I don’t see a reason we couldn’t have a Sparrow-only variant even after AMRAAMs have been implemented, covering the ~8 years between the Hornet and AMRAAM introduction including the Hornet’s usage in the Gulf war.
Whether it’ll be meta is another question, but I would expect SARH-only planes will still be semi-viable in an ARH meta in the same way IR-only planes are semi-viable in the current SARH meta.
Either way it would be fine. Actually for now, the real problem is when the Hornets are added, not how it is added.
See this could definitely be added to the game very soon, sitting at a BR of 12.3 it would be fine, just need equivalent aircraft in other trees
This on the other hand is a long way off, a minimum of 13.0 maybe higher, would require a lot of extra groundwork to be put in place first so yeah that wont come for at least another year maybe longer.
I just don’t see why we would have to wait for an AMRAAM capable version just because it’s ground ordinance is lacking a bit from the F-14B
Its that it mostly won’t be seen an attractive addition, or push the meta one way or another. Since the F/A-18 just like the F-15 has some critical (Fuel & BVR capabilities) deficiencies in comparison to the F-14B. The only thing that really tops it is the F-15E / F-16C-4x or later F/A-18.
And as such relying on the addition of a mechanical crutch (e.g. Anti-Radiation Missiles, CBUs IRCCM equipt AAM’s, etc.) to change the meta is risky as there is no way to pre-calculate their direct impact on how things are run, and so there would be some risk that the necessary hieratical escalation of capabilities would be disestablished and so difficult to further build on without an obvious jump in performance appearing.
Would the F/A-18 be a step up from the prospective strike aircraft that it would theoretically replace (A-6 / A-7 / A-10, etc.) . Certainly but it lacks in key areas that would make it less attractive than the F-14B especially in GRB due to how high tier SAM’s work and the broken implementation of EO ordnance limiting capabilities (even though a proper implementation would gut early system effectiveness against tactical targets).
I think the air-to-ground capabilities are not a huge issue since we already have F-14B in Bombcat configuration, so anything would be possible. While the A2G armament of Hornet is impressive, it lacks speed, acceleration, climb rate of the Bombcat which is critical for high-altitude LGB tossing.
There’s no such thing as a “Bombcat configuration”
The nickname was purely coined for any Tomcat with a bomb loadout.
I just meant the current F-14B is actually the Bombcat. Perhaps not so accurate, but not really wrong.
It doesn’t necessarily need to be meta, just having them in the game should be enough, I mean how many versions of the MiG-21 are there in game, and take the MiG-21F-13 for example, it’s just bad, even the MiG-19 at the same BR is a better aircraft.
It would be weird not to have the F/A-18A in the game somewhere as it was in regular service and did see action during the 1980s, even if it would only be a side step in terms of capability.
It would actually probably fit best underneath the A-7E as a real upgrade to that tree, otherwise it would be more of an annoyance sitting beneath F-14B.
There are numerous American aircraft that this could be said about that are either nowhere to be seen or event aircraft.
I personally think that the F/A-18 can only turn up in the USN Fighter line due to the number of potential additions to the Attacker line yet to appear (AV-8B(DA) / -(NA) / -B+, A-6E WCSI / -SWIP / A-6F, A-4F / -4M, YA-7F, A-10C, etc.) that would be around that range, though we might see a later dual seat F/A-18 or Block -40/-42 F-16C since otherwise the F-15E or F-16XL is likely earmarked as the capstone for the Bomber line, and I doubt that they are going to contemplate adding the F/B-22 / F-35C etc. due to power creep, nebulous performance metrics and mechanics.
Like I recognise I am being pedantic but there has been much debate that has originated from Gaijin’s creative usage of ahistorical naming conventions.
Literally any variant of the Tomcat was monikered the ‘Bombcat’ when it carried bombs as a joke among crews. There was no official designation and the Tomcat was still primarily designed and operated in the interceptor/air superiority roles. Multirole functions were introduced as needs changed.
To say the “the current F-14B is actually the bombcat is actually the bombcat” is misleading.
I look forward attack aircraft toptier for USA tech tree this year because now no new attack aircraft better A-7E at rank 8 like great britain
I guess AV-8B (DA) maybe event vehicle or squadron vehicle rank 8, but wonder A-6E WCSI (Weapons Control System Improvement) better A-6E TRAM (Target Recognition and Attack Multi-Sensor) ?
