Biggest issues with the potential ordnance set for the F/A-18A is that it doesn’t really have anything with a 2000lb class warhead, outside the Walleye II.
And lacks access to the LAU-88A/A & HEAT Mavericks so loses stowed kills if it takes guided ordnance.
I can’t think legacy Hornet from USN/USMC gajin consider located to fighter aircraft/naval aircraft or attack aircraft line
Is there any possibility that in the future F/A-18A might be next premium pre-order pack fighter aircraft after F-20A Tigershark ?
I wondering F/A-18A+ & F/A-18C like or difference.
I really hope not. On the quiet I am a bit of a fan of the Hornet A fit and would like to see it as TT, despite being miles off even being able to get it at the minute.
The Hornet A could make for an interesting parallel to the F-14B at around 12.0-11.7
They could also split it with a two seat / single seat, and not add A2G ordnance to the single seater the same way they did with the F-16A-15ADF and F-16A-10.
I think you would see prototypes like the F/A-18L, F-16/79, F-16/101, F-16XL, (F/)A-16, A(V)-16, as the next step forward for Premium / Event / Squadron aircraft.
The A+ refitted the -C’s radar(AN/APG-73) and included AMRAAM / AGM-65 / TGP capability to the F/A-18 airframe.
The differences are the Engines & CM count, and are otherwise a number of small or otherwise yet to be implemented features; like the ASPJ (ECM jammer) and two color MFD console(s) / electronic moving map.
I can’t think 2nd premium pre-order pack fighter aircraft at rank 8 in the future after F-20A Tigershark but hope better F-20A
I assume F/A-18A+ close to F/A-18C 90’s except airframe & not change engine
Honestly just add both variants in the same update, no point in giving us one that’s dead on arrival and making people wait for one capable of dealing with the meta jets it would be facing anyway…
(Also adds another step to the grind for a top tier hornet in the same update and I’m sure gaijin would love that lmfao…)
I know many people who wouldn’t want a dead on arrival hornet…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.