F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2004, 19:25
by Occamsrasr
I have tried to find a link that compares and contrasts the two planes, but I have not found exactly what I am looking for. I do not want to read about the Super Hornet versus the Viper, just a garden variety F-18A/C against an F-16A/C. In particular, strengths and weaknesses of each plane in the ACM role.

Can someone help me with a link to a discussion of this topic?

Oh, I have pictures of the F-16's that crashed on take off from Wright-Patterson in the early 90's, if anyone is interested. Can't remember what unit they were from, but they were not part of the unit based at Wright-Patt flying the A/B model.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2004, 21:04
by SwedgeII
F-18 has a better radar, and better Roll rate, better LOW speed handling. F-16 is better at EVERYTHING else!! Of course the 18 can fly with one engine out!!

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2004, 22:17
by Happy_Gilmore
The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running. Having maintained both jets, I can tell you from a maintenance standpoint the Hornet had NOTTA on the Viper. Very unreliable and maintainability is a nightmare, ask any Hornet weenie about the switching valves and hydraulic system migration problems. I could go on and on but since to didn't ask about the maintenance part of it, I'll just shut up.
Have a great day.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2004, 03:17
by Roscoe
I question the better radar comment. Older ones maybe, but the latest OFP in the Viper combined with Link 16 is awfully hard to beat for a radar that size.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2004, 18:17
by RSAF-G2
The F/A-18 may handle slightly better at low speeds, but what's the point? We ain't really looking for an A-10 here...

although it has an advantage there, but how often will that be useful...a jet with advantages that are apparent 90% of the flight time seems a better choice.

The extra weight and less agility doesn't tally the slightly better payload and low-speed handling, therefore the viper is still better!

anyway, the RSAF (Republic of Singapore Airforce) did a fly-off test between the F/A-18D and F-16C/D Block 50 in the early 90s, and they chose the F-16C/D instead...

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2004, 18:53
by elp
We did this once before (look at the old threads: <a href="f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-656.html">1</a> / <a href="f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-25.html">2</a>) but for those wdwtfs (who dont want to *&$##& <a href="index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=search">search</a> :) ) the short version:

<b>F-18</b>

Carrier capable

If you are long over water and one engine gives out.... well.... that is definately a warm fuzzy as opposed to ejecting into sub zero water.

2 engine jet yet doesnt carry much gas ( 2 engines consuming X pph vs a 1 engine jet consuming x phh )

Range inhibited because of above.

Most of the maintenance nightmare stuff is because the F-18 never recovered from the logistics spare parts nightmare called the downsizing of the '90s. ( photos of USN F-18s in a line all up on saw horses and canned of parts so another squadron can deploy on a carrier cruise ) The procurement dickheads in all services are more interested in buying new jets instead of buying a few spares for stuff we already have .

Shot. Most of the high ops tempo the last several years has left the C model run hard and put up wet. USMC F-18Cs with less hours were even cherry picked to fill out USN ranks.

Two engines also means more maintenance hours. The laws of stats cant stop that no matter if it is an F-4 or EF2000 Eurofighter. 2 engines ( $$$ ) plus all the associated systems x2 that have to be maintained.

High_off_boresight_helmet_heater combos have minimized turning ./ manuver ability in WVR to where it isnt as important. Even the horrible super slow hornet F-18E/F is dangerous in WVR with a HOBS helmet heater setup.

Dont get me started on the POS which is the F-18E/F. Although we got it now and it is good bomb truck. ( the procurement process was criminal )


<b>F-16</b>

Lower cost of ownership. Like paying for fuel and all the other x2 sustainment goodies? Get a two engine fighter. Minus the carrier ability, An F-16 will do all combat missions just as good if not better than an F-18, only with less cost. THAT is why it is the sales king. The sales puke starts showing you the cost of owner$hip over years and any two engine jet starts sucking air in the presentation.

F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 02:07
by avon1944
Occamsrasr wrote:In particular, strengths and weaknesses of each plane in the ACM role.

While both aircraft were designed to operate in the same envirement -15,000 to 30,000 feet and speeds from 250mph to 450mph, the designer's solutions were different. This area is where eighty percent of the world's dogfights have takened place thoughout history.
The re-design of the YF-17 to the F/A-18 insured good handling qualities at slow speeds near sea level. The F-16 was designed to be more of a "top cover" type of aircraft.

The F-16 has a higher T/W ratio than most other aircraft. High altitudes, higher speeds (towards the 450mph mark) work the verticle since it does it like no other aircraft and use its "sustained" rate of turn.

F/A-18 was designed to be carrier capable, so slow speed high angles of attack and, lower altitudes is the area it should fight its battles. One advantage the F/A-18 has over its opponents is its ability to operate at high AOA. So while it doesn't have the thrust some other aircraft do, it can do an exellent job of pointing its nose at the right angle long before it has made it around a circle.

Both aircraft can defeat the MiG.-29 but they should fight it like they fight each other since the MiG.'s performance falls between the two. Just as there are tactics to get inside the BVR arena, there are tactics to defeat the HMDS in the WVR arena and both American fighters can use these tactics to get within gun range!

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 02:35
by lamoey
Wasn't there some departure problem with the Hornet that took the E/F models to fix?

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 04:05
by avon1944
lamoey wrote:Wasn't there some departure problem with the Hornet that took the E/F models to fix?

Yes the original E/F was supposed to have ninety percent commonality with the C/D, instead it wound up with less than thirty percent commonality. There was a problem with "wing drop." It took a sizeable engineering effort to solve the problem.

The F/A-18E/F is a far different aerial combat animal than the F/A-18C/D. The C/D is a true dogfighter the E/F is not! The General Accounting Office did a report and compared the E/F versus the C/D.
They ripped apart the E/F! It accelerates slower, decelerates slower, turns instantaneous and sustained less than the C/D. Several times during dogfights the C/D forced the E/F to dissengage due to "bingo fuel!"

Here is a URL that compares the F-14D versus the F/A-18E/F.
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f ... 4f18_1.asp

The US carriers could not attack targets in northern Afghanistan with the E/F that are hit as routine for the F-14D!

The un-refueled radius of an F-14 carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000-pound LGBs, two HARM missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two, 280-gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350-statute-mile radius carrying about half the bomb load.

I apologize for getting carried away ragging on the F/A-18. It is a "decent" short range aircraft but, for the money it is a waste. A Boeing interal memo showed the F-15E out performed the F/A-18E/F in every parameter except the ability to land on a carrier! Plus the F-15E is a lot cheaper!!!

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 04:38
by Dammerung
Speed is life... Only way you can fight Low-Speed High-AoA is one on one... and if it's one on one, someone screwed up, bad. If you're fast, you have more energy both to be used to get on the Bandit's six and should he fire on you, evade his missile. F/A-18 is inferior in this Aspect...

In BVR, while the F/A-18 can detect the F-16 first, I'm presuming the AIM-120's range is shorter than the F-16's radar range, they can still fire at the same time.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 17:07
by elp
While there are tactics on the book to minimize the engagement ability of first gen R-73 HOBS - Helmet heaters from the early MiG-29 when going WVR, I doubt that much can minimize the engagement ability of an AIM-9X HOBS Helment heater or the new Israeli job. Shotguns at 5 paces.

Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2004, 21:54
by Lawman
avon1944 wrote:
lamoey wrote:Wasn't there some departure problem with the Hornet that took the E/F models to fix?

The General Accounting Office did a report and compared the E/F versus the C/D.
They ripped apart the E/F! It accelerates slower, decelerates slower, turns instantaneous and sustained less than the C/D. Several times during dogfights the C/D forced the E/F to dissengage due to "bingo fuel!"

