On top of that, Mig23 is trying to nerf the Gripen, but at the same time say the F-18 should have a sustained turn rate comparable to all other fighters even though it weighs just about as much as a Mig29 SMT (gross weight) but with much less thrust….
Brilliant.
This is definitely a statement from a someone who never plays a new jet the last 4 updates more than 20 games, instead just test flies all day and uses WTRTI for the sole purpose of peddling misinformation and coming up with wild assumptions.
Look, the min fuel F-15A is the only jet in game that can climb, flat spin, turn around and continue to climb again.
It is the only fighter that can give the Gripen a run for its money with its insane thrust to weight and high pitch in a low fuel 1v1.
The F-18 will not perform like a min fuel F-15A or Gripen.
If the Gripen is severely overperforming like Mig23 keeps pushing on the forum, then what makes him think that the much heavier and less aerodynamic F-18C is going to hang with a min fuel F-15?
What source did you pull this information from? Cuz from what I know F-4Es were never equipped with the ALR-69. Only a select few F-4Ds got it near the end of their life.
F-18 sustained turn capability is on par with the F-16 depending on variants, saying it doesn’t have much else implies it will be inferior to the majority of fighters at top tier currently… But in reality it may very well be superior especially considering the disparity in fuel loading being brought to matches. The heavy fighters will carry a lot more fuel than the F-18 will…
The “low T/W” we’re talking about here is nearly ~1.13:1 static and above ~1.3:1 at maneuvering airspeeds. This of course is for a nominal war thunder loadout. The acceleration and top speed performance of the aircraft for air RB will be on par with everything else bar the few exceptional aircraft such as the F-15 and MiG-29 specifically… Which doesn’t change the fact that it beats both in WVR (with or without AIM-9X) and depending on armament, may also very well beat them in BVR.
If this isn’t believable, the NSAID reports posted earlier in this very thread confirm the F-18C with -402 engines to have a sustained turn rate of 19.2 deg/s loaded with 60% fuel and air to air missiles. This is roughly equivalent to an F-16C clean w/ 30 minutes fuel in-game.
Not confirmed at all, but there are a few faint signs.
AV-8B+'s APG-65Q displayed on RWR as F-18, while there is no other aircraft uses this radar.
Three of the four decals in the previous battle pass are emblems of the VFA-27, VFA-87, and VFA-125 that operated F/A-18. VFA-125 is also notable for being the first U.S. Navy Hornet squadron.
F/A-18A and F/A-18C MLU 2 (Finland) suggestions were simultaneously passed to the developers in December.
However this is not a definitive proof. It’s worth keeping an open mind, but I’m not convinced it will happen in few months.
I recommend y’all review the primary source material available for the F-18 via the NSAID reports. The sustained turn rate for conditions is given, and it is superior to some F-16 variants… I fail to see how y’all are saying it will only rely on high alpha.
I was discussing Gripen, in Gripen thread. This is unrelated to anything you’ve said, stop baiting and attempting to derail threads. No need to bring your nonsense into the F/A-18 thread… the discussion is on the topic of the F/A-18s engine and performance.
He is not capable of explaining how a heavier F-18C is going to outrate the lighter, smaller, far better thrust to weight, more aerodynamically equipped F16.
Sure, it might have a better sustained turn rate at 200 knots at landing speed for a moment, but will immediately die out in any real kinetic dogfight engagement because it has no thrust to weight comparable to any F-16.
