I’d like to think so its just that there are a large number of potentially viable strike options available for the Attacker line (A-6E WCSI / A-6F, A-4M, AV-8B(DA) /-B(NA) / -B+ , A-7F, A-10C, F-4G, etc.) that could follow on from the A-7E, so to commit to something like the F/A-18 (even if its fairly weak comparatively until the -18C/D) so soon seems like a misstep, as it escalates to proper multirole fighters too quickly, especially since it would be proposed to be sitting at ~11.7 or so.
I’d see similar issues with a F-16C-40/42 & -50/52, or F-15E turning up for the same reason, I personally think that the US could take a few updates before getting more advanced fighters so aircraft that got skipped past could be added.
There is no shortage of options
- F-86F/D/H
- F-89H/J
- F-100F
- F-101A/B
- F-102
- F-105G
- F-106
- F-110A
- F-111A/B/C/D/E/F
- B-47
- B-52
- B-57G
- B-58
- B-66 / A-3
- OV-10
- A-1E
- A-4F
- A-5
- F9F-5
- F7U
- F4D
- F3H
- F-8H/J
- FJ-1/2/3/4
- F-4B/D
etc.
This delay could also be used to permit a number of mechanics implemented / revised /expanded on to allow for a more complete implementation to be made, or stores & capabilities added / revised, to better set things up going forward. And a number of the aforementioned aircraft could in someway be further added to other trees or share ordnance, and thus streamlined slightly.
The idea behind the AV-8B for Italy would be to provide a strike aircraft, that has a little more than a just pair of Sidewinders to back it up, without compromising the A2G aspect, even if Gaijin withholds certain stores for balance reasons.
I think with IRCCM as it is now it could probably move to at least 12.3, if the mechanic was not revised to only reject flares shortly after release (~.25~1.25 second delay), which is probably more realistic.
Since the -9M doesn’t offer any other concrete advantage over the -9L that we know of for sure (I’ve seen some theories that seeker range was improved by lowering the IR threshold as was done with the -9L on the Tornado, and was tested with the AIM-95 ).
Depends heavily on how far they (and the prospective R-77 & counterparts) proliferate across nations, and are modeled as the R-27ER / R-77 still wins when jousting, and if spamming them out become prevalent other airframes will do it better, so I personally wouldn’t see a need for their addition to increase BR. And even so there are still specific situations where the AIM-7M/P would be better than an early AMRAAM variant, should specific (ECM / ECCM) mechanics be modeled to a sufficient level of detail.
I could definitely see it happening as a stop gap, now that the -2000 lost its Sparrows since the only other multirole they really have access to is the F-15E and that would likely be a step to far, though depending on exactly which TGP(s) they turn up with will decide how much of an advantage over the AVQ-23 as the dumbed down Sharpshooter(AN/AAQ-19) pod isn’t great for Target Acquisition even with an IIR channel, and shouldn’t work with Maverick cueing, and the LITENING is potentially massive overkill for the most part.
The Block - 25 or 30 would probably turn up preferentially as they offer sequential performance advances ( the APG-68 with resultant performance improvements and utility modes with the Block 25, and the best T/W ratio of all F-16’s with the -30), in relatively minor areas (as things are not added chronologically, comparative performance to existing airframes is fine ) without going whole hog Multirole of the block -40/42 & and synthesis and additional utility and ordnance options of the -50/52, which as stated above would likely devalue a number of potential additions if added early so alongside the F-15E / F-16XL will likely be retained for later / capstone airframes, since the F-22, F-35 F-15 SE & -EX, F-16C-70, F/A-18E, etc. would probably be far too much until existing developmental airframes reach production status.
