Im curious how the F-18C (1994) performs compared to the best Early F18
Do you know why I have a 2.2 kills per battle ratio with the Mirage 2000 S4? Because I never engage F/A-18s below Mach 1, and I never dogfight opponents that are more maneuverable.
Your skills seem quite similar to mine, so here’s my question for you: if you were flying the Mirage 2000 S4, is there any way an F/A-18A could realistically get a kill on you if you never enter a turn fight with it?
You’re faster, you have better Fox-1 capability (you don’t get out-rolled). Is there any reason you should be shot down by an F/A-18A if you don’t make a mistake?
Most players in Air RB play it the wrong way when they rush into a furball with poor situational awareness and get stuck there. No matter how strong the aircraft is, you should try the F/A-18A yourself, and then you’ll realize that most of your kills come from other players’ mistakes, even though they clearly had much better options available.
Six AIM-9Ls and two Magic 2s — which one is better is very situational. For example, if you’re behind a MiG-23ML at 1.5 km and he knows you’re there, six AIM-9Ls are completely useless, but the Magic 2s would be a very different story.
Matra 530Ds are not superior but they are “better” because they cant be out roll.
true, but when being a third party player, keeping your speed and diving down on the 4/5 low skill people trying to jump on the same poor attacker,… having 6 AIM-9L is a joy: often 3/4 hits, even from 3.5km away,…
my record kill range kill on AIM-9L being a 7.5km distance traveled (yeah, traveled!) on a MiG-23 that had no idea. launched from an higher altitude and high energy state to a MiG-23 Afterburning (while he was shooting down a Harrier if i recall correctly).
also,… under 1km separation range, AIM-9L sometimes can be diverted by flares, and regain track on the ennemy (if he keeps afterburning).
so,… i agree to you : those missiles are situationnal,…
yet, having more means more chances to do more kills, and this is quite undeniable ^^"
that’s sadly the average level of gameplay proposed by community.
same is true with MANY MiG-25’s players or any other kinds (like F-15A to E, without forgetting C and C GE, or J and J(MSIP) and any other F-15’s)
i’m trying to reach for it,… slowly i admit.
but i like aircraft able to surprise their ennemy, and F/A-18A seems to be one in many aspects.
in another kind of surprise: F-86F-40 is a surprise to any Supersonic aicraft you encounter at it’s BR (hence why MiG-21F-13 still are falling in BR,…) - but that’s another story.
Having an ennemy doing a mistake is something i often try to force on them,…
F-104’s that shouldn’t turns with a F-86F40, suddenly finding themselves in a rolling scissor, or with me right in their tail - easy
Early MiG-21’s being out-rated by a F-86F40 - really often
being slow or having less engine power doesn’t mean you can’t beat your ennemy.
Of course, if you do not engage your ennemy in a turnfight, it is possible to reduce the amount of mistakes,… but it’s not “100% Sure”
Mirage 2000C S4 (and S5-2) might be the closest aircrafts to the F/A-18A at 12.3.
but you’ve said it yourself:
meanning it have enough capability to win over your Mirage in turnfight configuration.
which is going to be, for War Thunder average player, a “forced move”,…
hopefully today, those same players are in both side, so the game remains somehow balanced most of the time.
YET,… with current ways Gaijin have made BR previously to the last 2 years of bullshit BR (premium/non-premium/event), the F/A-18A doesn’t belong to 12.3, but to 12.7.
gimme a plane in the game,… i won’t go through 2650 docs about F/A-18C of 1994 if it have no interest for the game,…
there is a F-18C Early (premium) in the game at 12.7BR, which should be similar to the 1994 F-18C you’re looking at.
you can then compare directly to Mirage 2000C S4 and F/A-18A, thanks to StatShark - See All Player, Missile, and Vehicle Statistics
As it seems right now, F/A-18C early and F/A-18A share the same exact Flight model, while the F/A-18C Late (14.0 BR) does only get better engines (better time to speed), and more mass(slightly less instantaneous turnrate performances / slightly better sustained turnrate / slightly reduced AoA), while sharing the same Drag/Lift coefficients
Finnish F-18C not the MLU the F-18C
Finland F-18C compared to F/A-18A:
Faster (both acceleration and max-speed)
Same Lift/Drag Coefficients (similar to any F-18C / F-18A)
Turn better (turn radius, instantaneous and sustained) but a slightly tiny differences in AoA in favor of F/A-18A (so tiny in fact, that you won’t feel it in game)
thanks to better engines despite more mass, and it have clearly way more and advanced weapons, aswell as avionics. - if you were finding a way to get the finnish F-18C a better BR → not possible!
