Look, I don’t make the rules for the issue reporting site
If you think that a picture of the a F/A-18F carrying GBU 53s (nothing else, literally just that one picture) is enough evidence to prove that the F/A-18E can carry them aswell, I don’t know what to tell you
Maybe they’re the same but I would imagine if that was the case, you should easily be able to find primary sources stating that.
why would there be a document telling you that?
what purpose would that serve to a Military?
Clearly ohh gracious leader.
I would trust north koreas tech as far as I would trust Kim jong un to not eat my cupcake.
There’s many primary documents, primary magazines, primary brochures that state the obvious. It doesn’t need to serve the military, and instead could serve the public.
Those ATMG launchers could be very funny, I like it
NAVAIR describe the role of the twin-seater themselves:
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/FA-18EF-Super-Hornet
The E is a single seat and the F is a two-seater. The dual-seat variant serves as a trainer in addition to bringing added mission capacity on deployment by facilitating shared workload.
Training (when a throttle and yoke is installed) and shared workload in combat roles. That’s the only function of the rear seat.
The Navy even did studies on whether it was worthwhile separating single-seaters and twin-seaters into distinct Fighter (VF) squadrons and Attack (VA) squadrons, that would consequently put them on different weapons integration spirals. Instead of the current combined Strike-Fighter (VFA) setup of Hornet squadrons where both airframes are mixed and perform identical roles, and aircrew can transition between both single and twin-seat operations.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/september/maximize-two-seat-super-hornet-peer-fight
The article describes how the rear seat WSO functions in Air-To-Surface roles, but makes it clear that his presence merely reduces workload compared to scenarios where the pilot alone is operating ATFLIR/TGP and programming weapons, and the pilot remains the one who employs the weapon.
why would you pay someone to make a Brochure that doesn’t serve a purpose?
I kinda wish there was a Blog on Saturdays too. :c im excited and bored. Will we be looking forward to something nice on Monday?
They do it to build up hype for Mondays blog only for it then to be a boat blog.
I already stated there is a purpose when it serves the public.
Nobody knows, but chances are that it’s either a boat, a helicopter or the devblog for White Rock Castle
The Ground Tree should be able to start from Rank I & II, unfortunately the Air Tree is the 1 problem that might mees that up.
I had hoped for Indonesia to be placed as sub for Korea (due to Indonesia and Korea military cooperation) however it seems like that’s off the table so it’s either Philippines like you mentioned or maybe Vietnam due to the purchase of the K9 SPG (and Vietnamese opinion matter imo)
I feel like this will be a recurring issue for new trees, although if we go of the Israeli tree, it should be fine (even though Israel can have a fully fledged rank 1-3 in air and ground)
REAL THING
I wonder wpuld the same apply to a EFT trainer?
It would actually be way more valid for a EFT trainer, it’s more common for dedicated trainers to have different weapon systems than for combat-dedicated twin seaters
Many trainers lack things like a gun for example
EFT trainers lack nothing a Striker has
Well you’d have to prove that for example. And in that case I find it very legit
