Forum: General

Are F-16's just as capable as F/A-18 Hornets in the fighter/attack role? I always read articles on how great the Hornet is due to its versatility in both air to air and air to ground but isn't that just a marketing ploy, I mean the F-16 can do that too.

Thanks
Brad

F-16.net Sponsor

I never refer to the F-18 with the "A" in the name because of that very reason. If the F-16 isn't given the (letter) credit for what it does versus what that F-18 can do, the F-18 gets the same treatment, IMO...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I just hate the F-18 too much. Laughing

I think the F-16 can do pretty much anything a Hornet can do. Although I think it's time for the F-16 to be more on par with Hornet avionics. If the USAF is going to keep some F-16s around from another 10 to 15 years, it'd be wise to give them the APG-80 or SABR upgrade in addition to a newer glass cockpit. I mean come on, the F-16 doesn't even have a moving map display. I think the F-16E Block 60 does, but that's pretty recent stuff.

Why doesn't the USAF have any F-16 E/F if they're the most advanced F-16 at the moment and are serving with the UAE?

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.

While the the Viper had a strike capability well before the Hornet was ever fielded (it won a bomb comp in Scotland back around '80-ish), it was an either/or situation. It could either do A2A or A2G, but it would've had a tough time in the same situation as those ODS Hornets. With the CAT III load it would've been AOA-limited and G-restricted.

PanAm wrote:

Why doesn't the USAF have any F-16 E/F if they're the most advanced F-16 at the moment and are serving with the UAE?

The USAF made the decision years ago to discontinue purchasing more advanced Vipers in favor of the F-35. That's not saying other friendly countries can't buy the Viper. But USAF is done with it. The "Why Don't We Just Buy More Vipers" argument has been beat to a pulp here on several occasions. If something catastrophic happens to the F-35 program and the Viper line is still active, then that may change. I wouldn't lay money on it tho.

What about upgrades to block 60, does the USAF have them or planning on them? As you may know I don't know too much about the USAF as I'm more of a USN guy Smile

There may be future enhancements to late model Vipers planned (like what CUPID and CCIP did) but nothing that would make it match the Block 60 that I'm aware of. It'd be nice to have a cockpit upgrade like the Block 60 but at this point there's just no funding or support for it.

PanAm wrote:

What about upgrades to block 60, does the USAF have them or planning on them? As you may know I don't know too much about the USAF as I'm more of a USN guy Smile

I wouldnt bet real money on it.
The USAF already has an aircraft that does the Block 60's job, and thats the F-15E. For what the F-16 does today it doesn't need the Block 60's equipment level,and to wit it would be a waste of funds to upgrade our Vipers to block 60 when its replacement is being tested as we speak.

The F-18 is arguably better at both of it's two jobs than the F-16 is... it just costs more.

The Super Hornet is a greatly superior fighter overall.

banken wrote:

The F-18 is arguably better at both of it's two jobs than the F-16 is... it just costs more.

The Super Hornet is a greatly superior fighter overall.

That would make sense considering it has better avionics and can land on a boat. And more hardpoints.

They both have their pros and cons. The Hornet, even clean, is still only cleared to 7G while the Viper can easily go to 9. But then again, a Viper can't be successfully shot off a carrier deck without comin' apart. So there ya go. Wink

A fancy designation does not a better airplane make. USAF F-16s in DS were equally as capable while carrying bombs to do A/A and are equally capable today as any Hornet. LINKDude it was never any more of an either-or situation than for any Hornet. Bomb loadouts and extra tanks impact all fighters equally in terms of drag and G-limits. Hornet is a draggy jet and heavy by size due to beefed up airframe for carrier crashes (landings)...the price you pay. AESA in Super Hornet aside I would take a Viper to war before a Hornet any day today or 1991. If we need Vipers to last longer they will get AESA but, as has been indicated, USAF is spending money on Raptor and Lightning II instead while Navy will be stuck with Super Bugs for decades....its all about choices.

A couple things. First off, you really didn't start to see the air to ground capability of the viper realized until block 15 and not really reach maturity until the C/D-models. 1,5,&, 10 were pretty much one trick ponies.

Second, 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.

Third, even though we have the tri-service system there are still fundamental differences in the way the Air Force and Navy classify aircraft. The Air Force classifies by size strategic aircraft are classified as bombers and tactical aircraft are classified as fighters. A-series aircraft are few and far between and restricted to pretty much CAS platforms. 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.

I thought that the Israeli vipers striking Osirak's reactor were block 10's... maybe they were modified? Cause they had some AG capability for sure

They had dumb bomb capability.

Forum: General

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