The thing with all those other examples is that they are just disadvantages inherent in the aircraft variant, while the USN put everything the Swiss have on their premium hornet on USN Hornets. The only acceptable course of action is a BR raise for the Swiss or adding the upgrades to the US one
how are more cms and more powerful engines enough to put it 1 whole br step higher. If it got 9ms or something, then sure, but stuff that are mostly qol and a simply engine upgrade (fa18c still slow as hell anyways) isn’t enough to put one above the other in br
from 12.7 to 13.0 is not 1whole br step higher, its 0.3 step higher, according with all the advantage over usa one (better engine, x2 contermesures, better radar and better ground ordenance, in other words better everything) 0.3 higher is fair enough or buff usa counterpart in that case
1 br step is 0.3. i said step not 1 whole br
Yeah, Premium Hornets are quite strong for 12.7.
I am fine if we send ‘both F/A-18C up to 13.0’
And also, I am not resisting about ‘make both versions identical’ idea(which will make it easier to balance)
For the Tonka case, we also installed RB199 Mk 103 to GR.1, but Gaijin decided to use RB199 Mk 101 from the earlier version instead, just as in the F-15E case or this case.
I wonder why Gaijin always go haywire with double standards when creating airplanes.
Sometimes they create a ‘What-If variant’ like the infamous F-5C ‘Block. Abomination’ (If we go full historical, F-5C in USAF couldn’t use either AIM-9E from 1968 or AN/ALE-40 pod from the 1970s because their retirement was 1967. But Gaijin granted both.)
Some other times, Gaijin is oppressed by a morbid obsession about ‘making a specific version’
I think the F-15E case or Finnish F-18C(not F/A) would be good examples. :/
I don’t think it is an acceptable option to me because I still believe that their difference is ‘not big enough’ to raise a BR higher.
But I am fine with this case. I think I agreed about this earlier in this topic. XD
1 Like
Another post crying about the F/A-18C premium when should already have a 13.0 BR
2 Likes
Friendly reminder: this one existed before, and we were both here last month. :|
We are here because OP found a YT vid about the difference between the USN Prem F/A-18C and the Swiss prem F/A-18C. :(
no, it doesnt
1 Like
literally said this out loud when I opened this topic. Every time I fly my F18 C early, I think “why in hell is this thing at 12.7.” it absolutely dominates, you’re like a budget rafale, your kit is excellent, your radar is wonderful and your agility allows you to defend however you want, you"re a headache to deal with.
its usually good to furnish your mute list, russian bias topics are also great, got most of the borderline nazi/russophobic mental patients muted thanks to them.
1 Like
the only reasonable argument i can kinda understand for the 9X on air vehicles is that in some cases the AIM-9M just doesn’t start seeking as fast as you would need it too, but at that point you might as well just use your guns, as a US main, although the 9X would be quite nifty to have, it is not currently needed, maybe just a AIM-9 that starts turning off the rail earlier would be nice
And why exactly only US should get access to next gen IR?
I know you said its not currently needed.
But im asking if you understand the rammifications of asking for 9X on US planes.
1 Like
i’m not sure about next gen, but when next gen does come yes the 9X would be needed, but i’m more or less talking currently, and going off how gaijin loves picking and choosing which realistic aspects of things to add, i’m just saying either a modfication of an existing 9M/9L with (as a bonus) would have a better off rail reaction time or just reducing it entirely
Yes but you worded it like 9X could come now for 18C early because…
Which, again, why should it be unique to the 18C early when almost all BLUFOR planes use 9M currently?
never explicitly said it should come only for the F/A-18C early, i only stated that a good chunk of time when the aim-9M is used its in dogfights in general its mainly just to scare the opponent into doing something stupid while yes it still has its use there, its just in some cases the AIM-9 doesn’t really have the reaction time off the rail to be used to no greater effect than a decoy, and i only said having the 9X now would be neat but not necessarily needed, what could be a compromise would be a AIM-9 with, as a bonus, would be faster reacting off the rail, it wouldn’t be just for 1 aircraft, could be a modification of the Ls or Ms, so pretty much 12.0+ maybe only on the later Nato aircraft so 13.0+