Forum: General

bjr1028 I don't know where you get your info but it isn't from knowing anything about Vipers and Hornets. Blk 1,5,10,15,25,30, and 32 all had the same basic A/G capability as did all the Hornets till the Super Bug. Dumb bombs very accurately delivered via CCIP and Mavericks. They also had similar A/A capabilities using Aim-9s although Hornets could do AIM-7s. AIM-120 capabilitiy surfaced in Vipers and Horents about the same time. The APG-65 was no better than the APG-66 in the A-model viper and the APG-68 in blk 25 and beyond was better. Obviously the AESA in the Super Bug is better but A/G there is still no difference. Current Vipers (Blk25-52) have good PGM, TGP, datalink, self defense systems, and can still turn up their A-holes while a Super Bug wishes it could do what an A-model Hornet could do in turn-and-burn.

Now we can keep arguing or not...I flew Blk 1, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 32 jets from 1982 till 2005 and have fought against Hornets through that entire time...your choice.

Again...I'll take a Viper any day...1991 or 2009. Would love to have an AESA but not at the expense of the Lightning/Sniper TGP, SADL or Link 16, etc. etc. that current vipers have and still sustained trun rate that makes a Hornet driver pale.

F-16.net Sponsor

jbgator wrote:

I flew Blk 1, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 32 jets from 1982 till 2005...

If it were up to me, this discussion would end here with that statement. Laughing

They're both pretty capable planes but does the Hornet have the advantage in air to ground due to its low speed handling?

Well i was stationed on the John F Kennedy, and did its last cruise. " Sides of the ship where mostly my work, which was a bitch!!" Anyways, Ive had the privilage to talk to Hornet pilots, and Tomcat pilots who where switching over to the Supers. I've also had the privilage to have a long chat with some engineers working with the f-35, known at that time as "Hat-Trick" program, and also talking to alot of crew chiefs about all the planes in our arrsonal. Lets just say, the Super Hornet, was designed to be a fighter, attacker, and refueler. Its underpowered, weighs alot, and is slow compared to fighters of its time. Deffinatly a multirole aircraft, very stable at low speed, however, when you factor in Cost, manueverability, survivability, speed, load layout, give me the F-16 FIGHTING FALCON!!!!!!! I hate the viper nick name. I find it disgraceful. Mad

Gator i agree 100 percent, Falcon anyday. Superturd, replaced, f 14, sk3 viking, and the prowler.

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

The Hornet's "proof of concept" happened in ODS when two of 'em on a strike mission splashed two Iraqi fighters en route then continued with the strike. Not sure how much of a turning fight it was, what they were loaded with, or what type of jet they engaged, but ever since the press got the story, the Hornet has been their go-to "hero" jet.

In the incident where the F/A-18Cs shot down two MiG-21s (I have also read they were J-7s), the MiGs had gotten to close to a Navy strike package and were being chased by some F-14s. As they headed towards a strike package of four F/A-18Cs. The F/A-18s were on their way to bomb an airfield with four 2,000lb bombs. The E-2 called and warned them of the MiGs, the F/A-18 went into air to air mode. Not much maneuvering due to the MiGs were not far off their nose. Two missiles were used to kill the MiGs, although a third missile was fired and hit the falling debrie. You Tube used to but, I was not able to find it,Google has a short video, URL;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kce24pljN2E
A transcript of the incident, URL (About half-way down the page);
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Day-1.htm

banken wrote:

The Super Hornet is a greatly superior fighter overall.

The F/A-18E/F is a better "bomb truck" but, less capable as a fighter. There have been numerous comments by F/A-18C/D pilots have said that they dominate the E/F! The Rafale pilots have stated after some exercises, that the F/A-18E/F is easier to shoot down than the F/A-18C!
The statements I have heard from the Hornet community is that the F/A-18 when fully loaded with ordnance, it looses less of its performance than the F-16 does?

bjr1028 wrote:

early in its development the Hornet was going to be two aircraft using a common airframe a F-18 fighter to replace the F-4 on the midways and the A-18 to replace the A-7s. When Hughes created the APG-65, they were able to have a single airframe do both roles.