Huh BR? I dont care about that i was just curious about its flight performance as its the most lightweight of the F-18Cs at 14.0 by about 440kg
I mean sure its the worst 14.0 but idc was just curious about the flight performance compared to the A model
The F2-ADTW should be receiving the AAM4s since it has them irl. The airplane is a test platform for new tech, in real life it might even carry more modern and sophisticated tech, but it|s clear this company favoritizes Russian vehicles over any.
2 Likes
Following the specific instructions provided by the moderation team, I am bringing my points to this thread to contribute to the ongoing discussion with some first-hand data and specific observations regarding the F-2A ADTW.
I completely agree with the points made here. Currently, if you try to use this aircraft for its intended multi-role purposes, you are effectively being penalized by the matchmaker. I recently experienced the “superb” JDAM-ER implementation, where I watched in awe as three out of my four precision-guided bombs were intercepted by air-to-air missiles.
It is an absurd gameplay loop when “stand-off” weapons are treated as expensive skeet targets for F-14s, who then proceed to send an AIM-54 into my cockpit because the F-2A—at 13.0—cannot carry self-defense AAMs and JDAMs simultaneously without turning into a flying brick.
The fundamental logic flaws and blatant double standards we are facing:
- The SARH vs. ARH Gap & Tactical Imbalance: Expecting an F-2A to maintain a hard lock for an AIM-7M while a 12.7 F-14 simply beams or cranks is a death sentence. Even if I fire first and execute a perfect crank at the optimal 30km range, the Sparrow consistently fails to connect against an opponent who can fire and then immediately maneuver to break lock. At ranges closer than 30km, the F-2A is instantly deleted by ARH spam; at longer ranges, the RWR becomes a non-stop symphony of locks. It truly allows me to “experience the daily psychological pressure of a real-life JASDF pilot” being constantly locked by superior forces—except I paid $70 for this “simulated” nightmare.
- The “14.0 Fallacy”: It is logically inconsistent that legacy platforms like the F-14A can carry ARH missiles (AIM-54) at much lower BRs, while the F-2A is denied its native ARH (AAM-4) under the pretense that it would suddenly necessitate a jump to 14.0. Expecting a 13.0 aircraft to rely on museum-grade SARH in a meta where lower-BR opponents have fire-and-forget capabilities is not a matter of “skill,” but a failure of systemic balance.
- Irrational Counter-arguments: The arguments used to keep the F-2A in this state are not grounded in the current reality. If 12.7–13.3 aircraft are allowed to saturate the air with ARH, the F-2A’s superior flight model is rendered irrelevant because it is forced to remain nose-on and exposed while the opponent disengages safely.
- The Financial Value Paradox: Charging $70 (nearly 11,000 JPY) for a premium product that functions as a “target drone” for favored nations is an insult to the consumer. Forcing players to pay full price for a 13.0 aircraft that feels like a downgrade from 12.0 due to arbitrary armament restrictions is not a sustainable business practice.
- The Multi-role Illusion: Basing the 13.0 F-2A on the “Early” suggestion from 2023 while placing it in the current ARH meta is a deliberate neglect of the Japanese tech tree. We are fighting 2020-era threats with 2000-era restrictions.
As many have suggested, the solutions are simple:
- Implement the AAM-4/AAM-5: If the F-2A stays at 13.0, it needs the capability it was built for.
- Lower the BR to 12.7: If the developers insist on keeping us in the “Sparrow Age,” the F-2A must be placed in an environment where combat is actually possible.
I hope the developers address this severe imbalance before the Japanese top-tier player base loses all confidence in the value of these premium additions.
1 Like
seriously? an F-14?
this is a free win for the F-2 pilot
No, that would mean it goes to 13.7 where it fights rafales and euros. Going from a good plane to mid
Also completely ruins the point of it being different from the tech tree F-2A
the F-2A will roflstomp every single 11.7-12.7 plane in any scenario without even breaking a sweat.
It should not go down
1 Like
just notch
why are you firing sparrows from that far away
because the F-14A is significantly inferior to the F-2A ADTW
instant uptier to 13.7
powercreep
1 Like
the F-2 is a good plane at 13.0
best flight model of the bracket
one of the best radars (insane awareness)
the AIM-7s are mediocre yes, but you get AAM-3s
The main issue with the F-2A ADTW is the bipolar matchmaker thanks to compression.
The best example of this are the premium flankers at 13.3
why are we bombing in air rb
1 Like
Easy way to grind. Not everyone cares about being the best, they just want their favourite vehicles.
