Not my favorite option, but it seems possible.
The problem is, it is still debatable about performance of Hornet w/ 10x AMRAAM. It’s possible that the Gaijin won’t mind at all, as the F-14 and Su-27 did, but there are no guarantees.
2 Likes
They need a specific launcher rail for that, and I want to say its either LAU-115 or LAU-127. I suppose you could have an “early” and “late model” Hornet, one with and one without the Dual racks which would limit you to 6 Radar Guided Missiles, plus the Winders on the Wingtip stations.
By the sounds of it they were only around by the time the C variant made it into service, so potentially balancing…?
Since the F/A-18 cannot load AMRAAMs on its wings without LAU-127 dual racks, in this case the radar-guided missile is limited to AIM-7.
Maybe allowing LAU-127 only on station 3/7 (6× AMRAAM + 6× Sidewinder) is more feasible for that purpose.
1 Like
Ahhhh gotcha, I was under the impression you could single mount AMRAAMs to pylons without the dual rack component, in the same way you could with a Sparrow.
Then I suppose that’d have to be a balancing decision. That said I suppose the penalties for having so many hardpoints/weapons would come in the form of Flight Performance deterioration… so I suppose it might balance itself?
No aircraft in-game suffers from drag penalties of ordnance mounted on pylons, else the Gripen would be unable to exceed mach 1.4 even at altitude when loaded with a few air to air missiles.
Another example is the F-14s.
Gaijin simply doesn’t care to model this at the moment… The only downside is additional weight impacting the performance.
Welp in which case it’d literally just be the weight, as you say.
Yikes.
I did feel the Hornet to be a bit of a bus when I ran tanks and bombs in DCS, but DCS ain’t War Thunder last I checked.
1 Like
Not sure since it is still an uncharted territory, but I don’t think it is going to be an unbeatable jet. At least not as much as the F-14A Early or Su-27/J-11.
its only issue is really missile load the performance would be fine for it to come
No I’m doubtful. Yeah it’ll be very fun getting that Alpha but I can’t imagine it loving slow boating
Are you claiming this is a game wide bug? Pylon mounted ordnance in game specifically tells you the effect it will have on drag. Surely even GJN isn’t bad enough to not include those values in actual drag?
It’s the drag from the pylons itself is not modelled iirc.
Share where you’re getting this number please.
edit:
Unhiding my posts after mig23m flag abuse.
1 Like
You wouldn’t consider Pylon ordnance being dragless to be a bug?
Like I said, I think you’re mistaken and it’s just the actual pylons themselves that aren’t modelled, not the ordnance.
Ah I see.
No thank you.
4 Likes
It’s not dragless, you said so yourself. The amount it effects top speed and other factors by altitude is the issue. Though, I was told it isn’t a bug when it was reported for two specific aircraft mentioned as Gaijin doesn’t feel the need to model that at this time.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IHX39MnphvmJ?comment=xG9kuZnzMaE8c8g2Zx5RxigO
Feel free to be productive towards discussion and less toxic in the future then o7
-edit, not off-topic.
Laser guided bombs have way less drag than their dumb counterparts. Check also PGM-2000, bomb so less aerodynamic than other 2000 LB bombs, but becuase it is guided it has less drag.
Came across a neat pic of an F/A-18A in 1986, fitted with 4x underwing and 2x wingtip sidewinders, 2x fuselage Sparrows, and wing drop tanks
9 Likes
Random thing I just remembered with the Hornet:
One ended up dogfighting an F-20 in the Area 88 Manga lol, so that’s another reason I want to see it in-game:
Does legacy hornet got ALR-67V3 RWR with MMW module?
Isn’t the whole thing with the MiG-23 FM changes that it was set up with the missiles having high drag, then that drag was lowered with the missile drag changes, and they never tweaked the MiG’s flight model to compensate?
No, they over-extrapolated data because they assumed the clean performance charts were with rockets (missiles). When RideR2 tested against other data we were able to show the correct fuel & ordnance for the test and when re-testing discovered a discrepancy.
In any case it is quite annoying that Gaijin is so willing to amend this mistake but not others they’ve made for similar reasons.
I have a feeling they are either looking at the efficiency stats, and adjusting report priorities based on them in some cases to make them better fit assuming documentation can be produced.
1 Like
Or going with tertiary sources because it benefits the sale of the premiums
1 Like