Computerized flight control system (software advances) allowed the combining the two different air roles. The F/A-18 flies differently when in the air to ground than it does in the air to air.

bjr1028 wrote:

The Navy classifies aircraft by role. Air to air platforms are fighter and air to ground platforms are attack aircraft. With the exception of the A-10 and YA-9, all other tri-service A-series aircraft are of naval origin. Since the Hornet performed both fighter and light attack roles, the F/A designation was created.

Well put.

jbgator wrote:

Hornet is a draggy jet and heavy by size due to beefed up airframe for carrier crashes (landings)...the price you pay.

I have always wondered how 'hot' the F/A-18L would have been. A land based variant of the Hornet without the additional weight required for carrier operations would have been an interesting aircraft.

Quote:

Avon1944
I have always wondered how 'hot' the F/A-18L would have been. A land based variant of the Hornet without the additional weight required for carrier operations would have been an interesting aircraft.

I doubt even THAT would be as capable as an F-16 air to air, but I bet Northrop misses the sales.

Want to know how an F-18L would stack up against an F-16? Simply go back and compare the YF-17 and YF-16 and see who won the competition.

Contract competition isn't about the superior aircraft. It's about cost-effectiveness.

Don't get wrapped around the axel with the "F/A" designation. When the Viper was first thought of it was to be purely and air to air fighter and therefore designated the F-16. The Hornet was the first aircraft from the beginning to be a fighter/attack aircraft, hence the F/A. Over the years as technology grew modifications were made and now both have their strengths and weaknesses in both arenas. Also, don't forget one of the most important factors in determining which aircraft is better, as the WWI pilots said, it's the man in the box that matters most.

Banken,
And in the case of the YF-16/YF-17 competition, the superior airplane was also more cost effective. The YF-16 cost less and was more effective - isn't that the definition of "superior airplane"?

Cheaper and better = cost effective.

Well Hornet flyer we can appreciate your love for your jet, but we all know the f-16 would win with equaly skilled pilots, 8 out of 10 times.

avon1944 wrote:

The F/A-18E/F is a better "bomb truck" but, less capable as a fighter. There have been numerous comments by F/A-18C/D pilots have said that they dominate the E/F! The Rafale pilots have stated after some exercises, that the F/A-18E/F is easier to shoot down than the F/A-18C!

From what I have heard the Tomcat drivers hate it (Block III with EPE engine and new wing configuration is on the top of their xmas list), the Hornet drivers are lukewarm (split between the extra ordnance/better range and the loss of performance), but the few Intruder driver still around love it.

callsignthumper wrote:

Well Hornet flyer we can appreciate your love for your jet, but we all know the f-16 would win with equaly skilled pilots, 8 out of 10 times.

Good thing then the silver wings aren't as skilled Wink

bjr1028 wrote:

avon1944 wrote:

The F/A-18E/F is a better "bomb truck" but, less capable as a fighter. There have been numerous comments by F/A-18C/D pilots have said that they dominate the E/F! The Rafale pilots have stated after some exercises, that the F/A-18E/F is easier to shoot down than the F/A-18C!

From what I have heard the Tomcat drivers hate it (Block III with EPE engine and new wing configuration is on the top of their xmas list), the Hornet drivers are lukewarm (split between the extra ordnance/better range and the loss of performance), but the few Intruder driver still around love it.

callsignthumper wrote:

Well Hornet flyer we can appreciate your love for your jet, but we all know the f-16 would win with equaly skilled pilots, 8 out of 10 times.

Good thing then the silver wings aren't as skilled Wink

Well obviously F-14 pilots hate it due to the planes lack of speed and I know that tomcat pilots have an agenda to hate hornets, that's a fact. Too bad their plane got scrapped by the government over the Super Hornet which in my opinion does a better job in today's warfare.

Thanks
Brad

Forum: General

F-16 multirole designation vs. F/A-18