Slim. Gaijin have made it a USMC jet.
The Marines use Litening for their land-based Hornets since it’s a common pod with other USMC aircraft like Harrier.
ATFLIR is for carrier ops, and the pods are owned by the Navy. But there isn’t a late model Navy F/A-18C in the update. Firstly, one would need to show the USMC jets used ATFLIR for carrier deployments to even get it added. But USMC’s legacy Hornet carrier ops stopped in 2021 so now they’re only land-based, and are getting updated Litening pods with Advanced Tactical Data Link.
It’ll probably come with Super Hornet. However, the Navy is currently also replacing ATFLIR with Litening on the Super Hornet
Nope. The USMC is an independent branch and have their own budget. They serve under the navy but are not part of it.
Probably just a matter of cost in getting it certified for safe use on carriers.
The USMC installation on the centreline would be a hazard for striking the deck in heavy landings. Australian ones are wired for the Litening pod on the cheek stations but USMC ones don’t seem to carry it there.
Not too big a deal. I can prove that the LITENING-AT would also have access to also has A2A capabilities, and since the wiring is intrinsic to the airframe, performance should be similar.
F/A-18A and F/A-18C early currently have same FM, despite A version lacks aerodynamics enchantments like LERX fences on 3d model. Should it be this way, or FM should be changed to show this difference?
The F/A-18’s LEX fence serves to prevent cracks in the vertical tail section, by altering the airflow around it to reduce vibration. There is no direct correlation to maneuverability.
Guys, can someone explain to me why our Hornet’s engines shows no loss of thrust, while the F-16С blk50, F-15C and MiG-29s had losses.
It turns out to be a paradoxical situation where even the basic GE400 has more thrust than Klimov’s RD-33 from MiG-29. Which is not true.
Because if we take the same reference point that is taken for the GE400 in the game, then the RD-33 has 8300 kg of force vs 16000lbs (7260kgf).
As a result, our Hornet (late) have better dynamic (0-1 Mach acceleration at SL) and has a higher rate of climb than the F-15C and F-16C Block 50. Is this a joke from the developers?
I don’t know how you reached that conclusion, but both the F-15 and F-16 comfortably outclimb and out-accelerate the F-18A or C, except at slow speed where the F-18 has an edge.
You can’t just use the TWR and call it a day, you have to account drag too.
I had a hard time maintaining 0.6 mach but seems close to 15 deg/s at 5000 feet. Sea level is maybe 18 deg/s, both around 1-2 deg/s short of the figures given above by rough estimation. If I manage to make some full turns with low SEP and maintain relatively correct speed & altitude I’ll be able to give more ‘correct’ figures but right now I’d say it is +/- 1 deg/s off the real in-game values.
It’s a hard plane to maintain a perfectly steady turn in.
I agree i did find it a bit unsteady at times. Seems the Finnish F18 is the only one ive had a bit better STR but its also more lightweight from having all the A2G computers and arrestor hook and mounted ripped out. Though would be nice to get a buff to my US late model.
