This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
“We got the bare minimum, and have to grind even more in the future for a slightly improved version, for a single feature that could’ve been added to the bare minimum we got! Be grateful!”
be fr
4 Likes
So there now is a dedicated A2A version of the multirole fighter that is much worse in A2A than the multirole, and now the “unique” vehicle is at the same BR as the multirole fighter that does everything better. Why have the “unique” aircraft if the huge compromises made do not affect the BR.
Even so the aircraft is unhistorical as it has AIM-9Ls as weapons since they were never owned by Finland. There is no unique place for this vehicle compared to the alternative choice of making it the MLU1 version and there would be absolutely no difference on the vehicle’s performance apart from the HMD, now that Smin has also confirmed that the 9X isn’t going to be in the game for a long while.
What is the problem of all these big 3 players of other nations getting parity and not having to suffer with objectively worse experinces in every possible way
Edit: why is no end of the line American vehicles implemented without JHMCS program, they sure could use a unique early 90’s F-4F ICE experince
1 Like
The only way the Swedish F-18C gets put at a lower BR is if AIM-120s are removed.
Aircraft are BR’d for their most potent weapon system in comparison with their flight performance.
3rd best airframe at 14.0 with AIM-120s and AIM-9Ms of 8, 10, and 12 in loadout use, easily 14.0.
And for ground, that anti-CAS loadout requires it to be 12.7, or ideally 13.0 in ground.
@Pheonix_RX01
So whenever a meta vehicle is added to a tech tree, that means that community doesn’t matter.
When USA got F-15C/E, the American community didn’t matter?
And now when Sweden and USA get F-18C, the American and Nordic communities don’t matter again.
Bad argument.
Enjoy having a meta vehicle.
China got a CAS-less Mirage 20005F recently as well, J-10A is pretty much CAS-less as well not able to do CAS in ground or air effectively.
Being CAS-less doesn’t mean it’s not good, not great, or not meta; just look at the JA37C/D.
Hornet is 4th (there is 4 after the update) best airframe in 14.0 and that is the worst airframe in 14.0 by a long shot.
The argument was never about CAS. Why does all of the American end of the line vehicles get the JHMCS treatment but this one can’t even though it would be historically accurate. Having aircraft that are badly implemented is not really a good argument for this being badly implemented. The lack of care is pointed by the fact that Gaijin takes certain liberties in giving certain capabilities for other nations and when these capabilities could historically accurately be given to other nations they don’t do it. The HMD would be historically accurate and give parity if they actually bothered making a balanced game
The Hornet is far from meta and benefitting from the high missile count is severely limited due to the lack of speed and acceleration and in addition the lack of HMD
Edit: We can also imagine the situation if this one gained an HMD and the American one was a 90’s version lacked one the tha Smin made would make much more sense, the American Hornet being unique in being able to do CAS and the Finnish one being more refined in the single-role A2A. But one can only imagine the uproar that would cause and rightly so. No one deserves to have an objectively miserable time when the developers could choose to have parity when there is historical pretext
2 Likes
Weird since there aren’t 4 airframes at 14.0, there are 6 or 7.
The worst airframe goes to Su-30SM, with the 2nd worst being F-15E due to its acceleration-only tactic, but its weight and drag causes it to have a rather chronically average energy retention; unless you’re going to argue that the F-104S has a better airframe than the F-4E.
The American F-18C Block 20 aircraft has HMD IRL, which is only really useful for IR missile. TWS is faster and superior for radar missiles.
The F-18C Finland purchased is not a Block 20 as it was purchased 7 years prior to Block 20’s production.
The F-18C with same-fuel load accelerates as fast as an F-15C, and even on 9 minutes of fuel it accelerates faster than an F-15E by 1 second [34 vs 35 seconds].
So no, the F-18C is not slow outside its top speed.
F-18C has among the best energy retention below mach, meta acceleration, and powerful engines.
F-18C is 95% of a Rafale in flight performance as of dev version .29.
But yeah, keep implying Rafale, F-18C, F-15E, and Su-30SM are all bad aircraft that will cause misery just cause they’re not Typhoon levels of flight performance. All your posts are doing is spreading hatred for no reason.
The F-18C for both USA and Sweden have the same weapons, countermeasures, and similarly powerful radar. And of course both share meta flight performance for air RB and air sim.
There will be 5 airframes in the next update my bad.
The F-104 doesn’t sling AMRAAMs does it?
You still do not understand my question. Why does Finland not get the MLU1 upgrade package which includes the JHMCS or why don’t the Americans get earlier variants? Why aren’t other aircraft introduced in the form they were introduced and have later capabilities?
