While super hornets are likely going in the Navy line I’d better see the hornets in attack line
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
I’d say quite the opposite…
- the hornets still serve the marines while the navy replaced them with superhornets, so hornets belong better under the marines Harrier II
- the hornets were intended to be cheaper, lighter and more importantly, more multirole fleet aircraft compared to f-14s, and so to be complements to them rather than successors. On the other hand superhornets were heavier aircraft intended to replace the tomcats. On this aspect hornets belong better in a parallele line to tomcats and superhornets belong better under the tomcats
- As bakabueno highlighted it the hornets were replacement to attackers of the navy so they belong very well in the attack line
4 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
I’d say the F/A-18E/F is most underrated jet fighter in the aviation history. Most of the F/A-18E/F’s bad reputation is exaggerated by Grumman engineers and admirals who have never been anywhere near the F/A-18.
F/A-18E/F was never intended to be a direct replacement for the A-6. The true successor to the A-6 was the A-12, which was to be followed by the A/F-X replacing both the A-6 and the F-14, with the F/A-18E/F complementing it.
The result today is that after both programs failed, the A-6 and F-14 were retired without replacements, leaving only the F/A-18E/F to survive.
5 Likes
I still think we should’ve at least gotten the A-6F…
:(
yeah I wonder why we have no A6 in tech tree
I’d like a source on this frankly outrageous claim. Especially because there’s an official US military document solely explaining why the Superhornet is a downgrade from the F-18C. Here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-98/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-98.pdf
I don’t know much about the A-6 program, but the F-14 Program did not “fail”. It was forcibly pushed out due to political biases.
I’d say it’s the F-35. Sure, it has its problems, but it’s a great fighter jet and outperforms its price 10:1. In contrast the F/A-18E, which even underperforms its old variants, is bottlenecking the Navy’s current capability to fight against China’s long-range, high-speed missiles and interceptors, and it’s not that cheap either.
While I would like a source as well, the GAO is not part of the US military. They are, in their own words, a “Congressional watchdog”.
@Acroute was talking about the A-12 and A/F-X programs, both of which failed to produce replacements for the A-6 and F-14 respectively.
I would take what is said in the GAO report with a grain of salt as both the DoD and GAO are going to be pushing their interests, so the “facts” will be “dressed up” to suit each party’s needs. For instance, on page 82 of the GAO report they are comparing the C and E’s TWR at 60% fuel remaining. However, the E-F has about 33% more internal fuel capacity than the C model and that does not appear to be accounted for.
3 Likes
From the Hornet: The Inside Story of the F/A-18 by Orr Kelly
Yes, the Grumman guys did not liked Hornet even during the 1970s. There’s also the famous case of a former Grumman engineer who joined with a retired admiral to publish an article, “The Battle of the Superfighters” in Flight Journal criticizing the F/A-18E/F and advocating for the F-14 upgrade. Even at the time, Rhino pilots considered the article outrageous, but their reaction went largely unreported.
As such, the F-14 community has been hostile to the F/A-18E/F, and Rhino has been accused of “killing” the F-14D for the past 20 years. Many people use the GAO report to bash the F/A-18E/F, but no one cites the GAO’s assessment of the F-14D: Less capable strike fighter than F-15E and F/A-18C/D even with planned upgrades.
What we need to remember is that there was and still is no aircraft capable of overwhelming China’s A2/AD strategy head-on. The canceled A-12 or A/F-X was the closest one, and even these are far from adequate given the current requirements of the US Navy NGAD. And the Chinese threat became visible around 2010, and the Rhino was planned and designed about 20 years before that. We don’t criticize the F-4 for being less effective as a fighter on the 1980s battlefield.
It is also a common misconception that the F/A-18E/F is inferior to the F/A-18C/D. In fact, while there is a reduction in some flight performance, the F/A-18E/F has an increased combat radius, increased payload and bring-back capability, improved survivability due to its much lower RCS, and better maintainability (10-15 maintenance hours per flight hour, 90% mission capable rate as of 2024).
Besides, carrier air wings do not fight with the specific capabilities of a single weapon system, and never have since the advent of the aircraft carrier.
3 Likes