until the F/A XX^^
1 Like
The way I see it, War Thunder has always been a team deathmatch game, with bombing and ground pounding as a poorly designed afterthought.
We play on small maps where every objective and POI is crammed into the center of the map. The matches last like 10 minutes and in vast majority of cases are won by just shooting down the enemy team. Bombers are fragile, basically food for fighters. Flying out a B-52 or Tu-95 would basically be a death sentence in our current meta and game modes. These are stategic assets that don’t fit in a very tactical game.
Let me say I don’t like this situation, but it sure seems like it is the case.
I’m not sure about the F-16 E/F, I might be wrong and in that case I’m sorry.
Anyways, all I meant was to represent future F-16s so take the specific aircraft with a grain of salt.
Doesn’t seem too unlikely for it to go onto the A7 line seeing how the progression of the israeli air attacker line is currently structured
I mean if you only play Air RB I see why you think that. Honestly they already need to have the 3D models in game IMHO as AI in high tiers, but they could literally be added as player aircraft into EC tomorrow and work just fine. Same with the ground modes.
I predict F/A-18A, F/A-18A+ & F/A-18C Hornet and F/A-18E Super Hornet Blk I ~ III place to USN fighter line
F/A18D Hornet from USMC to attack aircraft after AV-8B+. F/A-18B maybe event vehicle
AV-8B+ will fill the role of after A-7 rather well, and would make an excellent 12.3ish vehicle.
That and F-18 was developed to replace the F-14s.
After all, the F-14D gets out-paced by the F-18C.
Wouldn’t be the first time aircraft alternate [P-47 - P-51 - P-47].
AIM-9Ms will do that.
There’s no reason to put the F-18s into the strike aircraft line when there are countless strike aircraft missing for rank 8.
Especially since AV-8B would be the same or higher BR as F-18A, and F-18C outpaces F-14D in BR.
I could see a two-seater Legacy and eventually Super Hornet in the attacker/strike line, possibly after both the AV-8B+ and TT Intruder (still holding out hope for the A-6F instead of SWIP), but the single-seater Hornets and Rhinos are 100% gonna be Tomcat line.
Folder the F-14A and F-14B, F-14D goes after the folder for both, F/A-18A goes in-between, and F/A-18C goes after (but this also depends entirely on what the F-14D will get weapons-wise)
by my lookings F/A-18A would be 12.0 as it’s slower than F-15A but with same missiles, idk about manuverablity tho.
F-14D would be 12.7 or 12.3 now however the F/A-18C is 100% 13.0 or 13.3 i mean 12 missiles??
true, but an aim-120 14D would possibly be for the best as idk if there’s a significant enough difference between F-14B and D otherwise
2 Likes
Nope, F-14 cannot use AIM-120 and improving AIM-54 is enough.
The AIM-120 is listed in the SAC of the -14D. Sure it was never done in service, but it was tested on the F-14 airframe, and we know the -14D did receive the wiring & electronics to do so but the Pylon adapter was not funded, as it was diverted into providing LITENING capability to more airframes.
There is also the two AIM-152 (A3M) designs as an alternate option(s) as well, but there probably isn’t enough known to properly model it, It does look very similar to the notional AIM-120AXE though.
2 Likes
SACs are intended to provide a level of standardized detail needed by planners and policy makers on aircraft specifications and performance. It is NOT a technical document for operational purpose.
Besides, neither the F-14D nor the AIM-120 had been deployed in 1985 and the SAC itself is labled “Pre-service”. Also the F-14 used in the AIM-120 test was the F-14A, and even that was a simple drop and ignition test. The Tomcats lacked proper software to operate the AIM-120 until the very end.
11.7 - 12.0 for F-18A.
F-14D would be 12.3 - 12.7 depending on its loadout.
F-18C would be 13.3 more than likely.
Your guesstimates are pretty good.
1 Like
So then why are many aircraft having their ordnance based off the contents of SACs
The F-14A (1978 SAC) for example lists the AIM-9D, but it was only specific training circumstances when the AIM-9G / H was not available, in order to conserve the higher performance guidance sections since outside the SEAM capability it was operationally similar.
The F-5A gets access to MERs (Mk. 81) on the mid Wing station due to a single photo of a configuration that was ground tested, and did not complete flight testing due to noticeable bowing.
We have an Late F-111A (access to more than just M117s) that can’t take reduced stores on MERs (likely the inboard lane left empty aka. Slant loaded) to allow wing sweep limits to be unimpeded.
compare the M117(A1) entry of
and
1 Like
Single seaters as fighters after the F-14s, twins as attackers after the a-7
F-14D trial AIM-120 only ?
I wonder bombcat F-14A (Late), F-14B and F-14D equipped LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14 from F-15E & F-16CG/DG (F-16C/D Block 40/42) or AN/AAQ-25 targeting pod
I guess F-14D test fired AIM-120. but access AIM-54C+
After A-7 Corsair II and AV-8B Harrier II Plus maybe Legacy Hornet single-seat or two-seat from USMC ?
3 another attack aircraft 11.7 ~ 12.0 BR from USAF, USN & USMC stop gap between A-7 Corsair II and AV-8B Harrier II Plus
US Navy Legacy Hornet and Super Hornet single-seat after F-14 Tomcat ?
The fact that there are some incorrect loadouts does not mean that this kind of error can be justified for all aircraft. If something is wrong, we should insist on fixing it, not rationalize other inaccuracies based on it.
Spoiler
Also the normal F-111 and the FB-111A is not a same aircraft. Even the authorized stores are different
1 Like