Then we shouldn’t be complaining when it doesn’t work well
@MiGoon_Fox-3 @DarkSilentNights
It’s amusing to see some users base their arguments on a fantasy 1v1 vacuum while ignoring the fundamental mechanics of BVR combat in a 16v16 ARH-saturated match. Let’s address the logical fallacies in your “rebuttals”:
1. The 30km BVR Reality & Structural Asymmetry:
You ask why I fire at 30km? Because that is the engagement envelope. But here is the logic you seem to “forget”: At 30km, if I fire a Sparrow, I must maintain a hard lock and fly toward the threat. If a 12.3 F-14A (not even the B) fires a Phoenix, they can immediately beam/notch while their missile tracks me autonomously.
Even if I perfectly notch (90-degree break) the moment my RWR screams, the Phoenix’s active seeker often still connects due to the sheer volume of spam and server-side quirks. Expecting a SARH carrier to “just notch” against an ARH carrier is expecting one side to play perfectly while the other side plays with one hand.
2. The “1v1 Strong” Delusion:
You claim the F-2A is strong in a 1v1. My question is: When does that 1v1 actually happen? In a 16v16 furball, there is no such thing as an isolated duel. By the time the “superior flight model” could matter, the sky is already filled with ARH missiles from three different directions. A plane that only works in a hypothetical scenario that never occurs in a real match is not a “good plane.”
3. Why am I bombing? (The Grind Reality):
To the elitist question of “why bomb in Air RB”: I am using the JDAM-ERs and AAM-3s to survive the research grind for the tech-tree F-2A in this broken meta. Occasionally, a distracted enemy might fall to an AAM-3, but that is the exception, not the rule. Relying on “luck” against enemies who aren’t paying attention is not a viable balance strategy. I am forced to bomb because the current BVR environment makes consistent air-to-air gameplay a masochistic chore for non-ARH carriers.
4. The F-14A vs. F-2A Discrepancy:
It is absurd to claim that an F-14A should have fire-and-forget capabilities at a lower BR while a $70 premium F-2A at 13.0 is denied the AAM-4 because it would “ruin the point of being different.” The “difference” shouldn’t be that the premium version is a target drone for legacy US hardware.
If your only advice is “just notch and ignore half your loadout,” you aren’t defending the plane; you’re defending a broken system that forces players to pay $70 just to experience the psychological pressure of a real-life JASDF pilot being outgunned.
1 Like
wait, you’re firing sparrows from 30km?
1 Like
not in warthunder lmao
never said that
if you can’t use a 13.0 plane with sparrows you’re going to get bodyslammed at 13.7 with the techtree F-2
because the F-14A is trash and so is the AIM-54A
it isn’t, the F-14 is a shitbox that can only kill people too dumb to pay attention to what’s happening early game.
you shouldn’t be dying to AIM-54s at all unless you’re tabbed out
1 Like
@MiGoon_Fox-3 @DarkSilentNights
It is remarkable how you consistently ignore the tactical reality of the current meta in favor of elitist dismissals. Let’s address the logic gaps in your responses:
1. The “30km” Point:
You laugh at 30km? In a 13.0 environment dominated by ARH, if a SARH carrier waits until 15km to fire, they are already dead. Firing at 30km is a suppression tactic to force the opponent to notch and prevent them from entering their ARH “no-escape zone.” Dismissing this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how a disadvantaged SARH platform must play to even survive the first 3 minutes of a match.
2. The “Phoenix is Trash” Fallacy:
Claiming the AIM-54 is trash because “it only kills people not paying attention” ignores its primary function in the current meta: Area Denial. Even if a Phoenix has a low hit probability against a maneuvering target, it forces the F-2A into a 90-degree notch, breaking its radar lock and ending its offensive capability. The F-14 pilot exerts zero effort to achieve this suppression, while the F-2A pilot must fight for their life. This asymmetry of effort is exactly the “Nation Bias” and “Double Standard” I am talking about.
3. The “Skill Issue” Gatekeeping:
Telling me I’ll get “bodyslammed” at 13.7 in the tech-tree F-2 is logically flawed. The tech-tree F-2 has AAM-4 (Fox-3). The entire gameplay loop changes from “suicidal SARH exposure” to “modern ARH tactics.” Claiming that struggling with a handicapped SARH platform at 13.0 means failure with an ARH platform at 13.7 is like saying if you can’t win a gunfight with a sword, you can’t use a rifle.
4. The Bottom Line:
You are defending a system where a $70 premium product requires 10x the effort to achieve 1/10th of the results of legacy US hardware, simply because “you can just notch.” If the only way to play a 13.0 aircraft is to ignore its weapons, “just notch” for the entire match, and farm ground targets to finish the grind, then the aircraft’s BR and its status as a “competitive” product are a sham.
I’m not asking for a “free win.” I’m asking for a logically consistent BR where a $70 multi-role fighter isn’t relegated to being a target drone for “shitboxes” that can fire from safety.