canada The Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornet

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

On 02/04/2021 at 10:14, MessInMines said:

What makes the Canadian F-18 unique anyway ? If it's the same as the US F-18 then it probably belongs in the US tree anyway.
It has to be Canadian to go to the British tree. To me it doesn't look like anything special but I can be wrong.
What are its special features ?

 

Not much; the CF-18A/B Hornet was largely identical to the F/A-18A/B Hornet as they rolled off the factory floor in the 1980's. (Granted there has been modernizations since) In its original configuration the only physical difference between Canadian and American hornets was the inclusion of a powerful spotlight on the left side of the fuselage. This allowed for positive identification of aircraft during night time interceptions, the plane would fly on the right hand side of the unidentified aircraft before turning on its spotlight to visually identify it. 

 

 

As for weapon differences; the RCAF doesn't operate any anti-radiation missiles, so unlike the US Hornet, it'd lack the AGM-88 HARM. Unlike the US Hornet which had access to a variety of cluster bombs, the RCAF only had Mk.20 Rockeyes and the British BL-755. The CF-18 also used the more accurate CRV 7 70mm rockets rather than the Hydra 70. I don't know which AIM-7 is approved for the F/A-18A/B (F/M/P?), but the RCAF uses the F/M models.

 

 

So to sum up the differences of the CF-18 (1980-2000) and F/A-18A/B:

 

CF-18's are equipped with a unique spotlight

CF-18's dont have AGM-88's

CF-18's only have Mk.20 cluster bombs and British BL-755 (for cluster ammunition)

CF-18's use CRV 7's instead of Hydra 70's

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Miki_Hoshii
Added BL-755

[CaSama9000@psn 200]

On 08/04/2021 at 18:51, Miki_Hoshii said:

So to sum up the differences of the CF-18 (1980-2000) and F/A-18A/B:

 

CF-18's are equipped with a unique spotlight

CF-18's dont have AGM-88's

CF-18's only have Mk.20 cluster bombs and British BL-755 (for cluster ammunition)

CF-18's use CRV 7's instead of Hydra 70's

 

Thank you for shedding light on the differences between CF-18 and US F-18 hornets. The differences appear more extensive in the air-to-ground role with fewer differences in air-to-air, which is understandable because the Sidewinder, AIM-7 and AMRAAM were the gold-standard missiles at the time. Even British aircraft operated these missiles (FGR2, Tornado F3, Harriers, Jaguars, Hawks). It was only in the early 2000s when Britain and Europe began to see domestically produced/Joint project missiles again (ASRAAM, Meteor, IRIS-T). 

 

I'm still optimistic about my suggestion because of the interesting and much needed characteristic this airframe will bring into the British air tree. I tried searching for more alternatives, even the 'Tranche 1' Eurofighter Typhoons but they're just too advanced. ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Meteor (50-60G missiles) are way too much for the game. I'm thinking ahead during a period of time when we have abundant air superiority fighters represented in early service (early F16 variants, F14s, MiG29s, Su27s, F18s, Viggen). I'm certain CAS jets with defensive sidewinders will struggle. We will likely stay in this period of time for at least a year or two until 4.5 gen fighter jets (F4C was released Sep. 2019, we still have no 4th gen fighters). The large quantity of CAS jets will also become a balancing problem. Hawk with AIM-9L/ASRAAM? Top tier or with 3rd Gen fighters?

 

Britain is a large nation in the game with so many aircrafts to reach top tier. To imagine playing only one interceptor (Tornado F3) in tier 7 alongside CAS jets for 2 years while other nations have many different air superiority fighters is concerning. If left unconsidered, the British air tree will not be rewarding at the end. I'm confident Gaijin will realise this and incorporate a few more tier 7 jets (similar to South African tanks) to make the large nations somewhat on par with each other. Otherwise we'd feel as though we've invested years of our time on the wrong nation, I believe in this game no nation should be at a significant disadvantage to make a player feel their investments were not worthwhile.

 

These are my thoughts and suggestions about the future of British air tree. At the end it's up to the Developers to decide on the best plan.

 

Thanks 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by CaSama9000@psn

[CaSama9000@psn 200]

On 04/04/2021 at 19:12, Z3r0_ said:

Honestly I think I'd rather see a Tornado variant than a CF-18 on the British tree.