Here is a URL that compares the F-14D versus the F/A-18E/F.
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f ... 4f18_1.asp

Adrian


Ok, I know Elp, and the HABU twins have been wondering when I was gonna chime in on this one.

The GAO did such a report, and then Boeing, the Navy test pilots at Pax River, and several other congressmen stepped forward and demonstrated the lacking in the GAO's investigation into the Rhino in 2000. No further investigation by the Senate Armed Services commitee was needed, because they were more likely to belive the testomony of the Navy pilots flying it then by a bunch of outside annalists making there own decisions. VX-9 did a series of flyoffs between The Rhino against both the Vaunted Tomcats of VX-32 and Legacy Hornets and found no severe deficiancys in the air to air arena that people keep seeming to spout off about.

As for your artical, it was written by a pair of Grumman engineers and a Pilot that was still stuck living his topgun fantasys. The reason the Rhino wasnt used in afganistan wasnt that it couldnt hit the targets, it was that the Navy didnt have the tanker assets it needed. The only had a few aging S-3's on each carrier to perform the mission, these are aircraft that on a good day top out at 400 knots. The Vikings were not able to maintain the pace needed to support the men on the ground, and the single squadron of Rhinos took up the job of performing that mission so the Legacy Hornets and Turkeys could actually get to where the needed to. The presumtion that it wasnt used because it couldnt do the job leaves out the fact that we had C model Hornets over afganistan and there range with the payload listed is even less then a Rhino. Also 4 2000lbs LGB's were the weapon type used because the F-14 cant carry some of the other more effective ordinance that the Hornet family can. Mission to mission the Rhino can perform any task presently performed by either the Tomcat or legacy Hornet and do them cleaner and more effectively. And to give you an idea of how theroughly researched that artical is, a Tomcat CANT CARRY HARMS!!! This has been debated forever by the people that saw a picture on the NATS website of a D model testing a pair of AGM-88's for nothing more then airframe certification, the softwear to use them isnt there. Ask any eagle driver what he thinks of the Turkey as a fighter or a Mudhen driver about it as a bomber, you'll hear quite a bit of bad about both.

F/A-18E/F Problems

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2004, 22:16
by avon1944
Thank you Lawman for your insightful response. It puts some balance into some of the things of which I have read.

Still you know and I know there is a real PR campaign going on to sell the E/F. It also is quickly apparent that I (like the USMC) am not a real F/A-18E/F fan.

The reason the Rhino wasnt used in afganistan wasnt that it couldnt hit the targets, it was that the Navy didnt have the tanker assets it needed.

It is a range issue, if the carrier tankers refueled the Hornet over the Indian Ocean before they get close to Pakistani air space (with any decent weapon's load) the Hornet could not make it up near the northern Afghanistani border. The Hornet could make it a little north of Kabul. The carrriers had no problem sending the Turkey over the beach to northern Afghanistan refueling them from the same areas!
For the C/D to be effective in Northern Afghanistan refueling would had to take place over Pakistani, the USA just barely has over flight rights.
Do the carriers have the tanker assets to support an alpha strike by themselves, heavens no! I was ten years this year when presidential advisors started advising the president that the budget cuts were cutting to deep.

The "peace dividen" was peace, not some winfall profit for social programs. That's another topic.

During the PGW#1 there were Saudi air bases that had both F-16C's and USMC F/A-18C's and when you compare the amount of fuel taken from the airborne tankers, the F/A-18's took far more fuel than the F-16's. In fact the F/A-18C/D's received more fuel from airborne tankers than any other aircraft during PGW#1. This is a true wartime head to head comparison of loads and range.

The only had a few aging S-3's on each carrier to perform the mission

This makes the need for each aircraft to be as fuel "self sufficient" as possible, much greater.

I for one feels the Navy needs a SLEP for the S-3! ASW is a parisable skill and SSK's are becomming more and more capable. The S-3's are needed now for ASW than they have been since the end of the Cold War. The US Navy operating in the litorials more and more means every ASW platform must be very effective. Damn the politicians!

To give you an idea of how theroughly researched that artical is, a Tomcat CAN'T CARRY HARMS!!!

The Turkey was never a serious bomb truck, it has the role in order to say it is multi-mission, something that was "politically correct" at the time.

Ask any eagle driver what he thinks of the Turkey as a fighter

The only aircraft I have hear Eagle drivers talk about with real respect are the A-10's and Jaguars. Their ability to hug the ground makes them an extremely difficult target to lock-on. I have "read" where F-15C pilots feel the F-14D is a challenge to fight and that the Tornado has very good tactics to cover its limitations.

My late friend Art, a Tomcat pilot (one of the first classes of pilots to the F-14A's that did not transistion from the F-4 Phantom 2) stated that when he flew against the F-15A's.... in the phase in which the two aircraft jockey for best position the F-15 had a real advantage. The F-14 could jockey around countering the F-15's moves but, in the end the F-14 would start losing more and more airspeed. Finally, out of energy sudden loss of altitude is the only way to get your energy state back up. When you do this the F-15's would pounce from their perch and you were dead!

An F-15 pilot at an airshow told me that he felt the Turkey and the Mudhen have the same close air combat ability.

Ask any eagle driver what he thinks of the Turkey.... or a Mudhen driver about it as a bomber

Speaking of the Mudhen, did you get a chance to read parts of the Boeing internal memo comparing the F-15E versus the F/A-18E/F. Like the Turkey the E/F does not compare well. The F-15E out performs the E/F in "all" specs, cost less and, the only thing the E/F can do the F-15E can't do is to land on a carrier!

a D model testing a pair of AGM-88's for nothing more then airframe certification, the softwear to use them isnt there

Somewhat like the F-14 and the Slammer Missile, the software and hardware have been developed but, the decision to field the weapon was voted down. A wise move for when the last F-14D is retired there will still be many Phoenix Missiles in storage that will have to be dismantled.

As for the GAO, their charter is to insure the taxpayer is getting their money's worth. If Congress had known the E/F was virtually a new aircraft, they would have never O.K.'d the funds. Not the way the A-12 program had gone.

The original program goals for the F/A-18E/F was to have 90% commonality with the C/D, it wound up with only 30%. Comparing the E/F with other Boeing products..... F-15E or the F/A-18C/D and the money spent in the cold light of day, the taxpayer got had! Is the E/F an improvement in some respects over the C/D, yes. Is the GAO correct is "flat" statement that the E/F when comparing cost versus new capabilities, the E/F was not a good program.... YES!!

The big claim that the E/F has a much smaller RCS than the C/D is true. Unfortunately, the reality is that the RCS of the E/F is the same size as the F-16C, around 13ft²!

I am one who feels the USMC's decision not to purchase any E/F's speaks volumns about about their evaluation of the fighter bomber. They would rather keep the AV-8B's and F/A-18C/D's and purchase the F-35C when it becomes operational. The F-35C will cost a whole lot less than the E/F.

The cost of the E/F of which I have seen have been the cost calculated before the USMC decided not to purchase the three hundred plus aircraft.

To me the real test will be, let us see which countries purchase the E/F. If a lot of countries follow the US Navy and purchases a bunch of them, that is one positive statement but, if most of the owners of the C/D's decide not to purchase the E/F just like the USMC, that is an entirely different and negative statement. So far I don't hear any clamor of a line starting between Canada, Spain, Switzerland or any other country.

