F/A-18 Hornet: Tech Tree Placement and Vehicle Type

Where should the U.S. F/A-18 go?
  • F-14 line
  • A-7 line
0 voters
Should it be fighter or strike aircraft?
  • Fighter
  • Strike Aircraft
0 voters

We don’t know exactly when, but the F/A-18 is sure to make an appearance at some point.

The thing is, there are some possibilities about where it will go and what it will be. So I’ve summarized them for discussion.


Tech Tree Placement
F-14 line:

  • Developed to replace F-4 Phantom II and complement F-14 Tomcat

A-7 line:

  • Developed to replace A-7 Corsair II and complement A-6 Intruder
  • This line does not have any Rank VIII vehicles now

Vehicle Type
Fighter:

  • It is a multi-role fighter, not a pure attacker

Strike Aircraft:

  • The only U.S. military aircraft designated as a fighter/attacker
  • F/A-18 squadrons are named “Strike Fighter Squadron” or “Fighter Attack Squadron”, while F-4 and F-14 squadrons are just “Fighter Squadron”
  • There are some jet fighters or fighter-bombers(F3D-1, F-84F, F-105D) that are implemented as strike aircraft in this game

Any feedback and comments are welcome!

6 Likes

Maybe it’s time the game introduced the Multirole type in the game.

7 Likes

I don’t think there is really a wrong place for it. I do think it 100% deserves the fighter designation though.

Personally I hope it follows the F-14s as there won’t be much there until superhornet otherwise, and the F-15E fills the attacker line. But that is also predicated on them actually making the bomber line back into bombers.

1 Like

F-14D is the natural next step after F-14B IMO

4 Likes

I agree, but that’s where it ends

1 Like

And I also agree, after the D is where the line would continue with Super Hornets.

I do think legacy Hornets would be more suitable for the attacker line though, and if possible be classified as both “fighter” and “attacker” at the same time.

@ZeZeko said it best, they should really add a “multirole” type

1 Like

Another option is to add F-15E under F-111, as a successor and predecessor.

2 Likes

I would say gaijin obviously will add more F-14s in the future… If we put the bugs on F-14 line aswell wouldn’t that make the F-14 line too long and the A-7 line too short? Or… we combine the two naval air line into one?

Yep. Should have never put the F-105 and F-111 in the bomber line to begin with. Stopping at the B-29/B-57s was weak sauce. But assuming they never correct that, F-15E will follow probably at least 1 more F-111, and then the legacy F/A-18s pretty much have to go in the attacker line.

1 Like

There’s really only 1 more F-14 likely to come, F-14D. And after it, any more additions are definitely going to be foldered A/B variants. There are still a good number of attackers missing that should have already been added.

IE: A-6s, AV-8Bs, more A-4s, A-37s, A-5C, A-10C

Oh I just realized the attacker line contains both naval and air force aircrafts…
Hmm… I would say put the bugs, or the marine bugs under the A-7? Then add one or two more F-14s and probably the navy bugs under them… Fairly speaking i’m kind of an outsider of this but I believe F-15E will undoubtly go under the 111

edit: ignore this.
Still I think F-15E should go under the 111 because its ground capabilities

I think most probably gaijin will folder the A-10C under A-10A Late.
On the others no comment I agree, however:

I doubt that. The A-6s are more like a tactical subsonic bomber than a traditional attacker like the A-7.

The same except supersonic and I’m pretty sure it’s too big for an attacker.

That’s not going to be foldered, it going to be top rank when it’s added.

The premium is game currently holds the designation strike aircraft, not Frontline bomber which would be its analog. It also carries a significant amount of guided ordnance depending on refit.

Size has nothing to do with classification as an attacker, last I checked the PBJs were navalised B-25s. Though if you want to get technical this one is probably the one that fits best in the bomber line of any of the aircraft I mentioned.

1 Like

Just fyi the F-111 holds strike aircraft too.

Here’s my idea for TT placement

I am not proposing a new Rank, I just wanted to expand the TT downward for more space

3 Likes

The 'navy strike’s line has never been that. It has always been the attacker line. It’s primarily composed of naval aircraft more from the aircraft added being pulled into other lines by fitting there better, and a distinct lack of Air Force additions that would go there. And then you have things like the P-61 which is a night fighter.

1 Like

Let’s say F/A-18A Hornet place to attack aircraft.

For me, I hopefully gajin could add another attack aircraft (11.7 ~ 12.0) AV-8B Night Attack, A-6E SWIP and A-10C before F/A-18A. after F/A-18A maybe AV-8B Plus and F/A-18C (1995 armament)

1 Like

Maybe A/C/E variants to fighter line, B/D/F variants to attaker line?

Also. Isn’t F-16E/F export one not used by usaf?

I am not so much concerned with what the line has been, but what it’s future is.

It’s entirely possible to redefine the identity/purpose of line from a certain rank onward.

I think this is the best way to group aircraft going into the future.

Chances are there won’t be any playable strategic bombers at top tier, so in that case the right-most line would go to waste.

I disagree with that sentiment.