically. A telephone pole would not be able to fit. I could see it tho on the EX
AIM-260 is first supposed to equip F-18’s, and serves as an AMRAAM replacement in AMRAAM form factor.
It’s just a modernized AMRAAM, possibly wingless with improved seeker, proximity sensor, warhead and booster.
1 Like
what?
i’m not doubting that. AIM-174A still does not replace aim-260 though
5 Likes
or VMFA-314 “Black Knights” squadron camoflage that intecepted aliens in Independence Day movie :p
2 Likes
I could see that being the stock grey camo
Another Hornet scheme I’d love to see for the early A (if we get it): BuNo 161926 from VFA-203
(If we got the A-4M with the two-tone green and grey scheme used on BuNo 158171, they’d match perfectly)
3 Likes
Bug report :
APG-65 missing GMTI, GMTT, SSS, SST modes:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/S3GdbskAvub3
3 Likes
I hope more radars get A2G modes, along with (god I pray for Kh-41) AShMs to be added in mass with the F/A-18 and Su-33/MiG-29K update (senseless delusion)
1 Like
Due to this (figure 28) and the FF5 report we can safely say that the STR of the F-18C with the -400 engines is between 16.8 to 17.2 degrees per second, without pylons, and with missile on wingtip and fuselage stations. When fuel is set to 60% internal.
We can see in this configuration, it has less STR (~12.5-12.8 dps) than the 1976 MiG-23ML(at 45) (5000 ft vs 1000m), due to it’s greater weight.
The F-18C, using the EPE engines and AIM-120 + AIM-9 in same configuration, won’t exceed 19.2 DPS STR. Based on the 1991 report posted, this is above the G limit. For a small radius turn, it will be more like 18.5 dps at mach 0.6, which is much inferior to F-16C.
Additionally, navy hornets still used many AIM-9L in Gulf War, so it is quite appropriate for an F-18C, but not the EPE Hornet.
The peak rating speeds are at mach 0.6 and 0.8, which correspond to information in FF5.
The peak sustained turn rate of the F-18C w/ GE-402 motors peaks at 19.2 deg/s according to GAO report of course.
1 Like
Aren’t those the public PSYOP numbers? :)
3 Likes
No, and that’s not what I claimed earlier either. If you don’t have anything to add to the discussion please refrain from trying to incite a flame war.
2 Likes
So they won’t put the real weight for AMRAAM in public documents, but they put the real turn rate and acceleration figures for F/A-18 in public documents? How does that work?
1 Like
Hence why manuals were posted to the internet with other data falsified, though the GAO report had good reason for publicizing data of a fighter that is already widely exported and in search of a replacement fighter that focuses less on flight performance anyway.
Nah, in a heavier config F-18A does the ≈17°/s. 19.2 is probably correct.
1 Like
All I can gather is the Hornet should be at least a decent turner, no matter the model or engines
Yes, so much yes
1 Like