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2004, 23:21
by Happy_Gilmore
This you may also find interesting (Entertaining at least)

By CHRIS TOMLINSON, Associated Press Writer ABOARD THE USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT

When the U.S. Navy's F-14B Tomcats streak over Afghanistan dropping laser- and satellite-guided bombs, the legendary fighter planes represent the military's massive and modern firepower. However, when the VF-102 returns from Operation Enduring Freedom, the 12 Tomcats based on the USS Theodore Roosevelt will be turned in, and the pilots sent to train on a new generation of aircraft.

One of the Navy's most recognizable fighters, with the swept-back wings, is 30 years-old, older than some of the pilots that fly them. ``Tomcats are a piece of history, I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to fly a Tomcat,'' Lt. Matt, call sign "Rub,'' a 27-year-old from Blythe, Calif., said. ``It's a crime we have to transition to the FA/18.''

The squadron commander, Cmdr. Roy Kelley, said he will miss the plane he has flown for the last 15 years and still the world's fastest and most maneuverable fighter plane. ``About a year and a half ago, when I was told this squadron was going to transition to the F/A-18F, I wasn't really excited about it,'' said Kelley ``That's going to be the hard part, walking away from an airplane you are comfortable in. Especially since the whore nut F-18 is such a ___" . Kelley said his convictions were confirmed about the Super Hornet after visiting the Boeing production factory, then flew one earlier this year. `As far as I'm concerned the F/A18 is about as overated as it can be.''

Kelley also said that the Tomcats are'nt breaking down as often as Boeing publicists and PR 'spinners' would like the voters to believe. Lt. j.g. Dave Woods, in charge of the carriers general aviation maintenance department says, "The 20-30 year-old planes hardly show their age. And they're now considered ``low maintenance. They are very similar fine wine, the older it gets .. the better it gets,'' said Woods. ``A lot of the air frames seem to be getting stronger all the time.'' Indeed, when the F-14's are sitting in the carrier's hangar below the flight deck, maintenance crews have little to do because the air crews write-up so few gripes on them.

After the Theodore Roosevelt's current deployment, it will be sailed to California, where most of the pilots and weapon's officers will train on the Super Hornet [a short-range, two-seat [ in the opinion of many pilots .. piece of garbage] version of the F18C that Navy and one Marine squadron are currently flying off the Theodore Roosevelt.The current F18's are continually declaring low fuel emergencies. The new version is expected to exaserbate the situation.

All Navy F-14s, which can carry six and one-half tons of explosives, are scheduled to be retired by 2010. Kelley scoffed the Super Hornet's new technology, saying , " Hey, it's the same old Hornet ____, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said it can never match the Tomcat's long range, mach 1.8 speed and predator mystique. Kelley said when his wingman is in an F-18, he must be careful not to leave [ the slower plane] behind. "The Tomcat's speed is amazing, There's not another airplane in the Navy's inventory that can match it," Kelley, 40, said. ``You look at the plane on the ground it even looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal, fudge packing, cross dressing congressmen who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2004, 18:01
by Lawman
The Marine Corps purchase was cancalled because they cant afford to buy 300 Rhino's and the Osprey and then the JSF (which they arent permitted to cancel). They decided it was more in there interest to replace there 30+ year old helo fleet of CH-46's then to replace a 10 year old fighter that can still do its job. Now with all the delays and fiasco in the JSF there starting to take a long hard financial look at the F model as an interm replacement for some of there needs nobody factored in the present war in Iraq doing so much to the service lives of the legacy Hornets. And no Canada and the Swiss arent buying any at the moment, but Malaysia and Kuwait are presently in the makings with Boeing.

As for the S-3 requirement the ASW part is being taken up by the new SH-60's being fielded now. Again this is an ageing airframe, they've already had to go out to the AMARC to strip parts off the ones in storage, there life is over the only question is will we have anything to fill in for it. We didnt when we retired the KA-6, the S-3 was never intended to be the Navys primary tanker, it was forced on it.

And as for your comparisons, yes the Legacy Hornet has always had short legs, however its how much smaller then the F-14 your compairing it to. Again nobody asks the F-16 to haul as much as far as the Mudhen, but every Hornet critic is quick to compare the short legs to the massive F-14. Thats like saying the Strike Eagle cant fly as far as the F-111, no it cant but it still does the mission better. Again it means nothing, go talk to an airwing that actually has Rhinos in its wing and see what they say, the same crap written by a bunch of bitter Tomcat drivers was written about there bird when it was transition time for the F-4 jockeys. The ones that are yelling the loudest are the ones that didnt get slotted to transition, suprise there not happy.

And for the F-15 vs F-14 arguement, they dont respect an aircraft that telegraphs its energy state at visual range. We had that discussion on ARC, he might as well radio his airspeed during the whole fight.

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2004, 01:41
by avon1944
Dammerung wrote:Speed is life... Only way you can fight Low-Speed High-AoA is one on one... and if it's one on one, someone screwed up, bad

There are to many examples where an aircraft gets caught with its airspeed down around the 300kts mark. Some of times when working the verticle or in a "furball" it is not difficult to wind up this way. A bad guy fires a missile at you and you maneuver to escape it. Now after you escape it you have bleed off most all your airspeed plus you are several thousand feet below the rest of the fight. Yes you want to get your speed up but, it is more difficult when you have to gain several thousand feet in order to get back into the fight. Plus you have to worry that the bad guy who fired at you or one of his buddies will fire on you again while your energy state is low, you are now truely a sitting duck!

The USAF, NATO, and IDF/AF believe in this but, none of these countries desire the furball. (SEE NOTE) Now the Soviet Union/Russian with their numerical superiority desire the furball.

Their plan is to send third generation aircraft in force to engage US aircraft and while engage have their fourth generation aircraft (MiG.-29 or Su-27, etc.) to engage the American aircraft. Having a higher energy state, the Russian 4th generation fighters would prevail over the American super fighters.

(This is not my philosophy, it is just an explaination of why some aircraft are designed to fight the lower speed air battles.)

NOTE: The AIMVAL/ACEVAL Test back in 1977/78 pointed out reguardless of quality difference of the aircraft, if the pilots are all competent then, the "unseen shooter" will cause the kill ratio to be 2:1 at best!
A F-15A can beat a F-5A in 1V1 -64:0. By the time you get to 32 Vs 32 F-15A's beat F-5A's 2:1!!


Lawman wrote:no Canada and the Swiss arent buying any at the moment

Canada is flaking out defense spending wise, after all.... who is going to attack a country that shares a three thousand mile border with the USA?
They have a great body of water of which a sub with cruise missiles could launch and virtually no chance of detection -Hudson Bay down into James Bay! Just several hundred miles from New York, Detroit, Chicago, etc. behind much of NORAD's detection line. (Another topic).

Kuwait appears to be the only real firm country having stated they wanted twenty aircraft. No definitive word from Austrailia who needs updating of many systems and have decided to keep the F-111's going for at least another 15-20 years!

So you have Kuwait as the country who has put their money where their mouth is, one or two discussing and four or five just sitting and thinking. Not good on follow up buisness, not a ringing endorsement.

the F-15 vs F-14 arguement, they dont respect an aircraft that telegraphs its energy state at visual range.

The F-15A pilot I talked to at an airshow respected the F-14, he felt the F-15A was better at dogfighting. He did make mention of the problem of the F-14A telegraphing its energy state but still felt overall the Navy had a good plane. The mission the Tomcat has to do is a lot more different than a lot of people realize. Yes they both need to be able to dogfight but the Tomcat must be able to cover large areas of space and operate without any assistance if required. Be able to look into powerful broadband jamming and at a good range be able to detect cruise missiles and the bombers that carry them. To attack the bombers dispite the presence of close fighter escort.

