Considering its going to be seeing Fox-3s and IRCCM, on top of the reduction to multipath heights without access to its own active radar missile and so doesn’t have a way to reliably force its way into the merge, where it could use its edge in flight performance to get the nose on if flown well.
limited countermeasures (and lacking their implemented alternates e.g. Air-Launched Decoy, Towed array, DECM, Podded, etc.), no HMD, lackluster guided ordnance options and a substandard top end acceleration profile when compared to other airframes. Limit its offensive / defensive options, the AV-8B+ / F-4F ICE share many systems so my be useful to get an idea of how they perform in the post BVR / AMRAAM environment of top tier.
Though to some degree its going to be better off since it’s not being introduced this patch so the meta likely will have settled and tactics to counter BVR or revisions to multipathing height(s) will likely to have occurred.
Realistically the only thing an F/A-18A has over the F-14A is access to the IR missile (& Air to ground ordnance, still waiting on the AGM-53), I which I do think it would complement well at around 11.7~12.0, with the F/A-18A+ or -C and an introductory config -18E being one or two steps up in BR from their predecessor respectively.
1 Like
F-18 has more useful flight performance, significantly improved sparrows, and better time on station than the F-14A for full afterburner and imo is akin to the F-15A or slightly better than it for air RB meta.
Similar to the difference between MiG-17 and Mig-19. One takes the fight in the turn, the other in rate/energy.
No, the issue is a bit different. The F-18 can also carry 10x AIM-9M if it wants rather than just 4+4, or 6 Sparrows and 2 Sidewinders.
This means the F-18 is at least on par or better equipped than most 12.3’s and also has better SARH than any of them besides the aircraft equipped with R-27ER… but has significantly more of said SARH.
The effectiveness of a data linked and lofted sparrow is being understated.
Additionally, the F-18 is an absolute menace WVR and is more than a fight even for F-15’s.
I don’t think the A-model could
Based on what I had seen from a page in a manual, it was only ever wired for 6x 'winders tops, or 2x 'winders and 4x Sparrows
I haven’t seen any documents discussing such limitations, with double racks it should be able to carry in theory up to 8x Sidewinders and 2x Sparrows in some cases
What is the source? This seems to predate the introduction of newer pylons on the F-18A that allowed dual racks.
I don’t remember the source, all I remember is a friend showing this to me ages ago when I mentioned excitement over the F/A-18A carrying 10x Sidewinders (not even joking).
Might’ve been an early F/A-18A manual
I suppose it depends on how gaijin wants to add it then, but as y’all said… no real sense in adding the earliest models because they’d fill no gap or purpose.
I personally just want an early A-model, since that’s what seems like the most interesting one to me.
To I guess revise my earlier idea: scratch 9Ms on it. Just keep it with 6x 9Ls and 4x 7Ms tops, in-between F-14B and F-14D, somewhere around 12.3. Limit its air-to-ground ordnance as well.
F/A-18C with the full compliment of AMRAAM, air-to-surface weapons, etc could be at like 13.0-13.3
Wasn’t putting AAM on inboard pylon was restricted until 90s and F/A-18C?
1 Like
Y’all say this but I am going off of weapons stores pics from google… sources would be appreciated (I know I didn’t provide any)…
In any case, depends on which variant Gaijin adds. Perhaps there is more discussion to be had once we see which variant(s) are coming.
As an example though, RAAF has ASRAAM on their F-18A.
I don’t think that explicitly prohibits the use of the missile though, no?
For LAU-117 both pylons are mentioned.
2 Likes
NAVEDTRA 10345-E
NAVEDTRA 12308
According to the 1985 and 1990 Aviation Ordnanceman 3&2 training manuals, the LAU-115/A launcher can only be used on outboard wing pylons. The latter also indirectly confirms that the F/A-18C/D was not exempt from this restriction.
Spoiler
The system data from the Conduct of the Persial Gulf War: Final Report to Congress, Volume 3 mentions the Hornet’s inboard wing stations are only for fuel tanks or air-to-ground weapons.
Spoiler
Also in the F-18 Hornet in detail & scale Part 1: Developmental & Early Production Aircraft by Don Linn, a technical data shows that the AIM-7 is only mounted on stations 2/4/6/8. The source of this is unknown, but the format suggests it was taken from the preliminary Standard Aircraft Characteristics.
The bottom line is that the legacy Hornets were not able to carry air-to-air weapons on the inner wing pylons until at least 1991. The reason for this limitation is not known. However this is definitely not a wiring issue, so it’s more likely a software limitation or safety measure.
NAVEDTRA 14313
The restriction for AIM-7 was confirmed to have been removed from the 2001 Aviation Ordnanceman training manual, so it is likely that it disappeared at some point in the 1990s. The earliest would be around 1993, when the Hornets were authorized to operate AMRAAM.
WarbirdTech Series Volume 31: Boeing F/A-18 Hornet by Brad Elward
However the inboard station AIM-9 is still not a thing.
4 Likes
I think it’s safety measure because of risk of engine intake sucking rocket motor exhaust causing engine problems.
1 Like
That makes sense. But on the other hand, there were no restrictions on air-to-ground missiles, so there may have been other reasons as well.
1 Like
