No worries!
I much prefer the M over the L.
I’d love to have a Hornet with 9Ms but without AIM120 so it could fit somewhere between 12.7 and 14.0.
I do think it would warrant a BR increase though
1 Like
Id say the 18C early is on the very edge between 12.7 and 13.0 with its current kit, being held back only by low CM count and 9Ls.
Swiss premium hornet having “late” engines, radar and CM count (does it get the 18C late RWR too?) is arguably 13.0 material already, personally id just give it 9Ms and shove it there.
1 Like
You need range at 13.0 because the majority of your games are gonns be full uptiers, 9ms dont solve anything in that regard.
Ive been spading the su33 today, pretty much every game im seeing typhoons and at 14.0, it can hold its own here because it isn’t outranged with r27, just sucks when you have to fly defensive and have no answer to fox3.
Having to deal with this in something with what half the range of r27 and no fox 3 would be near unplayable. It would be in the graveyard with the rest of the non r27/fox3 13.0s
Then again it is objectively better than the 18C early, and 18C early shouldnt definetively go any lower.
Amd the premium F-2 sits at 13.0 with sparrows and IRCCM missiles.
Realistically both swiss and 18C early will sit at 12.7 till decompression happens.
This is the biggest case of American cope syndrome I’ve EVER seen. Yes let’s give a 12.7 9M or python 3 (it never carried either). Lets also bump a perfectly fine 12.7 placed jet DOWN a BR just because a SLIGHTLY different version gets added.
Complain some more bro. Just makes the america jet players look worse than they already do.
4 Likes
The MLU 2 is going to be incredibly funny though. imo the only 18C worth grinding for air RB.
I told myself that I would not grind the Swedish air tree for yeas to come, but that MLU 2 funny almost made me change my mind.
i think so.
Maintaining My Original Position (copied below), with Additional Points:
I still hold my original view (pasted underneath). To elaborate:
Long-term, the F/A-18C Early won’t be the last US Rank VIII premium. Future packs could include an F-16 or early F-14A (currently BR 12.7 in Sim/Realistic). Japan’s F-2A (ADTW) premium sets a precedent. I believe the F-20A will settle into a role similar to the old F-5C, while the F/A-18C Early aligns with the A-10A or AV-8B (NA)—prioritizing ground attack with some air capability. The next US premium should focus on air superiority, like the F-4S.
Current Solutions:
- BR Adjustments:
Increase the German F/A-18’s BR, adjust the US version’s BR, or both.
Potential weapon buffs (e.g., AIM-9M missiles) could accompany this, though unlikely. This would enhance competitiveness against top-tier threats and in Ground RB. No one wants their purchased vehicle weakened. Ideally, both US and German F/A-18s should emerge stronger, avoiding mutually detrimental changes.* - Buff Countermeasures or Engine:
Give the US variant more countermeasures or a slight engine upgrade.
Renaming “F/A-18C Early” to “F/A-18C” is justified. Research confirms its historical countermeasure loadout was only 60 flares/chaff – a significant weakness. - Add BOL Pods (Community-Preferred Solution):
Adding BOL pods (without renaming the variant) is ideal.
Focus: Provide BOL for the F/A-18C Early.* Other nations’ F/A-18s (like the German CL) can also receive BOL, but at minimum, all premium F/A-18Cs should get 1-2 BOL pods (≈180 countermeasures total).
Benefits:
Drastically improves Ground RB survivability against advanced SAMs (AIM-120/AIM-9 hybrids) and top-tier jets.
Resolves player dissatisfaction. The missing 60 countermeasures become irrelevant.
Unlikely to increase BR if BOL becomes standard across F/A-18 variants.
(See my historical context below for details, though some parts were condensed in AI translation.)
Conclusion: The FA-18C Early requires integration of BOL countermeasure dispensers. Its future niche aligns with existing premium packs like the A-10A Thunderbolt II and AV-8B (NA) Harrier – offering limited tech-tree progression (with diminishing efficiency over time) while serving as a ground-attack platform in Ground Realistic Battles (GRB). Consequently, enhanced survivability is essential.
Key Reasoning:
- Upcoming Competition: Next update introduces the German F/A-18 pack and Italian MiG-29 pack. While specifics of the German variant are beyond this discussion (ideally both should have unique strengths, e.g., potential German advantages vs. superior US countermeasures for balanced satisfaction), their core role overlaps with the US F/A-18C Early.
