Hornet has way better thrust to weight ratio with greater STR and ITR performance. Lower top speed is due to wing design I believe, it’s not designed with extremely high speed in mind. Long story short; Phantom will be faster on deck and high altitude but it will take quite some time for it to overtake a Hornet. I also expect Hornet to be (practically) faster at mid altitude thanks to it’s better acceleration, at least in the current game meta.
1 Like
slower and probably worse for climb/accel atleats in some conditions, but easily wins in a dogfight not even close.
1 Like
I’m not well versed in the technical terminology. Whats ITR and STR?
The Hornet is not considered as high performance as other top tiers, but in return it gets a good radar and 10 AMRAAM as well as 2 sidewinders.
The F-15 is considered the best top tier in the game and it only carries a maximum of 8 missiles, the flight performance of the F-15 is relatively good some of the best but the main things making it relevant is the radar and missiles right now.
The Hornet has a lower thrust to weight, but its a lower drag design, it has exceptional ability to point its nose like on a Mig-21 an easy to aim gun and it can outrate some of the best aircraft in the world at lower speed ranges.
It will be a good plane.
ITR: Instantaneous turn rate, which is basically the fastest turn circle you can pull
STR: sustained turn rate, which is the fastest turn you can make without losing any speed or altitude, usually they are both calculated with degrees per second. I’m pretty sure you can find some values regarding both aircrafts performance on the internet.
1 Like
That gells with what I have read elsewhere.
IIRC
A hornet cant outrate an F16 but perhaps it can do a tighter radius? So go 1 circle with it?
I have no idea about what to do against an Eagle. Perhaps a hornet CAN outrate that?
Thank you. I’d done a short look but couldnt find anhly good numbers quickly. I’m sure a more extensive search would yield results.
The key feature of a Hornet would theoretically be comparatively advanced A2G ordnance variety (JDAM / JSOW / Walleye ERDL / SLAM / SDB-I & -II / HARM etc., though may lack LGBs), while retaining a basic A2A ordnance capacity, with the existing F-14 / F-15 / F-16s otherwise being limited to 2x or 3x A2G stations at the expense of some missiles / options (The F-16C could have the BRU-57, which allows for 2x 1000lb JDAM / JSOW stores per station, or BRU-61 for 4x SDB / AGM-187A per station) Where even the basic Hornet has 5x A2G, and 4 + 2 A2A stations.
The -18A would probably suffer, or be otherwise fairly unremarkable in comparison to other Teen series offerings due to a lack of HMD / TVC missiles, and having otherwise average ordnance fit for the BR (~11.3 to 12.0) of AIM-7F / -7M / -7P, AIM-9L / -9M combined with a bad radar and subpar acceleration / drag. And has similar A2G ordnance to the A-6E or A-7E
The -18A+ or -C fixes most of these things (HMD, Radar, Engine improvements) but still lacks standout ordnance (unless they throw an AIM-9R or even the -9X basic into the mix and even then, it will still retain issues with drag if fully loaded with AIM-120s) or allowed to be the pacing threat with access to the -120C-5 or later.
(The performance of the radar also depends on the specific configuration the US receives as some USMC Hornets were equipt with the APG-79(V)4 which while a fairly advanced AESA radar, has few advantage larger systems like the APG-70 / -82 of the F-15E, and other issues like the use of which set of Targeting / FLIR pods, since there is a significant variance in performance and capabilites).
The -E/F while yet further advanced still retains a similar evaluation to the earlier Hornets in comparison to the yet to be added cutting edge Variants of the Teen series (F-16C-70 / F-15E Late). While retaining an edge within WVR, is generally let down by the lacking radar and tradeoffs required for naval use. Is able to basically be hard countered by simply not engaging with them in a dogfight and retaining range on them and forcing them to close the distance.
2 Likes
He asked in relation to the Swiss F/A-18C, which had it;s A2G capabilities removed.
AFAIK Drag of weapons stores is not properly modelled and it is primarily related to weight.
1 Like
I did indeed ask specifically about a Swiss F18C. One that specifically has been modernized with a better radar and does have a HMD too apparantly. Lack of ground ordonance is fine with me I dont play ground battles
I should say, thanks for the rundown though, I’m not the most up-to-date on F-18s
The F-18C with upgraded engines can absolutely outrate an F-16.
2 Likes
Ohh cool! So does that then mean it can outrate the eagle too?
This isn’t a game feature that is properly modeled. It won’t have such problems.
It of course depends on conditions. The F-18 will outrate an F-16 when both have similar payload weights but a clean F-16C with similar “%” of fuel fraction will beat the F-18.
The F-18 should beat the F-15 in turn rate depending on conditions as well.
1 Like
Thats all I want. Something that has parity, doesnt have to be the best at everything . As long as it has a chance, which it sounds like it totally does! (Unlike the ICE)
Thanks for all the info to you and all the others that replied to my questions
Just copying this down here for the performance numbers.
2 Likes
The only major difference outside A2G stores I can think of is that you get access BOL rails, a (potentially) slightly less modern RWR (ALR-67(V)3 vs ALR-67(V)2, which would potentially only impact the ALE-50; a towed decoy integration, and Pantsir’s Tracking radar detection in game) and Radar (pending implemented configuration(s)). and limited access to Later Sidewinders / AMRAAMs (would have to check arms sales listings to confirm).
For most intents it’s similar until various more advanced mechanics are implemented, especially with how the BOL-IR is implemented making more a proactive then reactive solution to IR missiles, and lack of MJU-12, and / or -17 (Larger, 1x2" (MJU-7) & 2x2" (MJU-10) Flares options vs the existing M206 in the MJU -11 Flare Magazine), or alternate Kinematic or Covert Flare variants are added, or the ALE-50 towed Decoy.
That second graph is slightly deceptive, the -18C is configured with 3x Fuel tanks in order to meet the listed range / radius criteria, where the -18E only needed one to do the same.
Which is obviously worth noting even if fuel weights are similar, the configuration is not (also CL tanks have somewhat greater impact in comparison to 2x wing tanks, at least in game, though may be due to their size differences for the F-15 / F-16) and since range is less of a concern in WT it’s likely to be less pronounced (in a clean, or Self-Defense + minimum [30% internal] fuel state) comparison, due to increased internal fuel of the -18E, the difference is likely to be less significant since we can’t (yet) dump fuel to take advantage, and use rates are relatively similar at Max power.
2 Likes
19.2 deg/s turn rate with that load of missiles and 60% fuel is a lot when you consider the F-16C should be doing 19.6 deg/s clean with 50% fuel iirc.
The US one should have BOL as well, experimental or not, it absolutely needs to get it if Sweden gets the Finnish one with BOL and Britain gets the Australian one
Which conditiions again?