Don’t care personally, it’s not that worst i think, the FM would still be great for top tier, plus add some cool gameplay (carriers ops)
I honestly hope we got the 3 Rafale airframe ingame.
i wonder what’s f18e apg79 azimuth
Thats why I specificed AIM-120B/C and AIM-9M/X as I know AIM-9X arent coming but it is part of the aircrafts kit in the future
Single-seat F/A-18E Early (Block I) to USN fighter aircraft line after F-14 Tomcat (F-14A, F-14B & F-14D).
F/A-18E (Block III) before F-35C (Block 3F) ?
F-35B early (Block 2B) after twin-seat legacy hornet ?
New F-16C with AN/APG-83 SABR AESA and F-35A (early) (Block 3i)
Might be F-15E with AN/APG-82(V)1 AESA equipments like F-15EX, except engine and payload
1 Like
If they give carriers more purpose I could see it becoming relevant
1 Like
I think both the 12x AIM-120 of the F/A-18E and 10x AIM-120 of the F/A-18C will give them an interesting advantage then as the only other jet with that volume of missiles is the Su-27SM
tactical advantage of not being able to break mach 1
4 Likes
Sub hornets
They will be nicely mid 13.7 and 14.0 aircraft for the 18C and 18E respectively.
The 18E will likely be outperformed at bvr by the 15E/15I/EFT while doing slightly better than the Rafale at longer ranges.
While at close range it will be dunked on by the EFT/Rafale, but will probably do better than the 15E/I.
Source? I havent seen anything official about that from the USN
Yeah, it can break Mach as sea level just fine, it doesn’t go much faster, but you’ll do 1.1 - 1.2 Mach with a decent missile load for sure.
And at higher altitudes it can definitely break Mach, though the climb will be a bit slower, and it won’t hit the same high speeds as other aircraft, you’ll likely still do 1.5 with a full load
Well for the maps we have currently I rarely even go Mach 1.5 in the F-15E at altitude because of how small they are so I don’t see that as an issue and Mach 1.1 to 1.2 on the deck won’t be that bad. I’mma go sift through any DoD I can get my hands on about the F/A-18C and F/A-18E though I would assume that second one would be harder to access.
yeah, it won’t be able to do the F-15E/Typhoon level of BVR, but that isn’t my playstyle anyway, I rarely go above Mach 1.2 anyways, mostly if I’m chasing someone down, so as far as I can tell, the F/A-18 will fit my playstyle a lot better than the F-15s do, I’ve never really enjoyed flying them much, whereas the F/A-18 is still pretty nimble at transonic speeds, can pull more AoA, and likely out dogfight an F-15.
People just hate on it because it isn’t amazing at the high-flying missile slinging that is considered the meta.
An honestly 10 AMRAAMs it too much, id’ likely take 6, maybe 8, plus the 2 Sidewinders anyway for some improved flight performance
1 Like
Isn’t F-15 good at low speed too?
cant wait for the Sep V3 to finally come and its very meh and doesnt buff the tank in any meaningful way, (I doubt if the LFP was upgraded gaijin will let it stop 590mm+ pen ammo)
4 Likes
Well, for F-15C/Es, their definition of low speed is 900km/h ish, which is definitely good enough. You dont want to go lower for sure.
2 Likes
depends on what we’re comparing to, it loses to a lot of things at that BR in a dogfight from my experience, and it should lose to the F/A-18 too from what I know
1 Like
the only thing the US has that should beat the F18 at low speeds is the F16 everything else from what I know will lose in a low speed dog fight
F-22 would slam the hornet in any speed
Iirc there was a LFP armor upgrade developed in the 90s that increased the KE protection by 33%, but it wasn’t used due to weight limitations or something iirc. 33% increase would put it slightly over 500mm vs KE from the top of my head using the current Abrams LFP armor from memory.
I would assume that this would be the base value Gaijin would go for, but then again this is Gaijin. They might just do what you said.