The F-14D manual states 30,200 lbs.
Ingame, you only see 10220kgf. It seems that the screenshot you have is old. (I can tell because it has the old RWR)
Where did you get 13,500??? You just said it was 13131.5kgf
Still underperforming even if this was correct.
Based on Gaijin’s past, this isn’t the case
13500kgf is in the screenshot.
And no, it’s not underperforming.
They did some concept demonstrations with the LANTIRN adapter. However, it has not been proved to work.
Since there are no mention in additional hardware in the AMRAAM integration plans of the 1990s, so it likely not went beyond a proof of concept.
To me it looks like the f/a 18 will be true successor to the F5e
Given it looks very similar overall and main wings Having very similar narrow sweep angle
But lower wing Loading maybe it’s even more maneuver able despite Being heavier
So it’s going to be an ufo at low to medium speed while lacking in top speed
At this point they will make the F/A-18 a premium attacker XD
Seems like the hint in the update prologue pretty much confirmed a Hornet of some sort is coming. Hopefully in the naval line because I’m dumb and didn’t buy the A-10C and AV-8B+ during the New Years sale.
While super hornets are likely going in the Navy line I’d better see the hornets in attack line
Only the F-18E makes some sense in the Attacker line, the rest don’t.
F-18A/C are obviously Navy line.
The implementation of the Legacy Hornets as replacements for the A-6s and A-7s seems like those should be in the attacker line. Super Hornets being the F-14D and Legacy Hornet replacements should put them in the naval “fighter” line.
I’d say quite the opposite…
F-18C is peak hornet. F-18E is the worst as a fighter despite being a better multirole on paper.
Either way F-18Cs are F-14 replacements IRL and definitely in-game.
@AydanL44100
Except the F-18C is a successor. Superhornets weren’t meant to replace F-14s, and for WT’s air to air they’re going to be the worst due to weighing more than a Phantom.
F-18C is not an attacker, it’s a fighter. The only arguable attacker is the F-18E due to its intended roles.
Putting F-18C in any attacker line would be putting F-14B into the attacker line just cause it can also do multi-role.
I don’t think their real performance really matters, what matters most to me is their intended role… hornets were NOT intended to replace the tomcats, that’s like saying the f-16 was made to replace the f-15. They were way lighter and highly multirole, and supposed to replace the A6 and A7 while the tomcats were focused on fleet defense.
Later they decided to make the superhornets which were much bigger and heavier and were intended to replace the tomcats although remaining just as multirole
And this, is all facts
Hornets were literally intended to replace almost all fleet fighters which they did.
Saying F-18C was meant to replace F-14 is like saying F-15 was intended to replace F-4E.
F-4Es were still used into the 1990s despite being replaced because pilots were still in-service and you retire aircraft as pilots retire.
F-18Es replaced the attacker fleet of aircraft including A-6s.
And yes, I’ve stated the facts.
The f14 was an air superiority and fleet defense aircraft with some basic multirole capabilities in the end. The fa18c was a multirole fighter and strike aircraft with decent air superiority capabilities. You can’t deny that can you?
Glad you admit that the F-14 and F-18C are fleet defense aircraft.
Well of course, the hornets were attack aircraft but also fighters that’s in the name. The whole point of the hornet is to be both a fighter and an attack aircraft. My point is it was intended to complement the tomcat, not really replace it, and was rather there to replace the a4s, a7s (and, alright, also the navy f4)
And I know we can as well put them all under the tomcat, I just want to fill holes in the tech tree and this would be a great way of doing it
Except it did replace the tomcat, all you need to do is check combat sorties.
Something that can’t use AMRAAMs isn’t as useful against enemy fighters.
Also right now there are no holes in the naval attacker line.
I might be annoying using the same examples but the armament differences between the fa18c and the tomcat are somewhat comparable to the armament differences between the f16 and the f15…
And yes there’s no holes right now but if we build a tower of 4 or 5 aircraft in the naval line the others lines will look blank especially the attack line with just harrier II
The naval fighter line literally ends at F-18. F-18C being added is the end of it unless F-18E goes there as well [before F-35B/C].
F-18A would be a lower BR than F-14B.
F-18C is peak airframe performance with peak weapons options, up to 12 of.
I understand your view, and that’s why I will argue against it.
Of course I understand yours too…
Sure the C is peak air performance, I just think we should do accordingly to role/purpose rather than flight performance. Tbh at this point I think our points of view are both valid and it’s just a matter of opinion
Also the fact that hornet a goes before tomcat b doesn’t change the fact that we’ll have 4 fighters there. And if hornets go in navy line I don’t really see a reason to put superhornets in the attack line
As of the lighning II it seems best to me to have the C under navy line and the B under attack line