I would be straight with this issue. Gaijin messed up hard for this one, making no research and verifications, and with no considerations to game balance. Firstly, the premium F/A-18C in game has two decals, VFA-174, buNo 164034, and the VFA-81 decal, buNo 163508, but these two are not the same airframe. According to the F/A-18C NATOPS manual, which recorded all buNos for the Hornet, 164304 is a Lot 12 Block 30 hornet and 163508 is a Lot 10 Block 25 Hornet. It’s like putting the serial number for a F-16C on the F-16A, makes absolutely no sense. But that is a problem that we can ignore for now, since Lot 10 and Lot 12 are not really different in terms of game performance (changes in gyroscope and OBOGS systems). But there is a bigger problem in the hornet, the AN-AAS38A targeting pod is incorporated post-Lot 14 hornet, meaning that this hornet should not get access to laser guided munitions and making its current state a weird amagalmation of a Lot 10, a Lot 12, and a Lot 14 Hornet (I wish we could call it the Frankenhornet, but there is another hornet in the Finnish airforce with such name). Third problem is the lack of AIM-120, the premium hornet’s radar, the AN-APG65Q, could use the AIM-120 series, and the AV-8B+ in the US/Ita tech tree has such radar combinations. And when I presented the evidence to gaijin, the bug moderators told me that “Not a bug. Missiles is a balance factor.” Well firstly, gaijin could delete that “realistic” discription from the WT website, since this game is far from realistic anyways, and secondly, that does not balance things out at all. The F/A-18C, with AN-APG65Q radar and up to 6×AIM-7P and 2×AIM-9L, sits at the same BR with the F-16A, the Netz, F-16A ADF/MLU, and Mig-29, etc. All of which in a significant disadvantage when it comes to both BVR and dogfighting. So they are not balancing it anyways, it’s just a lame excuse for power creeps and P2W. Lastly, is the problem with the buNo itself, 164304 has never served in the VFA-174 squadron, as suggested by its decal. It first belonged to VFA-97, then VFA-125, and in 2017 transferred to the VFA-106 and retired there. Never once in its life did 164304 serve in the VFA-174. All of these issues are either unanswered and not-a-buged when I submitted them. There is no excuse for this level of blatant incompetancy from gaijin.
Didn’t know about this, but yeah that’s gaijin for ya. Keep letting people know.
thank you for sharing all of this information. It’s Gaijin’s reputation to do this sort of thing. All they care about is adding a shiny new toy. I appreciate you sharing the hypocrisy of War Thunder developers words to their actions.
Gaijin intentionally gimp premium vehicles for “balance” reasons creating weird monstrosities of vehicles that make no sense and don’t fit a specific block/lot/model of a vehicle just so they can be placed at some arbitrary BR.
I’d prefer the F/A-18C premium essentially becoming a nerfed late C model with only access to 6x AIM-120’s and no HMD/HMS.
I mean, yeah? Is it not common knowledge that Gaijin often assigns their planes’ weapon kits for balancing reasons? It’s also supposed to have Aim-9Ms, but doesn’t because that would be unbalanced and/or push it’s BR higher than Gaijin wants it. That’s the reason it’s called the “Early” instead of a specific block. It literally is “not a bug” if it’s by design.