- The MiG-29 Threat:This new top-tier premium (BR 12.7) will directly contest the F/A-18C Early. Its superior speed allows faster base-striking with napalm for Research Points (RP). No F/A-18 variant (US, German, or future) can compete with the MiG-29 in this role.
- Compromised Air-to-Air (A2A) Capability:
While carrying A2A missiles (AIM-7P performance noted), the F/A-18C Early’s maximum speed (~Mach 1.03 at low altitude) severely limits engagement flexibility.
It lacks the initiative to pursue targets, functioning primarily in a defensive/reactive capacity – similar to the A-10’s tactical limitation. - Evolving Niche Definition:
The MiG-29 pack mirrors the historical role of the MiG-23ML: RP grinding via A2A and base bombing.
The F/A-18C Early, however, now fits the A-10A/AV-8B(NA)/F-20A niche: primarily GRB attack with secondary A2A capability (F-20A being analogous to the F-5C).
The F-4S occupies a distinct position. A future, faster US high-tier premium is likely inevitable, potentially further marginalizing the F/A-18C Early.
The Case for BOL:
Given its deliberate placement in the A-10/AV-8B GRB-attack niche, the F/A-18C Early requires improved defensive capabilities. Adding BOL dispensers is critical to:
- Fulfill its intended GRB role effectively against evolving SAM threats (longer ranges, AIM-120/AIM-9 mixes).
- Address player concerns regarding value perception (e.g., short pre-order exclusivity, perceived advantages of the German variant).
Recommendation:
Ideal: Full BOL integration (optimal player satisfaction).
- Minimum Viable:Provision of at least two BOL pods.
- Unacceptable: No countermeasure enhancement.
(Translated & logically structured by AI for clarity)
Supplementary Clarification:
(Regarding previously omitted points in AI translation)
-
BOL Implementation Scope:
“Install the full BOL complement for all F-18CL variants across nations, while granting at least one or two BOL pods to every nation’s F-18C Early premium vehicles.”
-
Strategic Value of BOL:
“I believe BOL should become a new balancing tool.”
The owners of the MiG-23ML send you their greetings.
In ASB, the Blue team already has air superiority. 95% win rate as of 12.7. The Reds just don’t even log in anymore and prefer to play at other BRs.
So, you want to buff F/A-18C to maintain superiority and be undertiered?
Hell no.
Buffing F/A-18C will eventually lead to buffing F-20A and F-16A
And buffing F-16/20A will eventually lead to buffing F-4S and so on.
Laugh in British accent
Personally I want to buff the US C to be on par with the Swiss premium C. Afaik everything on the Swiss C was used by US hornets
2 Likes
I think that is the maximum level of buff which F/A-18C Early can get without damaging the balance much.
Buffing BR down or AIM-9X sounds went too far.
Giving BOL is debatable, but maybe fine if it is limited to a number like Harrier T.10 did.
Full potential might lead to increasing BR to 13.0, I guess.
2 Likes
Yeah that’s pretty crazy
The C late could get BOL but yeah it could be too much on the early
1 Like
Buffing the F/A-18 is just going to make the whole BR more unstable again. just leave it as it is. I mean, they could add the AIM-9M and push it to 12.7 or 13.0, but then it would become completely useless.
2 Likes
You cant be serious…
When the Spanish EF-18M with IRIS-T is introduced in the game, will you also request that missile for the C Early? How about Meteors or Fakours as well?
The C Early already has a ridiculous BR compared to other aircraft
I think someone answer is ridiculous. The original post compares the F18C Early and the F18C Swiss, which are the same model, so how is it relevant to the EF-18M or the MiG-23ML? If you pay attention, you’ll notice that no premium aircraft is exactly the same model as another, yet they have different characteristics while being in the same BR. If you use logic, you’ll know what’s right and what’s wrong.
I think American players don’t want to gain an unfair advantage but rather seek differentiation. As a primarily Russian player, I agree that what Gaijin is doing seems quite ridiculous.
The reason they are brought up is to show that there are cases where the same plane has a better version at the same br, but not so much better as to warrant a .3 br increase.