I predict that it might legacy hornet two-seat to attack aircraft line
F/A-18A Early (pre Libya 86’s, desert shield & desert storm) or F/A-18A (late) in gulf war ?
Next pre-order pack after F-20A in rank 8 ?
Pretty simple, but probably will be made over complicated…as many have said, one seater after F-14 and two-seater to the attack line. Nice, balanced lines.
3 Likes
It should be like this:
F-14B 13.0
----|----
F/A-18C 14.0
----|----
F-14D 14.3
----|----
F/A-18E 14.3
Then the F/A-18D and F can go with the Harrier B+. The A/B would end up as a premium or event vehicle.
1 Like
Well Garsh Doggone Darn Y’all I just want them to add the F/A-18 already. Also, I’m bored, so here’s an absolutely INSANE idea:
Thai F/A-18C/D for Japan tree as an event or Squadron vehicle or, you know what, for maximal chaos, tech tree replacing the F-16AJ. Japan can have an existing, but not operated, plane. As a treat.
Thailand ordered the jets but could not pay for them due to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Because of this, all 8 jets were delivered as F/A-18Ds to the US Marine Corps.
As a further whacky idea: US Forces Japan vehicles as event/squadron vehicles for the Japanese tree.
A USMC F/A-18D here, an M1A1 there.
The Thai/USMC F/A-18D could actually be one plane, with both USMC and Thai skins. It came much closer to actually happening than F-16AJ, and the aircraft DID in fact end up defending Japan in USMC service.
Let’s just delete the US tree at that point
2 Likes
The US tree can be a subtree for Japan.
On a real note though, I am starting to miss old war thunder before sweden and france and italy and china were added, not because i don’t like having more vehicles, but because when you went to lower BRs it was very much just WW2 game.
I want gamemodes where history matters in terms of what vehicles are fighting what other vehicles in more concrete ways than just what tree gets what. And I want a Rush/breakthrough mode.
Point is, I guess, I want to use F/A-18s against real F/A-18 probable targets.
The problem if the game is reworked that way (for example, bf-109 and fw-190 against spitfire and p-51) is that balance between aircrafts would play way harder in deciding which team wins
F-14D would be lower BR to F-18C though.
F-18A would likely be foldered with F-14B or A.
2 Likes
I remember. I think it should be a GRB thing, not an air RB thing.
1 Like
Nah. The F-14D outperforms the F/A-18C in most metrics (especially when it gets Aim-120s) The F/A-18C is great, but it doesn’t hold a tea to the Tomcat D.
F-18C has a better time to climb, more missiles, and of course better energy retention.
Even IF F-14D got AIM-120s, it’s still not compared to F-18C, and is at best on-par with F-16C.
F-14D isn’t even F-15C equivalent. Minimum 2 less ARHs, and of course a significantly worse TWR.
F-14B time to climb [10,000 meters]: 2 minutes 8 seconds.
In that time F-15E is at mach 1.5.
F-14B time to mach 1.5: 3 minutes 35 seconds.
F-16C time to mach 1.5: 2 minutes 58 seconds.
F-16C tine to climb: 1 minute 42 seconds.
I’m creating a spreadsheet of all this data this year.
Here are the videos made thus-far:
Yes, F-18 will have a slower top speed, but it will accelerate faster, climb faster, and turn better in both energy retention and AOA.
1 Like
I highly doubt that. Maybe if you’re talking about the F-14B we have ingame with the nerfed engines by approximately 35%. I was referring to real life.
And if you want to use more missiles than the F-14, you’re always going to perform worse than the F-14D in the Hornet.
And last time I checked, the F-14D doesn’t bleed more than 54 knots per second of speed on the deck.
The F-14D can carry 8-10 Aim-120s. That would put it on par/above the F-15C/E and F/A-18C.
That’s great. I assume it will be updated when Aircraft changes are made.
F-14B’s engines are not nerfed in-game. They have the exact performance they should have. F-14B’s acceleration in-game matches all real-world data within margin of error.
F-14D has no engine upgrade.
That’s not energy retention, that’s AOA.
F-14D can at most carry 6 AIM-120s claimed thus far.
The outer most stores are IR only to knowledge present.
It’s recorded as 6 in the SAC, but did test dual racks at one point which bumps the numbers by 2.
Also
4 Likes
Wasn’t that rack mockup only made from polished wood?
If I’ve read correctly, they’re saying it could with some modifications. Did they actually do these modifications afterward to allow this?
And? Show me a Yak-141 carrying live ordnance.
Only partially, The needed wiring and software was implemented for provisional carriage (as seen in the SAC it was planned and funding set aside for installation) to all F-14D’s when they were built. But the actual racks were never procured. and so the AMRAAM never mounted in service, in place of that; LANTIRN, GPS, PGM and other capabilities were installed instead using the diverted funds.
To which considering what they were about to be sent into definitely worked out for the better, since After the first few days there really weren’t many aircraft to be concerned about.
3 Likes
The F-14B’s engines should produce 30,200(x2) pounds of thrust at sea level. They do not do this in Warthunder. Even the F110-GE-400’s thrust is rated for 28,000pounds of thrust. In Warthunder they only produce ~45,000 pounds of thrust with both engines. That is a significant amount of thrust lost. Just over a third or aka ~35%. This brings its TWR to 1.37-1.4.
No… It’s not. You know the document I’m referring to right? The one that says in the title the Superhornet is a marginal increase in performance over the F-18C.
@tripod2008 perfectly explains it below.
I’m realizing rn that the F-14D is not in the game yet. Do you really think it should be added? I mean we already have two tomcats… if it’s added anyway it should be packed with the F-14B
We already have like 4 Flankers in the game. Several F-16s. Several F-15s. No difference.
4 Likes