This conversation with the F-15A pilot was back when the US Navy operation Moffett Field NAS and had annual airshows with either the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds or, sometimes international groups like the Red Arrows, Smoke Squadron, Snow Birds, Freece Tri Colore, etc..

These values are not set in "stone tablets." If you don't believe them it does not mean you are going to hell and if you believe in them it doesn't mean automatically that you are going to heaven. They are just opinions!!

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 00:02
by LWF
Here's what I have to say. Viper wins period. The Hornet was the reject of a competition to see what is the better fighter and then the Navy took the reject and completely redesigned the airframe and made it a big beefy thing.
And I better not here the argument that the F-16 was only chosen for the engine. Because the reason why the F-16 was chosen, was that it was so incredibly maneuverable and agile. Each test pilot on the LWF program flew both the YF-16 and the YF-17 and the decision was unanimous, each and every pilot wanted the F-16.
Oh, and the Viper's long range (for a fighter) helped, too.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2005, 19:11
by Pat1
Here's what I have to say. Viper wins period. The Hornet was the reject of a competition to see what is the better fighter and then the Navy took the reject and completely redesigned the airframe and made it a big beefy thing.


Then by that rule, the F-16 was the reject in the NAVY's eyes!

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2006, 16:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
there was also a false bit of info on the F/A-18 earlier. The F/A-18 CANNOT out roll a Viper inless you are talking about speeds below 200 knts, even then the difference is negligible intill you get to 150 knts. I have seen only a Mirage 2000 out roll a Viper. F/A-18 was designed for a different regime, that of slow speeds and High angles of attack, the result is that the Hornet has a higher Instantaneous Turn Rate and a smaller turn radius, but the Viper was designed for power and has a higher sustained turnrate, higher roll rate, and a higher rate of climb. Anyone flying one against the other must know the differences and how to combat them. Personally, Gimme a Viper anyday!! I would give my left nut to be a Viper pilot.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2006, 06:57
by INO
I have never listened to so much bs from so many people in my life. How many people here actually fly and F-16 or F-18 or any other fighter aircraft for that matter? Sounds like a bunch of guys with wayyy to much time on their hands quoting articles that are biased for each aircraft. The article about a Navy CMDR saying I hope the politicians burn in hell and other garbage is just that. I know this is an F-16 site but lets get real. Thinking the Viper is the best A/C on the planet is a little foolish. Yes it has its strengths and weakness. As do all platforms. I am just amazed at how some people on this site ignore facts from credible sources, ie the LCDR that has hours in both, and start running off at the mouth like they know all and see all. So how about some credintails from those on this site that like to talk much smack. What do you fly, if anything?

INO

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2006, 15:25
by elp
:lol:

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2006, 15:57
by Guysmiley
*Brmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm*

Anyone hear that? It sounds like an INO model TROLLing motor! LOL

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2006, 16:19
by shiz302
The internet is bench racing for fighter pilots sir!

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2006, 06:07
by INO
Bench racing is one thing. Talking crap about something you dont know is just plain ignorant.

And I'm not trolling, just trying to get some facts straight.

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2006, 17:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
My experience with these forums is that some people are avid aviation enthusiast who read all they can and form oppinions, others are poilts/maintenance personel who DO know what they are taking about on a given subject, and others are aerospace engineers who approach the questions analtically. Me, i'm in the last catagory. I have also studied ACM in my spare time. My personal mission has always been to understand the dogfight and the physics involved. I have done a decent job I think, after comparing my notes and calculations to the experiences of Fighter Pilots that I have spoken to. so these "Plane A vs. Plane B" arguments are never as simple as "this palne wins" Different aircraft are designed with different missions and as such have different performance in different regimes.

INO, for someone who spends time thrashing others credentials I dont see you offering yours. Fairs fair, I already offered mine. You might want to hold off on insulting the intelligence of people, especially ones you dont know. I have seen this get vary bad in other forums.

Is the Viper the best plane in the world? In a given set of conditions, it can be. Can it be beaten? Yep. Can it beat MANY other planes? yep. Can ANY modern fighter beat ANY OTHER modern fighter? yep. it all comes down to TACTICS!

Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2006, 02:37
by TurnandBurn55
avon1944 wrote:The F/A-18E/F is a far different aerial combat animal than the F/A-18C/D. The C/D is a true dogfighter the E/F is not! The General Accounting Office did a report and compared the E/F versus the C/D.
They ripped apart the E/F! It accelerates slower, decelerates slower, turns instantaneous and sustained less than the C/D. Several times during dogfights the C/D forced the E/F to dissengage due to "bingo fuel!"

Here is a URL that compares the F-14D versus the F/A-18E/F.
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f ... 4f18_1.asp


Sorry for ragging on you, but this article has been repeatedly debunked through and through as being pure horsesh!t. It's almost infamous in NAVAIR for the number of times we've had to answer to the stuff RADM Gilchrist has said.

Simply put, it's a collection of lies and half-truths. The VFA community is very small in the Navy. To this day, nobody can find the JV Hornet pilots who claim to have run Supers out of gas. Gilchrist has been asked who and when claimed this happened... as it turns out, he didn't get this info firsthand... he just heard it from a USMC F/A-18 pilot in Quantico who heard it from someone else. To date, there is ZERO evidence that this EVER happened.

There are plenty more laughably stupid claims in that article which... if you had done a tiny bit of research, you'd know... are complete and utter lies.

Gilchrist is simply a bitter old Tomcat type who can't get over the fact that his platform has been passed over. Hey, most F-14 guys have accepted that it had its days, it was a legend, and a it's a new time. A time in which their replacement can even wax gold-plated quarter-billion dollar little Raptors....

RE: Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2006, 04:57
by INO
sportsdlyscotts....,

I'm in your second catagory. And I dont know how to work on planes.

RE: Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2006, 19:38
by sprstdlyscottsmn
INO, so that would make you a pilot. Was that so hard to say? :D Now the question is pilot of what. Loads of people fly, even I fly Cessna 172s, but when someone admits to being a fighter pilot of a given type then they get taken more seriously in these forums.

Another thing to remmeber is to ease off the insults. It doesnt matter if you are a high time SR-71 pilot, if you insult people on the boards they wont listen to you.

RE: Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2006, 19:44
by INO
I'm a Rhino pilot and sometime people that talk sheite need to be brought back down to this world. I will make you a bet that elp and others will still tell me how bad a SH is and what it can and can't do. Oh well thats what we fight for. Freedom of speech, etc...

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2006, 22:12
by elp
INO wrote:I'm a Rhino pilot and sometime people that talk sheite need to be brought back down to this world. I will make you a bet that elp and others will still tell me how bad a SH is and what it can and can't do. Oh well thats what we fight for. Freedom of speech, etc...


Yeah. Quit being a freedom hater. :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2006, 01:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
INO, Congrats on the Rhino. I have been biased toward Vipers my whole life and still love them to death but I look at aircraft performance from an engineers standpoint, and then occasionally fly planes in gunzo fights in flight sims to test my theories (have to rely on accurate flight modeling then). I'm sure you cant say much on the subject but my sim experience is that when a rhino gets slow it stays slow (compared to -16, -15, MiG-29) but I often use that to my advantage by forcing my much faster opponent to overshoot and then using a 3 digit turning circle to stay on their tail and accelerate at that point. Have scored gunzo kills on the whole teen series as well as MiG, Su, and Raptor. My final word as an engineer? Hell of a turning machine! Weather it can escape or not? Who cares, once you get engaged you have the tools needed to kill anything. Welcome to the boards INO.