New lightweight multirole fighter aircraft toptier after F-16A Block 10 & F-16A Block 15 ADF might be F-16CG Block 40 because some better Block 30, carries 2 LANTRIN pods (AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod & AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod), addition of cockpit lighting systems compatible with Aviator’s Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS) and retains the engine General Electric F110-GE-100 from Block 30
F/A-18A or F/A-18C early without AIM-120A AMRAAM fill gap F-14B, F-14D & F/A-18C with AIM-120B
I think that’s fair, I suppose there are limited options for USN fighter aircraft with the F/A-18A, C, and E followed by the F-35s and the F-14D in there somewhere, also as Gaijin have said they plan on putting more vehicles in folders it is entirely possible we see the F/A-18A and C in the same tech tree spot which if they were telling the truth about half price folder vehicles would be a pretty amazing outcome.
I would like to see the F/A-18D in the attacker line though as it would be a great fit as a USMC aircraft with an A prefix, I personally love tandem cockpit layouts so I could totally see myself playing that a tonne even if it isn’t optimal for air RB.
Targeting pods of F/A-18:
Weight:
- AAS-38: 340 lb (154 kg)
- AAS-38A: 380 lb (172 kg)
- AAS-38B: 370 lb (168 kg)
Magnification: 2/4×
Field of view:
- NFOV: 3°
- WFOV: 12°
Field of regard:
- Pitch: -150° ~ +30°
- Roll: ±540°
Track Rate: 75°/s
The first operational TPOD of F/A-18. Mounted on station 4 instead of single AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-120 AMRAAM.
Original AAS-38 provided FLIR view and target tracking, but lacked laser target designator/rangefinder. So the early Hornets had to rely on buddy lasing for laser guided munition. In this case, the AN/ASQ-173 LST/SCAM pod was also required. This problem mostly solved in 1993 with introduction of AAS-38A with LTD/R capability. The further upgraded AAS-38B also has a laser spot tracker, which completely eliminates need for ASQ-173.
Weight: 420 lb (191 kg)
Resolution: 640 × 480 pixel
Field of view:
- NFOV: 0.7°
- MFOV: 2.8°
- WFOV: 6.0°
TPOD that replaced NITE Hawk since 2003.
U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and Swiss Air Force uses this pod. In case of the USMC, they uses ATFLIR on aircraft carriers because LITENING is not certified for carrier operations.
Weight: 450 lb (204 kg)
Resolution: 640 × 512 pixel
Field of view (data of LITENING III):
- NFOV: 0.77° × 0.77°
- MFOV: 2.8° x 2.8°
- WFOV: 18.4° × 21.1°
Field of regard (data of LITENING III):
- Pitch: -150° ~ +45°
- Roll: ±400°
TPOD for U.S Marine Corps F/A-18s since 2006. Royal Australian Air Force, Spanish Air and Space Force, Finnish Air Force also uses this TPOD for their Hornet.
This is the only TPOD that can also be mounted on centerline (station 5) of the Hornet. So unlike other TPODs, it does not decreases air-to-air missile payload.
Weight: 446 lb (202 kg)
Magnification: 1/4×
Field of view:
- TV:
- 0.5° × 0.5° in 1× zoom
- 0.125° × 0.125° in 4× zoom- IR NFOV:
- 1.0° × 1.0° in 1× zoom
- 0.25° × 0.25° in 4× zoom- IR WFOV:
- 3.6° × 3.6° in 1× zoom
- 0.9° × 0.9° in 4× zoomField of regard:
- Pitch: -155° ~ +5°
- Roll: Continuous
Slew rate: 70.9°/s
TPOD for Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18A/B after HEP Phase I upgrade.
In game, the Hornets will get:
I wonder F/A-18A Hornet carries AIM-9 maximum to 4 or 6 ? and carries AIM-7 maximum to 4 or 6 ?
F/A-18A equipped targeting pod ?
The F/A-18s can be equipped with up to six AIM-9 missiles. Same goes for AIM-7.
However the early hornets were not able to load LAU-115 launcher on station 3/7, so only four AIM-7 was possible. It was changed during 1990s.
So F/A-18A carries up to 6 AIM-9 & 6 AIM-7 ?
I just know that F/A-18C early (1987) carries up to 10 AIM-9 & 6 AIM-7
Both F/A-18A (1983) and F/A-18C (1987) is capable of 6x AIM-9 and 2x AIM-7, or 2x AIM-9 and 4x AIM-7.
LAU-115 launcher on station 3/7 was allowed for use during 1990s, so F/A-18A+/B+ and late F/A-18C/Ds are capable of six AIM-7s.
I guess gaijin consider F/A-18A with 2x AIM-9 (AIM-9H stock & AIM-9L) and 4x AIM-7 (AIM-7M), F/A-18C early with 6x AIM-9 (AIM-9L stock & AIM-9M) and 2x or 4x AIM-7 (AIM-7M & AIM-7P)
I would like to remind everyone on the rules of classified documents;
The Distribution Statement A document is still not enough?
Or the book was problematic?