Test what exactly? The mentioned thing which sub/trans-sonic jets can abuse? Or the actual numbers for range difference? Or which missile will hit first with the difference in speed and altitude? Im really interested in the results of the last one personally, just out of curiosity.
Just test everything, the FA.2 isn’t nearly as handy capped by being transonic as you make it out to be.
Its not handicapped, it just has a playstyle that might be easily countered by just keeping the distance. Whats the practical range of the missiles on it? (Lets say at close to ground leve) but unmasked by terrain / curvature. Now compare that to say an Eagle. If its around 5 kms or more shorter than a supersonic aircraft’s identical missile, it is… handicapped. The Eagle could dictate the engagement, especially if it at least knows what he is supposed to do. With that said, the lower closure speed will make a difference that might put it in favourable position, with the somewhat lower range of earlier ARH missiles. But that closure speed difference also makes a difference for the supersonic facing it, as the missile will have a lower top-speed, considering the lower speed of a harrier.
The difference is much more like I dunno. Mach .9 and Mach 1.4? I can easily accelerate to that speed with my Eagle, still turn back to and defeat incoming missiles purely kinematically.
Well let’s think about that.
Assuming a perfectly flat terrain with 0 obstacles.
Speeds:
FA.2 can sit pretty comfy at .9-.95 on the deck
F-15 I assume is in the 1.1-1.2 ballpark with weapons.
Even with that little bit extra speed it makes no difference.
Both radars are good I’d argue the Blue Vixen is actually a bit better so both missiles can be launched at the same range.
If both targets continue to fly at max speed in a straight line they will both die.
The realistic outcome is both targets will have to notch and defend both targets will lose speed and by the time they reengage the F-15s speed advantage will be further reduced to potentially subsonic speeds. Considering the closure rate of both fighters it would likely transition to a WVR fight from this point regardless.
I dunno about that. Id probably fire a 2nd amraam with a few seconds of seperation. And instead of re-engaging like that, I would most likely extend away. If I was too close id run past/ through the Harrier. Re-accelerate. But thats me, and a 1v1 situation.
Mind you I havent had a classical dogfight with the eagle for a long time.
Flying straight, I wouldnt have thought of any different outcome.
You’d put yourself in a position of disadvantage lmao.
Extending away would put you in a position where you can no longer dictate the next move. Either you run away or turn to fight.
When you turn you can expect another amraam. Meaning you must defend while the harrier is closing on you with more AMRAAMs to spare.
Also what’s stopping the FA.2 from firing another amraam as well lol.
Either way it’s going to the merge as the difference in missile range on the deck is pointless when you consider the fact that you are flying towards the missile at Mach Jesus.
No. Extending means you can increase the distance between you and your opponent, in this case its possible due to the lower speed of the Harrier compared to a supersonic, in this case the Eagle. Remember, that it is exactly the tail-chase scenario where the Harrier will struggle due to the lower top speeds it can achieve, and that extra .4 mach will be felt.
I do not by any means mean extend to be done from 4kms - a lot earlier, lets say Id try to keep the distance at 20km at the very least as much as possible. The harriers missiles will be struggling at that range to keep up with the Eagle, meaning I can kinematically defeat them.
To make it easier, this is a set up with 120As, identical missiles.
The Eagles 120As will perform better than the Harrier exactly because of the higher launch speed.
Ok lol, so what do you plan to do run away supersonic in a tail chase until you run out of fuel??
You can’t fire the missiles from behind you.
No. Just simply wouldnt let myself be allowed in your No-escape zone. Aka extending. Should we end up in WVR, one of us has made a mistake, that would be the idea.
Supersonics can do this to a sub/transsonic aircraft.
Or just force you out of your ARH missiles.
Of course easier said than done. From what ive gathered the effective range or amraams on harriers is around 15kms, and 20kms are pushing it.
I think my Eagle would sit comfortably at 18ish kms. Covering 2kms isnt slow in it, dragging the missile with myself to lower altitudes and further and further away to bleed its energy.
Ok lol except you’ll find that nearly impossible.
1 Like
Keep you at a distance? No. Being constantly mindful of the distance between us would be harder, considering myself. And say the lack of an SA map in general. It wouldnt work when you are in my back without awacs, but quick glance at something like that would make it easier to… guesstimate.
9 Likes
Thats the other major advantage of BOL. You can only see them at night.
1 Like
Ok?
Conclusion: The FA-18C Early requires integration of BOL countermeasure dispensers. Its future niche aligns with existing premium packs like the A-10A Thunderbolt II and AV-8B (NA) Harrier – offering limited tech-tree progression (with diminishing efficiency over time) while serving as a ground-attack platform in Ground Realistic Battles (GRB). Consequently, enhanced survivability is essential.
Key Reasoning:
- Upcoming Competition: Next update introduces the German F/A-18 pack and Italian MiG-29 pack. While specifics of the German variant are beyond this discussion (ideally both should have unique strengths, e.g., potential German advantages vs. superior US countermeasures for balanced satisfaction), their core role overlaps with the US F/A-18C Early.
- The MiG-29 Threat:This new top-tier premium (BR 12.7) will directly contest the F/A-18C Early. Its superior speed allows faster base-striking with napalm for Research Points (RP). No F/A-18 variant (US, German, or future) can compete with the MiG-29 in this role.
- Compromised Air-to-Air (A2A) Capability:
While carrying A2A missiles (AIM-7P performance noted), the F/A-18C Early’s maximum speed (~Mach 1.03 at low altitude) severely limits engagement flexibility.
It lacks the initiative to pursue targets, functioning primarily in a defensive/reactive capacity – similar to the A-10’s tactical limitation. - Evolving Niche Definition:
The MiG-29 pack mirrors the historical role of the MiG-23ML: RP grinding via A2A and base bombing.
The F/A-18C Early, however, now fits the A-10A/AV-8B(NA)/F-20A niche: primarily GRB attack with secondary A2A capability (F-20A being analogous to the F-5C).
The F-4S occupies a distinct position. A future, faster US high-tier premium is likely inevitable, potentially further marginalizing the F/A-18C Early.
The Case for BOL:
Given its deliberate placement in the A-10/AV-8B GRB-attack niche, the F/A-18C Early requires improved defensive capabilities. Adding BOL dispensers is critical to:
- Fulfill its intended GRB role effectively against evolving SAM threats (longer ranges, AIM-120/AIM-9 mixes).
- Address player concerns regarding value perception (e.g., short pre-order exclusivity, perceived advantages of the German variant).
Recommendation:
Ideal: Full BOL integration (optimal player satisfaction).
- Minimum Viable:Provision of at least two BOL pods.
- Unacceptable: No countermeasure enhancement.
(Translated & logically structured by AI for clarity)
Both of them get AIM-7P. The F/A-18C early gets one more pylon.
12.3 one doesnt get Aim-7P
Spoiler
1 Like
Thank you everyone, we’re now at over 800 votes! With 94% wanting BOL fixed.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Truth