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2006, 03:17
by Bwadwey
I always thought the nickname Rhino was given to the Phantom, and does the name Rhino also associate with the Hornets or just the Super bugs?

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2006, 05:44
by Des
I always thought the nickname Rhino was given to the Phantom, and does the name Rhino also associate with the Hornets or just the Super bugs?

Rhino is associated with the super bugs.

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2006, 06:45
by TurnandBurn55
"Rhino" is used at the boat as opposed to "Hornet" largely because of the massive difference in trap weights. Set the arrestor cables for an -18C when it's an -18F, and it'll rip the cables right on and go off the other end. Think I heard of that happening to VFA-102 or VFA-154 in Japan, but don't quote me on that.

Legacy to the old F-4 bubbas... keeping the tradition alive :)

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 01:09
by Corous
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were gonna be talking about a situation where a viper engages a super hornet?

I am of the opinion that if neither aircraft has an altitude advantage and they are engaged BVR with pure A-A loadouts, the super hornet would have an advantage due to the larger number of AMRAAMs it has. But I could be wrong since I'm the engineer type too.

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 01:48
by Obi_Offiah
Corous wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were gonna be talking about a situation where a viper engages a super hornet?

I am of the opinion that if neither aircraft has an altitude advantage and they are engaged BVR with pure A-A loadouts, the super hornet would have an advantage due to the larger number of AMRAAMs it has. But I could be wrong since I'm the engineer type too.


I think the the Rhinos AESA may be an advantage also.

Obi

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 01:57
by Corous
Obi_Offiah wrote:
I think the the Rhinos AESA may be an advantage also.

Obi


Hmm, you are right. Greater detection range does help, especially if both are hugging the ground.

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 12:50
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yes but Block 60 has AESA as well. F-16E also has integrated IRST. I guess LM is taking lessons learned from F-22 and applying them to Viper. Rhino will out turn the Viper and as such would employ angles tactics while the Block 60 could out power the Rhino and as such should employ energy tactics. Both have reduced RCS, though the Hornet has more reduction, it had a larger RCS in the first place too.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 22:20
by kaptor
One last thing about the Gilchrist article. As I understand it in the Hornet vs SH comparisons talking about the SH's running out of fuel on simulated missions with the Hornets, what wasnt stated was that the Hornets were getting re-fueled and shot down while the Sh's were doing neither.
Also if you do the math you'll se a SH as a tanker carries more fuel than the KA-6D ever did and can still keep up with a strike package which the K-Truder could not do.
And in the "speed is life" catagory the Hornets, Vipers and the F-14D all top out at around the same speed, Mach 2. The D Tomcat is much slower than the previous versions, acceleration is a whole different matter though lol.

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 12:36
by falconcorn
http://www.gandt.com/books/TKS01.asp

a story of a hornet's a$$ being kick by a israeli viper pilot...cool story

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 17:27
by kaptor
yes a "story" starring Pearly Gates and Flash Gordon :roll:
No Hornet pilot would be suprised to see another plane go vert against him.

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 09:39
by avon1944
This URL was posted before on this website and it is appropriate for the topic. A Navy F/A-18 test pilot on an Air Force exchange tour flying a F-16, discussing the merits of both aircraft. An enlightening article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9262073

Adrian

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 18:18
by kaptor
I've seen that article before and it's a very good one. I know a pilot who came at it from the other direction, he flew Phantoms, Eagles and CJs, then did an exchange tour with the USMC flying Hornets. Same conclusion, Hornet is the one he would want to fight in due to the sytems and info it gave him. The cockpit upgrades for the F-16 will no doubt even this up a bit, but the main fact is that BOTH of these planes are darn nasty to have to defeat in real life.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2006, 06:51
by HunterKiller
Happy_Gilmore wrote:The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running. Having maintained both jets, I can tell you from a maintenance standpoint the Hornet had NOTTA on the Viper. Very unreliable and maintainability is a nightmare, ask any Hornet weenie about the switching valves and hydraulic system migration problems. I could go on and on but since to didn't ask about the maintenance part of it, I'll just shut up.
Have a great day.


Thats complete Bravo Sierra!

Finnish Air Force looked for new 4gen fighter jets to replace old Fishbeds on early-90s and the initial competition was:

1. F-16C
2. Mirage 2000-5
3. Jas 39 Gripen
4. MiG-29

They draw very comprehensive specification. None of those four were selected, MiG-29 was left out because of technical and quality issues. F-16 however was never favourite in this group, because Gripen offered this time better specs, off airfield capability and US was reluctant this time to sell F-16C with AMRAAMS. French, Swedes and Russians all agreed to sell planes medium range AAM-s. Testing took almost 3 years. Finns were first time allowed to buy fighter only by technical and flight data, not by cost or by politics.

Finally US reallised that they will probably loose that competition and offered finally F-18C with AMRAAMs.

This was REAL test, not any paper bullshit, it included even starts from snowy roadstrips, any kinds on real life radar tests against variuos air targets.

Why F-18 - because finns opten for clear fighter, Hornets were sold without AG weapons.

F-18 won that competition clearly, because of its real road capability and superior radar performance and firepower. F-16C was not ever considered. The Gripen came second, F-16 third and Mirage fourth.

And on this economical bravo-sierra what some viper lovers are talking. Finns made their estimations on ALL costs and the result was: it is enough to make only one single-engine fighter (from 64 jets) crash because of engine failure and this mill momentarily offset all money saved by lower price and running cost of single engine jet.

From 1994, finns have suffered 2 cases when Hornets came back with one engine (one of them in airshow and high AoA - when Viper would certainly crash).

So if those two cases were with single engine jet which would probably crashed, then finns were loosing more money that they could ever save in next 50 years from fuel and other costs.

So dont talk that bullshit on the overall cost superiority for Viper - Finnish case had proven exactly the opposite.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 05:55
by idesof
HunterKiller wrote:Thats complete Bravo Sierra!

Finnish Air Force looked for new 4gen fighter jets to replace old Fishbeds on early-90s and the initial competition was:

1. F-16C
2. Mirage 2000-5
3. Jas 39 Gripen
4. MiG-29

They draw very comprehensive specification. None of those four were selected, MiG-29 was left out because of technical and quality issues. F-16 however was never favourite in this group, because Gripen offered this time better specs, off airfield capability and US was reluctant this time to sell F-16C with AMRAAMS. French, Swedes and Russians all agreed to sell planes medium range AAM-s. Testing took almost 3 years. Finns were first time allowed to buy fighter only by technical and flight data, not by cost or by politics.

Finally US reallised that they will probably loose that competition and offered finally F-18C with AMRAAMs.

This was REAL test, not any paper bullshit, it included even starts from snowy roadstrips, any kinds on real life radar tests against variuos air targets.

Why F-18 - because finns opten for clear fighter, Hornets were sold without AG weapons.

F-18 won that competition clearly, because of its real road capability and superior radar performance and firepower. F-16C was not ever considered. The Gripen came second, F-16 third and Mirage fourth.

And on this economical bravo-sierra what some viper lovers are talking. Finns made their estimations on ALL costs and the result was: it is enough to make only one single-engine fighter (from 64 jets) crash because of engine failure and this mill momentarily offset all money saved by lower price and running cost of single engine jet.

From 1994, finns have suffered 2 cases when Hornets came back with one engine (one of them in airshow and high AoA - when Viper would certainly crash).

So if those two cases were with single engine jet which would probably crashed, then finns were loosing more money that they could ever save in next 50 years from fuel and other costs.

So dont talk that bullshit on the overall cost superiority for Viper - Finnish case had proven exactly the opposite.


