Just because the Finns haven’t bought air-to-ground weapons doesn’t mean their Hornets can’t use them.
The difference in the mass of the RWR receiver and the helmet-mounted targeting system cannot be >500kg.
Especially since the US Navy’s 90s Hornets also could not use a helmet-mounted targeting system.
Idk how you didn’t actually read what i said. The computers are missing, thats weight reduction and its a very well known fact. Idk what your trying to prove here that theres some sort of Finnish Bias but theres a reason it weighs less.
Tell it to gaijin, the hornets weight should be based on the First locally produced hornets lacking arrestor hook mounts, the hook itself and avionics.
The Finnish Hornets in game are from 1995, why not just Ping Smin and ask him if its such a big deal or ask for Finnish F-18 flight manuals or technician reports.
I don’t want to say anything to Gaijin, it’s clear that they don’t understand or don’t want to understand aviation.
You can download hornet books from the 80s and 90s in PDF files and read about it.
I mean so far given the way you rushed into claiming Finnish bias im gonna say its because you didn’t do any research. Trust me the Hornets are definitely wrong but the weight is accurate to the first batch of Finnish Hornets from 1995. The MLU 2 will still be nore lightweight as Patria made smaller computers to replace the larger US computers that had been removed though it will be nearly the same weight maybe 80kg less.
I have the Hornets PDF. The Finnish Hornets are entirely unique because they lack their arrestor hook mounts and avionics. Again if you have info that gaijin was wrong please bug report it.
So you are seriously claiming that IRL Finnish Hornets actually accelerate and gain altitude faster than the US Air Force F-15C?
If yes so buy yourself some dementia pills.
I claimed their weight is correct. Would you like to quote when i mentioned that the Finnish Hornets are supposed to have magical engines? Its a problem with gaijin and the Hornets in General, but do not try to claim i said their engines and acceleration are accurate.
I am not saying that Finnish Hornets from the 90s have the same weight as American Hornets from the 2000s.I admit that they could be a little lighter. I am just saying and trying to show that Finnish (and American) Hornets have too unrealistically good acceleration and climb compared to their counterparts, such as F-16A/C, F-15С and MiG-29A which should be clearly better than any modification of Hornet.
Yes, our Hornet has a low max speed, but it looks more like a script limitation, because its dynamics are better than they should be. And yes, our Hornet С (late) is a little short in terms of maximum speed at ground level. In reality, it can give out about 1380 km/h.
Oh i agree about the Hornets overperforming in accel. This has been a known issue but they are underperforming in other areas which id like to see adjusted so that they can be more accurately represented.
Just not i mean no real i guess you could say sh***y response when i was talking earlier but im tired of some of the US players Claiming the Finnish Hornet is the best model while lacking things that are very important in air. Eventually I’ll spade both Late 14.0 hornets but rn 12.3 F/A-18A has my focus
Can y’all quit this, the Finnish hornets had a lot of useless stuff removed for their specific uses. It reduced weight. If one of you thinks this isn’t true please show me what research you’ve got that can be used for a bug report…
A2G avionics were removed due to their treaty with Russia. Finland wasn’t allowed to have A2G weapons on a fighter which is why they were removed. I believe him and i are at an understanding which is acceleration not the weight.
I might as well say the opposite. Show me what research you have to prove that Finnish Hornets are lighter than American models from the 90s?
The fact that they do not carry air-to-ground weapons is not an argument.
Firstly, there are photos with smart bombs. And secondly, if the Finns could not or did not want to use/buy air-to-ground weapons, this does not mean that they cut this capability for their Hornets.
I mean the website from the Finnish airforce literally states A2G computers were added to the Finnish F18s during MLU 2
Do you know what ballast is in aircraft? That is, by removing something that affects the center of gravity, you usually compensate for it with ballast.
Then prove that it was replaced? Again the consensus is they weigh less. you want gaijin to change their mind prove it to them. If you cant prove they weigh the same as the US then this argument continues to go in circles. Again and again, dont ping me unless its a different subject or if you have 100% proof they weigh the same as the US model.
can somebody provide ingame footage of F/A-18C Late sustain at 300-400 knots with 2xAMRAAM, 2xSidewinder, 60% fuel? with webmap
The devs have already implemented it as such, if you want to change it you need to prove them wrong. If you don’t have data that proves their implementation is incorrect… well, shove it.
tommorow
I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. A game where the Hornet has better acceleration than the F-16 Block 50 makes me laugh and all aviation enthusiasts laugh.
In the DCS World acceleration 0-1mach = 42 sec for 402 engines, in Falcon BMS ~same time, but in WarThunder 36 sec in same condition. Its all.
This is done so that the community is interested in new aircrafts (Hornets now) and they are not too weak against the background of the aircraft that are already in the game. Hornet is about a year late to the game. It is quite possible that it will be fixed in a year, as happened with the Su-27. You’ll see. This is the usual behavior of developers.