AIM-120B is fine.
It should’ve gotten the APG-79(V)4 AESA radar.
2 Likes
F-15C, F-15E, F-16C Block 50 and F/A-18C late if receive AIM-120C-5 next quarter
F/A-18A+ around 2002 ~ 2004, armed AIM-120B and AIM-120C (AIM-120C-4 & AIM-120C-5) AMRAAM
The F/A-18A+ retain F404-GE-400 engine like F/A-18A/B or fitted F404-GE-402 engine from F/A-18C/D (late production) ?
I’m not quite sure
Decompression BR higher 14.0 (14.3 or 14.7) sure
1 Like
No, US F-18’s wouldn’t have used C-5 specifically (maybe C-6) as it’s an export missile iirc.
It was first purchased for use on CF-18’s in 2004.
F-18’s didn’t use C-5 until after 2004 as that’s when the initial purchase was made for F-18’s specifically.
2 Likes
Let’s get this straight the 120b is more than fine its top 2 if not 1 fox3 in game We all agree on this but when you get a plane like an F-18c Slower than any top tier with the same missile as Faster counterpart Make it look worst and it is worst 120b lunch from f18c Unless you are in high altitude you’re going to be At a disadvantage vs ef2000 f16c f15c f15e j39 so to counter that and would Fit perfectly is add 120c-5 to f18c and other downside of f18c is that it lose more speed in a turn so a better missile like 120-c5 with better aoa and pull 40g and energy can really make A different between a good plane the competitive with a fun and aggressive play style Suits its performance
and yess"" AESA radar would really help it
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/SJ36qeEdFt8L
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hbLaGW6r41bt
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VRlxrsCfUZsj
made a bunch of reports regarding F/A-18 HUD. Sparrow naming, AIM-9 naming, Sparrow seeker cage circle.
3 Likes
I tested F-18C Finnish.
Its even better than F/A-18C Late
Acceleration from 0 to 1mach at Sea Level = 35 sec
Compared to F-15C’s and F-16C block 50’s 37 sec its absolultly unrealistic madness.
Why do the Americans need the F-15 and F-16 when the carrier-based strike aircraft accelerates and climbs to altitude faster?
0-1mach and climb to 10.000 meters
Finnish F-18C = 1 min 14 sec
F-16C block 50 = 1.16min
F-15C MSIP 2 = 1.15 min
The developers need to do something about this circus.
They might tell me that the Finnish Hornet is lighter because it is not a carrier-based aircraft.
No, it is a regular Hornet, it has folding wings, heavy chassis and an arrester hook.
There was such a project as F-18L (Land based), but it is not Finnish, not Spanish, not Swiss or Canadian Hornets. F-18L was not put into serial production.
1 Like
Finnish F-18C weighs 580kg less but lacks the V3 rwr (cant detect K band), no HMS/HMD, and no A2G capabilities.
Weight was reduced based on Finnish reports from after the A2G avionics and systems were removed. Try telling gaijin it should weigh the same without the A2G computers.
4 Likes
Just because the Finns haven’t bought air-to-ground weapons doesn’t mean their Hornets can’t use them.
The difference in the mass of the RWR receiver and the helmet-mounted targeting system cannot be >500kg.
Especially since the US Navy’s 90s Hornets also could not use a helmet-mounted targeting system.
Idk how you didn’t actually read what i said. The computers are missing, thats weight reduction and its a very well known fact. Idk what your trying to prove here that theres some sort of Finnish Bias but theres a reason it weighs less.
2 Likes
Tell it to gaijin, the hornets weight should be based on the First locally produced hornets lacking arrestor hook mounts, the hook itself and avionics.
The Finnish Hornets in game are from 1995, why not just Ping Smin and ask him if its such a big deal or ask for Finnish F-18 flight manuals or technician reports.
I don’t want to say anything to Gaijin, it’s clear that they don’t understand or don’t want to understand aviation.
You can download hornet books from the 80s and 90s in PDF files and read about it.
I mean so far given the way you rushed into claiming Finnish bias im gonna say its because you didn’t do any research. Trust me the Hornets are definitely wrong but the weight is accurate to the first batch of Finnish Hornets from 1995. The MLU 2 will still be nore lightweight as Patria made smaller computers to replace the larger US computers that had been removed though it will be nearly the same weight maybe 80kg less.
1 Like
I have the Hornets PDF. The Finnish Hornets are entirely unique because they lack their arrestor hook mounts and avionics. Again if you have info that gaijin was wrong please bug report it.
So you are seriously claiming that IRL Finnish Hornets actually accelerate and gain altitude faster than the US Air Force F-15C?
If yes so buy yourself some dementia pills.
1 Like
I claimed their weight is correct. Would you like to quote when i mentioned that the Finnish Hornets are supposed to have magical engines? Its a problem with gaijin and the Hornets in General, but do not try to claim i said their engines and acceleration are accurate.
I am not saying that Finnish Hornets from the 90s have the same weight as American Hornets from the 2000s.I admit that they could be a little lighter. I am just saying and trying to show that Finnish (and American) Hornets have too unrealistically good acceleration and climb compared to their counterparts, such as F-16A/C, F-15С and MiG-29A which should be clearly better than any modification of Hornet.
Yes, our Hornet has a low max speed, but it looks more like a script limitation, because its dynamics are better than they should be. And yes, our Hornet С (late) is a little short in terms of maximum speed at ground level. In reality, it can give out about 1380 km/h.
1 Like
Oh i agree about the Hornets overperforming in accel. This has been a known issue but they are underperforming in other areas which id like to see adjusted so that they can be more accurately represented.
Just not i mean no real i guess you could say sh***y response when i was talking earlier but im tired of some of the US players Claiming the Finnish Hornet is the best model while lacking things that are very important in air. Eventually I’ll spade both Late 14.0 hornets but rn 12.3 F/A-18A has my focus
Can y’all quit this, the Finnish hornets had a lot of useless stuff removed for their specific uses. It reduced weight. If one of you thinks this isn’t true please show me what research you’ve got that can be used for a bug report…
2 Likes
A2G avionics were removed due to their treaty with Russia. Finland wasn’t allowed to have A2G weapons on a fighter which is why they were removed. I believe him and i are at an understanding which is acceleration not the weight.
I might as well say the opposite. Show me what research you have to prove that Finnish Hornets are lighter than American models from the 90s?
The fact that they do not carry air-to-ground weapons is not an argument.
Firstly, there are photos with smart bombs. And secondly, if the Finns could not or did not want to use/buy air-to-ground weapons, this does not mean that they cut this capability for their Hornets.