Only reason anyone these days would chose an F-18C over an F-16C Block 50 is the two-engine safety issue. The F-16 has repeatedly kicked the F-18's a$$ in foreign sales for a reason. Compare the latest F-18C vs. the latest F-16C Block 50 with AN/APG-68(V)9 radar, and the F-18's previous radar advantage disappears. Also, far smaller RCS for F-16, thus F-18 gets detected first. Moreover, F-18 can't make it to the corner store without refueling. F-16 higher maneuverability all around except AOA and low-speed handling. F-16C, non-Block 60 vs. F-18E BVR, F-18E wins every time due to AESA and reduced RCS. Close in, the F-18E has got the maneuverability of a brick. F-16E, as the Block 60 is now being called, vs. F-18E BVR, close call, although I do believe the 18's radar is still longer-ranged and the RCS may be lower. Still, why the USN didn't just stick to their plain vanilla 18Cs and F-14Ds a little while longer and just wait for the F-35C is beyond me. The super bug is an inferior machine in almost every measure compared to the F-14D. And the F-35C is in another league altogether. Again, why the hell the USN went with this super piece of $hit I have no clue. Wonder whether Randy Cunningham was involved in any way :wink:

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 06:46
by kaptor
Too bad your wrong lolol

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 15:11
by HunterKiller
All those comparisons do not have any point, because that time US offered to Finland F-16C earlier model with no AMRAAMs, got the point?

Mig, Mirage and Gripen were all offered with latest medium-range missiles available that time.

So in that case, F-16 was outclassed by nearly everything, including Fulcrum

Finally US realized that they will not get that deal and then they offered Hornet with AMRAAMs. Is that clear?

Hornet with APG-73 and AMRAAMs will outclass ANY block F-16 armed with Sidewinders, especially for air defence role and ANY block F-16 without Slammer will be outclassed badly by Alamo and R-73/HMS equiped Fulcrum and Flanker that are employed with large numbers. That is typical Finland vs USSR air-to-air engagement scenario - at least 3:1 in favour of russians.

If US offered good Falcon brand with sh*t weapons, no wonder that Hornet won. Or without Hornet, Gripen would won.

So in that case this compariosion and maneuverability chat is pointless. Especially non-related F-18E theory - we are talking about F-18C, not -E.

What is concering this "economical" advantage of Viper - the Finnish case had already proven that due to better flight safety, Hornet fleet of this size is cheaper at long run that Vipers. Maybe for 1,000 fleet fuel economy gives bigger saving that aircraft losses, but not for 64 aircraft fleet, where single crash is already catastrophic loss compared to fuel and ac price savings. So that this Viper theory is proved wrong already.

The second point that Americanos do not estimate is the REAL airframe lifespan. Please keep in mind that smaller countries fly their jets to physical lifetime limit, they do not store good airframes in junkyard. History has proven already, that carrier-type aircraft has longer REAL liftetime in ground-based use that regular ground-based jet? It has proven well with Phantoms - most German F-4F-s have more that 7,000 hours and they will probably get about 9,000 before retiring. How many hours USAF/USN planes got? F-4 was intially planned for 4000 hours.

How many hours typical USAF F-16 gets before AMARC? I am pretty sure that not more than 5000. Finns are planning to fly at least 9000. Because carrier type aircraft is more robust (so that hours can easily doubled in landbase-use) and it is more resistant to corrosion (70% of Finland border is sea). Plus Hornets take less G-force than Falcons.

Agility has little value for Finns, because in war they will take out overwhelming russians in medium range and do not engade at short range - this is sure death.

Plus this APG-73 radar is designed for "raid harrasment" - so taking on massive Soviet raids, but Falcon is not for that business.

So that theory on Vipers overall superiority tends to fall apart, eh?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 18:21
by kaptor
Now that I have more time to respond...
Only reason anyone these days would chose an F-18C over an F-16C Block 50 is the two-engine safety issue.

ONLY? F-16 has a horrific failure/airframe loss rate in USAF service compared to other modern types in non combat, it's a pretty big "ONLY".

The F-16 has repeatedly kicked the F-18's a$$ in foreign sales for a reason

Yes, because it's cheap to buy and relatively cheap to operate till you loose one.

Compare the latest F-18C vs. the latest F-16C Block 50 with AN/APG-68(V)9 radar, and the F-18's previous radar advantage disappears.

What "latest" F-18C are you speaking of, they havent been made for a while now, F-16s are still rolling off the assembly lines, the Hornet line in StL has been turning out SuperHornets for quite a while and with that in mind major Hornet upgrades were not implemented.

Also, far smaller RCS for F-16, thus F-18 gets detected first.

Maybee (maybee not ) in any case the Hornet is far better equipped to handle the threats that DO show up after detection. F-16s RCS was bad enough that even though it really wasnt a "first day" fighter they had to do a MAJOR RCS reduction program on it.

Moreover, F-18 can't make it to the corner store without refueling.

The price of having two engines in one small airframe.

F-16 higher maneuverability all around except AOA and low-speed handling.

Yup higher manueverabilty if your looking at G rate but DPS is where it counts in combat and low and slow is where your gonna have your life on the line and THAT'S where the Hornets work best.

F-16C, non-Block 60 vs. F-18E BVR, F-18E wins every time due to AESA and reduced RCS. Close in, the F-18E has got the maneuverability of a brick.

Wrong again, SH manueverabilty is second only to the Raptor, Hornets ( Super and otherwise) just cant do the verticle fight like some other planes can due to thier lack of TTWR.

Still, why the USN didn't just stick to their plain vanilla 18Cs and F-14Ds a little while longer and just wait for the F-35C is beyond me.

lol I'm not suprised it's beyond you ROFLMAOOO!!!!
Super Hornet came about due to the abject failure of the A-12, Navy NEEDED some kind, ANY kind of stealth and a greatly upgraded Hornet was the only outlet they had. JSF was only a dream and known as the JAST and was purely an X-plane program at that time to test tech for a next gen tri-service striker EVENTUALLY the Clintonistas determined the JAST could become a production airframe and the JSF program was born.
And bad news for you, when the F-35C IS available to the Navy, the SH's arnt going anywhere, the F-35 will just take over the strike role SH's will continue in defence, tanker and escort for a long time.


The super bug is an inferior machine in almost every measure compared to the F-14D.

Except in cost and supportability which was the whole impetus for the LWF program in the first place.

Again, why the hell the USN went with this super piece of $hit I have no clue. Wonder whether Randy Cunningham was involved in any way
A cheap shot from a troll and Top Gun fan no doubt, I am no longer amazed at what F-14 fans dream up.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2006, 04:49
by idesof
kaptor wrote:ONLY? F-16 has a horrific failure/airframe loss rate in USAF service compared to other modern types in non combat, it's a pretty big "ONLY".


Actually, the Viper has one of the lowest loss rates of any single-engined fighter in history. Moreover, one of the principal reasons for the relatively high loss rate for the F-16 is GLOC. Given that the Viper kicked the bug's a$$ in FMS, the so-called "horrific failure/airfame loss rate" was not so horrific to countries like Israel, Turkey, Denmark, Chile etc.

Yes, because it's cheap to buy and relatively cheap to operate till you loose one.


The latest F-16C, not to mention the F-16E, is not much less expensive than the last bugs off the line. Wonder why the UAC chose to spend billions to upgrade the F-16 and not just go with the super bug... Because the super bug is an inferior airframe through and through.

What "latest" F-18C are you speaking of, they havent been made for a while now, F-16s are still rolling off the assembly lines, the Hornet line in StL has been turning out SuperHornets for quite a while and with that in mind major Hornet upgrades were not implemented.


