now the big difference and the main limit to the SU-27s R-27ER combo is the radar-- it’s better on dev but still not great-- it generally will find the target second which means it will still have to defend against the aim-7p without firing in return as such at least in sim it should deserve a 13.3 BR since the f15a with less/worse missiles and only a marginally better flight model is extremely strong at 13.0
Not in sim. The 9m being smokeless is a massive advantage over the 73 since you don’t exactly know when it was launched. Its side aspect performance is much higher which is more important in sim since you can fire them easier going into a merge. Yes an r-73 getting launched at 1.2km rear aspect will fuck you harder than a 9m it just doesn’t matter that much
Sim has separate BRs, and the whole matchmaker is different, the F/A-18C Early may well be a higher BR in sim, but for ARB, it would be about equal to the SU-27
Remember even if the F/A-18C launches first, the R-27ER is significantly faster, from my experience the R-27ER usually wins SARH duels, even with Russian radars being a little behind
Once again I am talking about sim here it would deserve 13.3 like the su-27 and su-33 I personally think it’d be less fucked at 12.7 with 9Ls --9Ls have been very good for me-- since it dodges slop tier match maker
as a side note 10 9m would make Denmark from almost unplayable to literally unplayable for redside lol
I think if they were to implement it, they should just make it a copy-paste of the 9M. It would add some unique flavor that’s specific to that era, and likely wouldn’t be implemented otherwise. But yeah, if they actually were to implement the IR imaging it would be too strong.
My answer to this would honestly depend on other factors.
There’s currently a pair of bug reports that have been forwarded to the devs: one that changes it’s countermeasures from 60 to 120 (just the F/A-18C variants), and one that points out that all the Hornets can carry 4x BOL 160 CM pods (Including the A variant).
If both changes end up going through, then it might not matter since what’s 60 flares when you already have 700. However, if only the first go through, that’s yet another area that the C Early is just straight up better than the A.
If the C Early ends up getting double the flares of the A, then a more substantial upgrade in weaponry and an increase in BR would be more than justified.
2 Likes
Like I have said before AIM-9Ms are very much arguably essential for this aircraft to do well at its BR bracket, Its going to be cancer facing Su-27s that can just run and flare away the 9Ls all game. Not just the Su-27, but nearly every plane in the bracket will be able to do that to the hornet at the BR. Mirage 2000s, MiG-29G, Su27/33s. All these aircraft you can and will face while lacking IRCCM missile capabilities, while they have the IRCCM capabilities. And its not a huge issue either, stuff like the F-15A are at 13.0 with 4 9Ms and 4 7Ms and are not game breaking. Yes the hornet has two more missiles for a weaker air frame but that is called a trade off. And ffs the F4F ICE is at 13.0 and that has AIM-120s. People who vote no because they want it to stay at 12.7 are still going to suffer for reasons mentioned earlier, giving the hornet a competitive missile loadout will be the only way to make the Hornet enjoyable for those who play it. The Hornet NEEDS to be at 13.0 with 9Ms if anyone wants to enjoy this aircraft. Also like I have said before if you want a non 13.0 Hornet there is one in the tech tree.
4 Likes
F/A-18C Early need to be 13.0 if it gets AIM-9M.
As long as
- it can carry 2 extra AIM-9M with 4 AIM-7P
- fly faster
compared to the Harrier GR.7 [12.3]
or Even if we compare Hornets with MiG-29A (R-60M version) or F-16A ADF on 12.7
If we keep F/A-18C Early in 12.7 but give AIM-9M at the same time
It is nothing but biasing Prem Hornet in a shameless way.
4 Likes
I agree with that, and ultimately its what I want for this aircraft and how I feel its the most balanced way to add this aircraft.
2 Likes
Also another good factor to keep in mind is if they add 9Ms to the Early C hornet and move it to 13.0 that would be ideal for most players. This is what I mean, for anyone who wants to play the Hornet whilst not facing EFTs, Su-30s, and Rafales they play the A. If they want a top tier hornet with 9Ms and AMRAAMS at top tier they play the C late. And if they want a in between experience they play the C early. This would be ideal for everyone because then everyone gets what they want in the hornet. Leaving the C early as basically a copy and paste A Hornet with better ground attack gives no one any incentive to purchase or play the C early. I understand this in between experience would be under a pay wall but it is better then just not having a choice. In fact this helps the player and Gaijin, for gaijin adding the C early as a premium 13.0 with 9Ms would make it a premium many would want to purchase for that said in between experience, thus upping Gaijins sales. And for the player adding the premium 13.0 hornet with 9Ms gives the player a choice between 9Ms mid range top tier , 9Ls lowish tier top tier, and AMRAAMS, high tier top tier.
1 Like
In all fairness there is no real reasonable argument against the hornet with 9Ms at 13.0.
And don’t tell me the slot doesn’t look juicy for a AIM-9M modification to be right there.
6 Likes
No they can’t, but they don’t have “data link” or “Internal onboard guidance” like the AIM-7P dose, IOG allows the missile to keep flying on a predicted intercept for the what the targets course was when the lock was lost. DL not only provides that IOG with updated intercept points but should also allow the “lock after launch” feature where the missile is fired with a TWS soft-lock and guided most way to the target without triggering the targeting radar warning, the missile still requires a hard-lock to actually hit the target though, it’s designed to give the target less warning and therefore less time to react and evade the missile, not to engage multiple targets.
Whether this feature will be usable or not in game is a different matter, as R-27R/ERs have the same DL/ IOG ability but requires a hard-lock to launch, then you can unlock and guide them in using TWS. But with how bad Russian radars are, good luck trying to re-lock the target in time to get a hit (this is somewhat improved in the 29/27 SMTs as they show missile location on the radar so you can see when its getting close).
If the Hornets radar is good enough and people are clever enough to exploit it it could be extremely potent for surprise BVR missile hits. But my money is that most people playing (the premium one) will be noobs just base bombing anyway, just like most premium planes.
1 Like
I suppose the question is, what is more valuable. 2x 9Ls + 6x Aim-7 at 12.7 or 2-6 Aim-9Ms + 4-6 Aim-7 at 13.0
I think I would be inclined towards the lower BR as much as possible
please at least make it 13.3 in sim it will be unholy at 13.0
It could be 13.0 for ARB and 13.3 for sim easily enough I think, they have different BRs for the different gamemodes for a reason
THIS IS TRUE however he said no reasonable argument against 13.0 which there is
Either give it a 9M or give the 9Ls HMS
Most people are only talking about RB when stating BR balance as that is what most people play
9L plus HMS makes no sense
1 Like
I’d also argue that 9ms aren’t really needed 9ls are good and work well
1 Like
The 9M would be the historically accurate missies, and unless there is a genuine issue with balancing that (as is the case with the 9X on top tier aircraft) the historically accurate missile is what should be used.
This F/A-18C, despite having a 1993 AN/AAS-38A, is clearly meant to be a 1989-1991 version of the aircraft, and for that time period, the 9M would be the missile used, so again, unless there is a genuine issue with trying to balance that (which there isn’t) the 9M should be on the F/A-18C Early
1 Like
