F/A-18E Super Hornet Weapon Options

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
1

F/A-18E Super hornet
F/A-18E Super hornet2560×1707 113 KB

Hello War Thunder DEVs,

I hope you can help clarify some of the design intent behind the inclusion of the F/A-18E Super Hornet, as I’m a little confused about the lack of new ordnance options for this aircraft.

As you are well aware, many of the recently added aircraft have unique air-to-ground ordnance options such as the Kh-38, Kh-59, GROM-1/2 (which was removed but could be added back in), Brimstone, or SPICE-250 that are giving these aircraft a new place in air-to-ground. Unfortunately, the F/A-18E seems to perform very similarly to the F/A-18C, which is a much older and much more primitive aircraft. In particular:

It does not appear to offer any new and unique air-to-ground ordnance options.

The air-to-ground mechanics are almost identical to previous Hornets.

There are no ordnance options that make it stand out as a true multi-role improvement.

The reality of the situation is that the true strength of the aircraft comes from the additional air-to-ground ordnance options rather than flight performance. Some of the options that could help give it a new place in War Thunder and have similar counterparts to existing aircraft include:

I’m not asking for speculative options and there are more than the ones I’ve listed some are missing due to balancing issues or various other reasons, such as the AGM-158 JASSM/JASSM-ER, among others Etc Etc. I am specifically seeking clarification on:

Why new options have not been included with this aircraft.

Whether the current options are considered complete.

When any new options might be added.

And what the community thinks.

As the aircraft is not particularly competitive in air-to-air combat, additional options could help give it a new place and make it far more distinctive from the F/A-18C.

Any insight that you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

4 Likes
2

i would appreciate yalls thoughts if i missed anything or got anything wrong pls let me know

3

add AGM-154

3 Likes
4

They’re not, SLAM and SLAM-ER are cruise missiles, while Kh-38s are regular Air to Ground missiles and Kh-59M is a TV guided cruise missile

5

If I had to guess with the move of the F/A-18E to the upcoming rank IX (Rank 9) with the upcoming update it’s likely to at least have the option of receiving more advanced A2A missiles (Block 1 AIM-9X are in the files, and hidden at the moment).

Rank IX Aircraft and Reshuffles to the Aviation and Ground Vehicle Research Trees

There are no direct counterparts to existing (implemented) ordnance (e.g. Kh-38MT) that can be carried by existing airframes, that wouldn’t otherwise require new mechanics (e.g. MMW seeker or submunitions) to be added alongside them thus no “valid” options.

See precedent set with the US F-4E, F-14A & -14B, A-4E, A-7D &- 7E. The only time new ordnance will be provided is if it’s BR were to drop outside the band Gaijin envisioned it. Otherwise it will not be addressed. And reports that would add / remove or revise critical stores & functionality will be completely ignored until then.

Just accept the fact at this point that options that are implemented for the US tree(s), are going to be held back by (a specific) nation(s) getting similar ordnance.

Thus it should be expected that the US aircraft are using ordnance that has been out of production for multiple decades at this point. and rarely receive counterparts that can’t be duplicated in other trees.

What else does the US have that could even be considered to fall in this category outside the AGM-130, which is USAF only and so not an option for the F/A-18E?

6

Cause at the time of development, Gaijin was countering ALL OP CAS, so SPAA got priority.
They even announced that fixed wings won’t likely get new air to ground weapons until this year.

It takes months to develop items as well.
So patience is key.

7

The model for the GBU-53/B is in the files, and it would only take a minor change to have the seeker implemented from the GBU-39/B baseline.

It’s not like they would go out of their way to model the Height of Burst fuse and assorted other minor features either.

2 Likes
8

The model for T-90A predated the vehicle’s addition by 3 - 5 years.
Oplot’s model was in for an equally impressive amount of time.

Model =/= the programming has been even started, let alone finished for the functions, animations, etc.

There are also other factors such as waiting for new systems that could be occurring.

9

Yea there is, agm-154c

IMG_6150
IMG_61501920×1272 159 KB

IMG_6152
Same with agm-158, it has iir seeker gps and iog, it’s thrust will kinda work like an agm130, first u drop it then the engine goes off
IMG_6153
IMG_61531920×1080 78 KB

10

It wont happen because snail thinks U.S. stuff is too op obviously.

11

I didn’t say US planes had no cruise missiles, as JASSAM, JSOW-C & AGM-84H/K have man-in-the-loop capability and IR guidance, also AGM-130 isn’t a cruise missile.

12

I don’t think radar guided A2G missiles will ever come, it’s not countered by smoke and only other SPAA can counter it. This basically means NATO has to wait till stuff like storm shadow can come.

13

its laser guided also

14

It has ir for terminal guidance, I can see it being where you fire using gps and then turn on ir near the end to lock a target. Idk what Gaijin will do but NATO has legit nothing but radar a2g stuff so.

15

image

16

Yeah storm shadow is different.

17

what ? forget about cruise missile.

were talking about these brimstone brother

18

Multi spectral smoke.

19

Oh I thought you were talking about storm shadow since you responded to my comment. Yeah the laser guided brimstone is the only version we will get.

20

my bad i didnt read all the way, when you said radar i though you were talking about jagm-f

1 Like