 

Which variant? There's only ADV (interceptor) or IDS (dedicated strike jet).

 

ADV (RAF) 

• F2 - a transient/interim aircraft, very few were built and were quickly followed by 152 production F3s intended to equip squadrons
• F3 - the variant to enter squadron service.

 

 IDS (RAF)

• GR1 - two sidewinders only, flare pods
• GR4 - two sidewinders only, flare pods. Performance wise the GR4 is worse, one of the cannons were removed and it had significantly lower speed restrictions (top speed of Mach 1.3)

 

Throwing more Tornado variants isn't the solution, it may increase the quantity of jets but won't diversify.

 

A few seem to believe Tornados were fighter jets and that interceptors can compete because of "boom and zoom tactics". Well tier 7 is not tier 4. Air superiority fighters have one of the highest thrust-weight ratios and top speeds of any type of aircraft. You're not outclimbing or out-accelerating an F15 Eagle. Unless Gaijin decide to make 300x300km maps, interceptors will always be worse and more limited than fighters. And even if we see such maps dogfights are the most enjoyable and will always continue (most mach 2 jets currently are always within 15km). If I were to fly the Tornado F3 the way it was intended players would probably say i'm playing passively. 

 

I'd like the Tornado F3 but it just won't be enough to carry tier 7 on its own, at least one other manoeuvrable air superiority jet is needed.

Edited April 12, 2021 by CaSama9000@psn

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

On 08/04/2021 at 10:51, Miki_Hoshii said:

 

Not much; the CF-18A/B Hornet was largely identical to the F/A-18A/B Hornet as they rolled off the factory floor in the 1980's. (Granted there has been modernizations since) In its original configuration the only physical difference between Canadian and American hornets was the inclusion of a powerful spotlight on the left side of the fuselage. This allowed for positive identification of aircraft during night time interceptions, the plane would fly on the right hand side of the unidentified aircraft before turning on its spotlight to visually identify it. 

 

 

As for weapon differences; the RCAF doesn't operate any anti-radiation missiles, so unlike the US Hornet, it'd lack the AGM-88 HARM. Unlike the US Hornet which had access to a variety of cluster bombs, the RCAF only had Mk.20 Rockeyes and the British BL-755. The CF-18 also used the more accurate CRV 7 70mm rockets rather than the Hydra 70. I don't know which AIM-7 is approved for the F/A-18A/B (F/M/P?), but the RCAF uses the F/M models.

 

 

So to sum up the differences of the CF-18 (1980-2000) and F/A-18A/B:

 

CF-18's are equipped with a unique spotlight

CF-18's dont have AGM-88's

CF-18's only have Mk.20 cluster bombs and British BL-755 (for cluster ammunition)

CF-18's use CRV 7's instead of Hydra 70's

 

 

TL;DR: the CF-18 is optimized for air-to-air ops with air-to-surface largely being an afterthought (ironically almost the opposite of the original F/A-18, which is more like a strike aircraft that can defend itself a bit better than its predecessors due to its markedly inferior performance compared to its land-based contemporaries).

[CaSama9000@psn 200]

10 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

TL;DR: the CF-18 is optimized for air-to-air ops with air-to-surface largely being an afterthought (ironically almost the opposite of the original F/A-18, which is more like a strike aircraft that can defend itself a bit better than its predecessors due to its markedly inferior performance compared to its land-based contemporaries).

 

Great! That's exactly what the air tree needs in tier 7. More fighter jets not close air support / strike jets.

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

On 12/04/2021 at 01:44, Z3r0_ said:

 

TL;DR: the CF-18 is optimized for air-to-air ops with air-to-surface largely being an afterthought (ironically almost the opposite of the original F/A-18, which is more like a strike aircraft that can defend itself a bit better than its predecessors due to its markedly inferior performance compared to its land-based contemporaries).

 

The CF-18 was acquired to replace both the CF-101B in the interceptor role, as well as the CF-104 and CF-116A (CF-5A) in the strike role. They wanted to consolidate the combat jets as much as possible. In comparison to the US Hornet however, it still didn't have quite the extensive list of weapon racks and weapons.

 

A couple non-visual changes between the CF-18A and F/A-18A's was the Instrument Landing System instead of the Automated Carrier Landing System, ALQ-162 jammer, clearance for 480 gallon fuel tanks (vs. 330 gallon), and cold weather survival gear.

