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.
interesting that instead of admitting you were wrong you again wheel out the goalpost shifting and denial of reality
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
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.
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.
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.
120 is for F/A-18C, with four AN/ALE-47. F/A-18A has two AN/ALE-39 for 60 flares.
I imagine they will be given BOL rails as well… maybe?
For F/A-18C, there would be a possibility for tested LAU-138 BOL.
However there is no mention about testing BOL on F/A-18A, and the Australia is the only country that has ever fitted a BOL dispenser to F/A-18A/B, so it is highly unlikely. This is another reason why I don’t prefer F/A-18A over F/A-18C.
Also fitted ASRAAM to it as well
Truly the superior 18A and needs a proper RAAF skin when and if it gets added to the US tree.
Wasn’t F-14B only trialed with BOL rails as well? As in, it never reached operational status
The Navy had tested the LAU-138 on the F/A-18C/D and actually worked on integration, but it was interrupted and the budget was reallocated to IDECM Block 4 development.
So strictly speaking, BOL should be excluded from options. But there may be some possibility, as there are already an aircraft like F-5C with weapons/countermeasures/RWR that were never actually used in real life, but received them because it considered as ‘technically possible’.
American F-5A and F-5C have ALE-40 because it is “technically possible”, yes. In reality, Norwegian F-5As (which to my knowledge were not upgraded) had ALE-40.
18C/D having BOL would be nice but it was test fit, as you said. It would be helpful if any foreign Hornets had BOL rail.
Still, it technically is possible on the Hornet.
Hmmmm…
US Hornets never had that one though
Trialed only with LAU-138, right?
