F/A-18A never got amraam, F/A-18C defo did, the only F/A-18As to get AMRAAMs were called F/A-18A+
@Fireball_2020 F/A-18A will be DOA no matter which way you try and fit it
That’s what I’m saying?
tbf when top tier gets to 14.3 the F/A-18A might be fun to play again since ARH will be much more balanced. plus the chance of adding EW in the next year is MUCH higher than it ever has
So, the F-18A got AMRAAM.
I want what you’re smoking.
1 Like
Yeah so they did get it with A2G
Also the info from the Swiss trials to replace the F/A-18s states that it can’t be compared to other aircraft in strike roles due to not having any air to ground
The had weapons to use in tests for the Gripen Rafale and the Eurofighter but the Swiss F/A-18 can’ use any of it as they didn’t want to spend money to make it able to use A2G
1 Like
DOA like the gripen right. It’s an american light plane, cant wait to see how much handholding its FM will get
1 Like
F/A-18A’s flare/chaff quantity is too low. Currently it is almost impossible to survive in the top tier battle with 60 small caliber countermeasures.
2 Likes
I imagine they would just go with the BOL rails on the later variants, though i’m not sure the US ever used them on the F-18.
They did experimentally, should be enough for them to get it cause it would be BS if other countries get F-18s with BOL making them objectively superior to the US ones.
Well if it can be proven that they did them experimentally then fair enough. So far the only US planes I know that have used BOL was the F-15 or F-14B.
If the F-18 can be added to that list then it’s good. If it wasn’t actually done then I would disagree that it’s BS for them not to get it as it just wasn’t done though I think for balance they should.
I meant specifically for the A (poor wording on my part), I am aware the later ones trialled it and it was a service modification on the Finnish, Swiss and Australian ones as well as a trial for the US.
It is technically possible as the RAAF F/A-18A uses BOL dispensers(mounted on pylon), but there is no record of it being tested in the US.
1 Like
I haven’t had any issues with the lower CM counts? I was stock grinding the F-15C with only flares and having pretty much no troubles and ending matches with only having fired maybe 20-30?
Who’s spamming their CM’s that much?
R-27ER/ET anyone?
1 Like
You might think so, but the 30/30 flares/chaffs are very insufficient, at least for me. Maybe I am not the only one who thinks so.
1 Like
I would agree to an extent, 30 flares is usable, I use 32 + 640 chaff on my tornado, but 30 chaff is not viable at all.
Wish Germany techtree take Swiss version or Canadian version.Germany techtree has been lacking efficient CAS capabilities for a long time.F4ICE and Tornado just are palliatives.
Well, they could potentially model more advanced Flare compositions (kinematic flares; e.g. MJU-50 & -51 delay onset of some types of IRCCM as they retain aircraft’s momentum for longer). and there is the ALE-37A/A (as found on the AV-8A) as an option.
1 Like
I’ll respectfully disagree. The aircraft has no business flying high or doing things that would really require the use of a bunch of chaff anyway.
Weak.
The ALE-37 pod seems like one of those all-encompassing solutions for a lot of countermeasure-related problems on western jets in-game.
Too little flares? Slap an ALE-37 on that bad boi! Too many flares? Still slap an ALE-37 on, because you can never have too many! No evidence for integration on a specific airframe? From what I’ve heard, it was compatible with any NATO-standard pylon!