Exactly my point. The F-18 stopped being made, although it went into production after the Viper, simply because it could not compete, and not just because it was more expensive. As for the super bug, let me know when it ever gets exported.

Maybee (maybee not ) in any case the Hornet is far better equipped to handle the threats that DO show up after detection.


Oh, really? Guess you should tell that to all the countries that are still buying the latest Vipers. Meanwhile, the F-18 is OUT OF PRODUCTION!

F-16s RCS was bad enough that even though it really wasnt a "first day" fighter they had to do a MAJOR RCS reduction program on it.


"Bad enough"? I marvell at the extent of your ignorance. Its RCS reduction program was not undertaken as a result of any supposed defficiency, but because of advances in RAM. Look it up, kid: the F-16 has always had one of the lowest RCS values of any non-stealth aircraft, with or without RAM.

The price of having two engines in one small airframe.


And one of the principal reasons the Viper kicked its a$$ in FMS, given that many countries that imported it did not have the luxury of AAR.

Yup higher manueverabilty if your looking at G rate but DPS is where it counts in combat and low and slow is where your gonna have your life on the line and THAT'S where the Hornets work best.


It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about. The vast majority of dogfights in the fighter age have taken place high and fast. If ever a Viper or an Eagle or for that matter a Fulcrum ever get down "low and slow" is because their drivers have made some sort of terrible mistake to get to that point. Moreover, the hornet is underpowered, and it loses energy much faster than comparable aircraft. Low and slow, Viper goes vertical, reverses, shoots hornet in the a$$ while the latter is still trying to exceed 55 mph speed limit.

Wrong again, SH manueverabilty is second only to the Raptor, Hornets ( Super and otherwise) just cant do the verticle fight like some other planes can due to thier lack of TTWR.


Tell that to the people who saw the Typhoon and Mig-29OVT at Farnborough recently. SH better hope never to get into a WVR with just about any fighter flying out there today else it is toast.

lol I'm not suprised it's beyond you ROFLMAOOO!!!!
Super Hornet came about due to the abject failure of the A-12, Navy NEEDED some kind, ANY kind of stealth and a greatly upgraded Hornet was the only outlet they had. JSF was only a dream and known as the JAST and was purely an X-plane program at that time to test tech for a next gen tri-service striker EVENTUALLY the Clintonistas determined the JAST could become a production airframe and the JSF program was born.
And bad news for you, when the F-35C IS available to the Navy, the SH's arnt going anywhere, the F-35 will just take over the strike role SH's will continue in defence, tanker and escort for a long time.


Any kind of stealth? As in minimal, I suppose. Sources indicate SH's "stealth" means that its RCS is that of the standard bug. And I completely agree with you: SH isn't going anywhere, particularly not if its more than 20 miles from the carrier.

Except in cost and supportability which was the whole impetus for the LWF program in the first place.


Yep, with that logic, why not just get rid of your fleet? Then, you are assured of lower costs.

A cheap shot from a troll and Top Gun fan no doubt, I am no longer amazed at what F-14 fans dream up.


F-14? That was not the issue. The issue is that the Navy took an inferior airframe vis-a-vis the F-16 in the shape of the F-17, made it larger but with the same puny engines, and produced an even more inferior aircraft in the form of the F-18. And then, it made it larger yet, with still puny engines, and produced one of the biggest disasters in aviation history, namely, this so-called super hornet. I've always though the Europeans were extravagantly dumb for investing in the Typhoon and Rafale at the same time an entirely new generation of aircraft is being produced by the U.S., but compared to those, the SH is like pitting a Phantom against a Viper. No comparison. If ever the SH goes up against either the Typhoon, Rafale, or even the Grippen in a foreign sales competion and actually wins, I will eat my words. I am willing to bet half my income for the rest of my life that the SH generates not one single export order against any of the latest European desings, to say nothing of either the F-22 or F-35. Even the mud hen is a vastly superior aircraft at much lower cost. The Navy should stick to buying ships and let the USAF chose its aircraft. Hell, there's a reason with the Marine Corps want to have nothing to do with the SH....

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2006, 05:19
by idesof
HunterKiller wrote:All those comparisons do not have any point, because that time US offered to Finland F-16C earlier model with no AMRAAMs, got the point?


Tone down that attitude, buddy! Got the point? And who ever said anything about Finland? What the hell do I care about Finland. A cold, dark place that should be part of Russia as far as I'm concerned.

Mig, Mirage and Gripen were all offered with latest medium-range missiles available that time.

So in that case, F-16 was outclassed by nearly everything, including Fulcrum

Finally US realized that they will not get that deal and then they offered Hornet with AMRAAMs. Is that clear?


Is what clear? That Finland is irrelevant. Absolutely!

Hornet with APG-73 and AMRAAMs will outclass ANY block F-16 armed with Sidewinders, especially for air defence role and ANY block F-16 without Slammer will be outclassed badly by Alamo and R-73/HMS equiped Fulcrum and Flanker that are employed with large numbers. That is typical Finland vs USSR air-to-air engagement scenario - at least 3:1 in favour of russians.


So, you are comparing apples to oranges for what purpose? An F-18 with Amraams vs. a Viper with only Sidewinders? Real useful. Now, an F-18 with APG-73 and Amraams vs. an F-16 with APG-68(V)9 and Amraams is much more direct comparison. F-16 wins that fight. To say nothing of an F-16E with APG-80. One of those can shoot down half a squadron of Hornets single-handedly.

Also, why the hell is Finland conerned about Russia? Do they really expect an invation any time soon? What would Russia want from Finland? Nokia?

What is concering this "economical" advantage of Viper - the Finnish case had already proven that due to better flight safety, Hornet fleet of this size is cheaper at long run that Vipers. Maybe for 1,000 fleet fuel economy gives bigger saving that aircraft losses, but not for 64 aircraft fleet, where single crash is already catastrophic loss compared to fuel and ac price savings. So that this Viper theory is proved wrong already.


Why this obsession with Finland? If Finland chose the F-18 it's because it came with Amraams and the Viper did not. The only time the hornet beat the Viper in FMS was because the former had BVR abilities while the latter did not. Soon as the Viper began to be offered with Amraams, the hornet NEVER beat the Viper in a head-to-head FMS competition. Got it? Is that clear? Nothing to do with long-term operational costs.

The second point that Americanos do not estimate is the REAL airframe lifespan. Please keep in mind that smaller countries fly their jets to physical lifetime limit, they do not store good airframes in junkyard. History has proven already, that carrier-type aircraft has longer REAL liftetime in ground-based use that regular ground-based jet? It has proven well with Phantoms - most German F-4F-s have more that 7,000 hours and they will probably get about 9,000 before retiring. How many hours USAF/USN planes got? F-4 was intially planned for 4000 hours.

How many hours typical USAF F-16 gets before AMARC? I am pretty sure that not more than 5000. Finns are planning to fly at least 9000. Because carrier type aircraft is more robust (so that hours can easily doubled in landbase-use) and it is more resistant to corrosion (70% of Finland border is sea). Plus Hornets take less G-force than Falcons.

Agility has little value for Finns, because in war they will take out overwhelming russians in medium range and do not engade at short range - this is sure death.


Still on the Finns...

Plus this APG-73 radar is designed for "raid harrasment" - so taking on massive Soviet raids, but Falcon is not for that business.


Massive Soviet raids. Dude, Soviet Union dissolved well over a decade ago, look it up. Also, APG-68(V)9, you may want to look it up before you claim "Falcon" (are you talking about the Viper?) is "not for that business".

So that theory on Vipers overall superiority tends to fall apart, eh?


