Well yeah, F-18 shouldn’t get AMRAAMs until turn of 2025 IMO.
We need to only have it on airframes with limited mounts.
4 - 6.
F-18C has 10 AMRAAM mounts.
It’d be like adding Su-30.
You are forgetting that Gaijin can balance the weapons
Yes, it can carry 10 AMRAAMS but will it carry so many AMRAAMs? Quite possibly no, at least on introduction.
I was under the impression the F-18C can do 12x AMRAAM but just hadn’t done so in US service. Maybe it was 8 and 10 rather than 10 and 12.
Yes, it will. Gaijin has not limited pylons before.
@MiG_23M
2 engine cowling mounted.
8 double mounted on 4 pylons.
1 Like
While it wouldn’t be on the same level of overpowered as 18C with 10 AMRAAMs
F-104C still lacks two fuselage mounted AIM-9Bs
FJ-4B still lacks two more wing mounted AIM-9Bs for total of 6. Yes, it can carry 6.
In game, F-104C carries only 2 and FJ-4B carries only 4.
2 Likes
F-104C isn’t bug reported.
And FJ-4B was acknowledged.
So no, no limited pylons.
The Su-30 is more like the pre-2007 F-15E (rather than just a F-18C), they’re both meant for air superiority and missile-bussing; the Su-30 has a PESA radar, whereas the pre-2007 F-15E only uses PSP pulse-Doppler (AN/APG-70). Not to fear monger, but PESA radars are in the realm of Rafale, Patriot (missile system), B-1, and B-2 territory.
The other stats of the airframes seem decently similar everywhere else.
Doesn’t the A-10A Early and M2K-C both lack the maximum AAMs they could carry? Both were reported.
How do you reconcile the two statements. That FJ-4B was acknowledged but somehow is also not limited?
PESA isn’t that powerful. Still suffers all the important flaws of mechanical PD radars.
@DirectSupport
M2K has available AAMs on all available slots.
And A-10A early remains the only exception and is premium.
FJ-4B would be limited if it was “Not a bug.”
If the Hornet comes before AIM-120, I’d support the option of adding pre-1993 F/A-18C first and update it with AMRAAM later.
Considering we already have F-14B, F-15A and F-16C, I don’t really think we have to stick with the F/A-18A with inferior engine and only a handful of countermeasures.
3 Likes
interesting that instead of admitting you were wrong you again wheel out the goalpost shifting and denial of reality
1 Like
Thank you.
Then yeah, both are in the works until otherwise then.
@AUSChalkWarrior
What are you talking about? That was my original statement.
Fully agree
I dont see the early F/A-18A competing very well against other toptiers
And its hard to balance because of its other aspects such as 9M and good turning performance
Plus i dont want to have to research yet another jet without amraam capability
1 Like
It’s a better pulse-Doppler as it splits the signal, making it harder to jam. It is just better than a standard pulse-Doppler.
It would be silly to add a top tier aircraft that can’t use the top tier missiles coming in the next patch or so.
- People were saying the same thing about the F-15A and if AMRAAMs were coming in the last update.
- The Hornet would be absolutely fine in an early ARH meta without AMRAAMs, especially if only like 2-3 other plane types total were getting them.
- There is a chance Gaijin may delay further ARH missiles for certain top tier aircraft (not saying they’d be delayed again in general, just for addition to specific aircraft) due to balancing issues, which would allow an AMRAAM-less F/A-18A to be just fine.
Still I don’t really prefer F/A-18A over F/A-18C, since 60 flares are very insufficient for defeating missiles with IRCCM capability. Evading single AIM-9M or R-73 will use up more than half of flares.
1 Like
3- A delay in AARHs means a delay in F-18C Block 20s, Rafales, etc potentially into 2025.
That’s an issue they likely want to avoid.
@Acroute
They have 120 flares, so closer to 1/7th - 1/4th.