You surely have never engaged anything after defending a missile when the enemy is coming to a close range and you know where the enemy is roughly, surely you will have a lock quicker with TWS.
1 Like
Technically the Finnish F-18 has a better flight performance than the US one since it’s like 600 kg lighter.
Also is TWS really faster than HMS for short range engagements (below 15km)?
Really pal.
Then why have all those US mains gone full-scale riot when Jewish players had the better engine on their F-15I than your F-15E.
When you can play F-15I and not cry?
No NATO allies are allowed to have any kind of Better exported jet than US?
Edit: False flagging? Really?
- ‘Stop crying about Finnish F-18C and play US F/A-18C instead’ was fine
- While ‘Then why did you cry when Israel had better F-15I’ felt abusive?
16 Likes
They each was almost 6 months apart eachother starting from the f15a so not rlly immediately
1 Like
The comment you are replying to made the point that there wasn’t an early 90’s version of these aircraft and thus they would’ve missed the JHMCS (HMD) and still retained the AMRAAMs which is the weapon that makes Gaijin balance these vehicles
1 Like
is it not coming like… at all?
ik it is bad to use Wikipedia but like:
Engaging in close quarters is what my AIM-9s are for, and outside F-15E, I can pull enough AOA to do that in all other aircraft.
I did forget to test F-15E’s energy retention in comparison to Su-30SM’s 17.7 at 900kph, and 15.6 at 550kph, but here’s the results:
15.4 at 550kph:
17.2 at 900kph.
Marginally worse than the Su-30SM’s flight model when fuel is the same.
So my bad, Su-30SM won’t be the only sub-par airframe at 14.0, it’ll be sharing it with F-15E whose primary gimmick is gone after 3 minutes have occurred in-battle: Getting to altitude as-fast as a Typhoon.
High-altitude BVR isn’t the primary meta though, especially when all aircraft have this functionality to make their radars look up without having to pitch their nose up as of next major update.
Oh, and F-15E is balanced at 14.0 alongside Typhoon. The notable difference in energy retention is something to be concerned about when getting in close, but it still easy to deal with.
not this update atleast
I’m talking about the F-15C and E variants and upgrades among themselves, this has nothing to do with the F-15A. Early batch Strike Eagles retained the engines from the F-15C, resulting in around 4000 kgf less thrust than the later Strike Eagles which received upgraded engines alongside an HMS. Same story for the F-15C and F-16C. None of the first F-15C, F-16C production models had HMS. These are upgrades that came in early/mid 2000s. In game none of this is present and only the strongest models of each are implemented.
Very well but why does the Finnish Hornet need to be introduced without radar HMD?
1 Like
Cause radar HMD would’ve been introduced with F-18C Block 20 production around 1999.
Finland got these F-18Cs in 1995 and ordered them in 1992 in the configuration they got them in.
There’s no evidence [I’ve seen as of current] of HMDs being able to be used in previous versions of F-18 prior to Block 20, which is likely a reason Finland did a MLU.
1 Like
There will be nothing meta about the Finnish Hornet. 4 datalink channels on an airframe with beyond sub-par acceleration and that caps out at mach 1.15 at altitude is not going to be rocking any games in the way that the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-15’s do, no matter how many AMRAAM’s you slap onto it. Not even close. The American Hornet at least has the luxury of an HMD and added capability of ground striking.
1 Like
IMO, I think US mains need to help Nordic allies this time.
Having the same variant of jets on the same BR, which shares the same role
- But with some inferior parts than counterparts from others
are always an annoying and disappointing thing.
- Tornado GR.1, which has a worse engine than the export IDS counterparts
- AV-8B(NA) vs Harrier T.10, which has fewer flares
- AV-8B+ vs Sea Harrier FA.2, which has an inferior fuselage
- F-15J, which has superior AAM-3 compared to AIM-9M vs F-15A
- F-15I vs F-15E, which had an inferior engine before
- F-4J/S vs F-4J(UK) with no AIM-7F and VTAS HMS
- Su-22M4 vs Su-22M2, which has few 12 countermeasures in total.
These can be examples.
Some can’t be fixed, but others can.
Nordic allies, which will get inferior F-18C, might gonna have the same level of disappointment
which you guys felt when Jewish guys got the best F-15 in this game.
You guys already tasted that disappointment, then why not help allies from NATO from not tasting the same disappoint?
For me, I don’t give damn about ‘Aeronautica Militare’ version of Eurofighter Typhoon recieved Brimstone too. and I don’t opress about that Idea.
2 Likes