 

I've finally got an extensive and thorough list for weapons the CF-18 carried until it was modernized in 2003.

 

6x AIM-9L/M Sidewinders (Wingtips & outboard pylons with dual racks)

4x AIM-7F/M Sparrows (Fuselage recesses & outboard pylons)

4x AGM-65 Mavericks (Unknown version, likely F or G. inboard and outboard pylons)

152x 70mm CRV 7 rockets in 8x LAU-5003 pods (Dual racks on outboard and inboard pylons)

10x Mk-20 Rockeye cluster bombs (Dual racks on outboard, inboard, and centreline pylons)

10x BL-755 cluster bombs (Dual racks on outboard, inboard, and centreline pylons)

10x Mk.82 500 lb bombs (Dual racks on outboard, inboard, and centreline pylons)

9x Mk.83 1000 lb bombs (Dual racks on outboard and inboard pylons, single bomb on centreline pylon)

4x Mk.84 2000 lb bombs (outboard and inboard pylons)

4x GBU-12 500 lb laser guided bombs (outboard and inboard pylons)

4x GBU-16 1000 lb laser guided bombs (outboard and inboard pylons)

2x GBU-10 2000 lb laser guided bombs (outboard pylons)

2x GBU-24 2000 lb laser guided bombs (outboard pylons)

 

Originally the CF-18 came with no precision strike weapons, but Canada acquired laser guided bombs and Mavericks from the late 1990's-2003 as well as beyond.

 

Missiles such as the AIM-120 and other guided weapons didnt come until after the 2003 modernization, which required new targeting systems and radar sets among other things.

 

The information comes from the Canadian Aviation and Space Musuem, trade registries between US and Canada on the sale of guided weapons, as well as the brochure for the F/A-18A and a weapons chart for the F/A-18C.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Miki_Hoshii

[CaSama9000@psn 200]

A paint scheme we can have for the CF-18 is the Battle of Britain 75th anniversary

 

 

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

On 13/04/2021 at 15:57, CaSama9000@psn said:

A paint scheme we can have for the CF-18 is the Battle of Britain 75th anniversary

 

 

 

Okay, you know what?  I might be okay with adding this provided it gets this skin in-game.

[AVROVULCANXH558 349]

+1 from me, but where to add it is the problem. My dream is an independent Canadian line, with CF-86, CF-100 and CF-105s (possibly CF-103 as an event vehicles?), but i honestly doubt it will ever happen, and assume my dreams will remain just that: dreams.

[SturmWerwolf 793]

+1 I Fully support this as a future premium for the US tree, although your poll didn't give me the option. So I had to vote not sure / maybe and somewhere else.

[Nostadad 428]

On 14/03/2021 at 21:03, ponnes said:

-1 Commonwealth is not enough to justify this plane in the british techtree.

 

Its like giving Italy a F14 Tomcat because Italy and USA are both in the NATO.

 

+1 for the suggestion
For any people who think  Canada shouldn't be include in British Tech tree, check how much Canada gives every year to the queen.
Also check who is on our quarters, who represent the queen at Ottawa.
HMCS = Her Majesty Canadian Ships.
Is ships still named like this?  yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_St._John's

Canadian Quarter

Edited July 9, 2021 by Dimitri_Rudov

[Acroute 175]

+1 Tornado F.3 will be quickly left behind by more advanced 4th gen fighters, so Canadian F/A-18 would be a decent stop gap fighter before Typhoon.

 

We already have ADATS (M113) in British TT, which consists of the American APC hull and Swiss-American turret. So why not CF-18?

[Thatz 637]

Photo of a CF-18 with Mavericks (photo taken from a sign at the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada)

[Headnaught 504]

Not quite sure which way to lean on this one. I would like it for a Commonwealth or Canada tree, but frankly that ship has sailed (here's hoping though). As far as the Americans, they hardly need it, and the U.K. tree will need to draw from its Commonwealth members at some point to continue expanding meaningfully. I suppose that's for Gaijin to worry about, though, if they ever decide to add this. I'll give it a +1 because it's cool.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Headnaught

[oom1992 649]

+1 Very good Multirole fighter aircraft in rank 8 but not sure add to commonwealth tech tree or UK tech tree under F-4K Phantom FG.1

Edited June 4, 2023 by oom1992

[Kingtiez@live 606]

-1