Well, the hornet is superior to Viper in terms of overall suckage. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2006, 08:31
by kaptor
Any kind of stealth? As in minimal, I suppose. Sources indicate SH's "stealth" means that its RCS is that of the standard bug.


Care to quote this alleged source?
Comparing designs shows the F-16 to have only minimal body blending as a stealth design feature and only the slightest fan blockage, both of those features were by accident due to aerodynamic concerns.
SH has by comparison virtually every stealth trick in the book. More twist in the intakes, planform alignment, sawtooth panel edges, a fan blocker, and stealth coatings ( F-16 and Hornet have coatings as well ). The DOD has already admitted the SH has a much lower RCS than has been revealed or aluded to.

Look it up, kid: the F-16 has always had one of the lowest RCS values of any non-stealth aircraft, with or without RAM.

LOL I would love for you to post RCS numbers, your obviously unaware of how size has little to do with RCS, and I'm most likely twice YOUR age "kid".

Actually, the Viper has one of the lowest loss rates of any single-engined fighter in history.

The whole safety point is that we are comparing twins to singles, not F-16s to Starfighters and F-8s.
Moreover, one of the principal reasons for the relatively high loss rate for the F-16 is GLOC.

Wrong, only about 25% of the FATALITIES were GLOC, for frame losses and misshaps GLOC was even less of a factor and doesnt change the fact that F-16s get bent at a much higher rate than other US fighters. If GLOC were causing it then it would still be a problem not a plus.

Aircraft Mishaps
----------------CLASS A-------CLASS B----DESTROYED----FATAL
For F-15-------#--RATE-------#--RATE----A/C--RATE-----PILOT
LIFETIME----109---2.47----195---4.42----100---2.26-----37
5 YR AVG-----3.6---1.94---12.0---6.47----2.6---1.40-----0.6
10 YR AVG---3.8---1.92----7.7---3.88-----3.1---1.56-----0.7

For F-16:
LIFETIME------286---4.30-----52---0.78----272--4.09-----73
5 YR AVG------13.0--3.70-----4.2--1.20----12.2--3.48----2.8
10 YR AVG----13.4---3.53-----3.2--0.84----12.8--3.37----2.9

For A-10:
LIFETIME------94-----2.42-----66---1.70----94----2.42----47
5 YR AVG------2.0----1.68----4.2----3.53---1.6---1.34----0.6
10 YR AVG-----2.3----1.86----2.2---1.78---2.2---1.78-----0.8

Quote:
What "latest" F-18C are you speaking of, they havent been made for a while now, F-16s are still rolling off the assembly lines, the Hornet line in StL has been turning out SuperHornets for quite a while and with that in mind major Hornet upgrades were not implemented.


Exactly my point. The F-18 stopped being made, although it went into production after the Viper, simply because it could not compete, and not just because it was more expensive. As for the super bug, let me know when it ever gets exported.

SH wont get exported because everyone is waiting for the F-35. Non offset exports for Rafale and Typhoon are minimal at best for similar reasons.
I already explained why the USN had to produce the SH, if you cant grasp it, it isnt my fault.

Quote:
Yup higher manueverabilty if your looking at G rate but DPS is where it counts in combat and low and slow is where your gonna have your life on the line and THAT'S where the Hornets work best.


It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about. The vast majority of dogfights in the fighter age have taken place high and fast. If ever a Viper or an Eagle or for that matter a Fulcrum ever get down "low and slow" is because their drivers have made some sort of terrible mistake to get to that point. Moreover, the hornet is underpowered, and it loses energy much faster than comparable aircraft. Low and slow, Viper goes vertical, reverses, shoots hornet in the a$$ while the latter is still trying to exceed 55 mph speed limit.

Spoken like a true sim pilot. They end up low and slow. Viper goes verticle, Hornet rotates, sends heater up Vipers tailpipe while in full burn. Hornet pilot goes home, F-16 pilot ejects for a variety of reasons.

Quote:
Wrong again, SH manueverabilty is second only to the Raptor, Hornets ( Super and otherwise) just cant do the verticle fight like some other planes can due to thier lack of TTWR.


Tell that to the people who saw the Typhoon and Mig-29OVT at Farnborough recently. SH better hope never to get into a WVR with just about any fighter flying out there today else it is toast.

This explains a lot, glad we dont fight wars at airshows.

Even the mud hen is a vastly superior aircraft at much lower cost.

Yes, too bad it's not survivable thus we have the SH, the F-22 and F-35.

Tone down that attitude, buddy! Got the point?

Tone down your own attitude trollboy.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2006, 17:22
by Shotgun
I just read this page. Was kinda surprised to see that this debate began in 2004...

Just to throw my opinion into the fray here.

If we are gonna compare and debate which aircraft will shoot down which, theres gonna be an infinite possibility of outcomes on who wins. If thats the case, at least declare similar parameters b4 comparison... Reading this thread, I've seen people talking about Bugs with AMRAAMs vs Vipers with Sidewinders... where's the fairness in that?

Make it fair. If the Superbug is gonna have helmet mounted cueing and AIM-9Xs, give the vipers helmet mounted sights and python4s. Besides, its probably gonna be another infinite possibility outcome.

And i believe this has been mentioned on the boards countless of times, and i believe is an agreed fact now. The hornets are good at nice slow sustained high aoa turns. Vipers may have a bit of problem keeping their energy state with their sharp turns. But remember, the t/w ratio (good motor) works for the vipers, allowing them to pick up speed faster in after burner. What does it mean? It means in all aircraft, against any other aircraft, there will be capabilities, whether hardware or software to utilise that will reduce if not negate its weakness against the opponent.

Lets just compare specs and leave it at that.

Trying to judge who kills who, would end up killing all our braincells.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2006, 18:48
by skrip00
Typical Anti-SuperHornet propaganda in this here thread. The USN wants 3 airframe types on its decks by 2020. The F/A-18E/F, F-35C, and the C/E-2.

This lowers overall costs while having an immense capability. The carrier of 2020, and even of today, has vastly superior striking power than that of the 1990s.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2006, 22:26
by RoAF
idesof wrote:
What the hell do I care about Finland. A cold, dark place that should be part of Russia as far as I'm concerned.


:wtf:

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2006, 04:39
by JCSVT
idesof wrote:Tell that to the people who saw the Typhoon and Mig-29OVT at Farnborough recently. SH better hope never to get into a WVR with just about any fighter flying out there today else it is toast.


If you are comparing airshows, the SH flies a very, very good routine. At least comparable to the Eurofighter. WVR the SH is still very potent. At low-speeds it's nothing to mess with and has even caught a Raptor off guard. The AoA limiter doesn't kick in until 55 degrees AoA and it will pull off a vertical pirouette with no problem. The only other American plane I know that can do that is the Raptor.

Here's a vert. pirouette video. Neat trick although I don't know if they use it in real ACM training.

http://airshowstuff.com/Website%20Videos/Cleveland%202005/018%20%20%20FA-18F%20East%20Coast%20Demonstration%20Team%20-%20Vertical%20Pirouette.rm

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 16:36
by HunterKiller
Funny thing that all guys talking about Viper be-ing cheaper to run usually present no facts or real life cases.

Finland's case had proven well (they made all the estimations and did not listen manufacturer's PR-talk) that for force less than 100 aircraft (I think that 90% of air forces worldwide are that size) it is enough to have one engine failure (which will crash F-16 but not F-18) in 10 years to offset ANY savings that single-engine jet offers by this time. Not to mention, that lot of ejections can cause mental/physical injury or death to pilot- a new one must be trained instead - and this costs as much another jet).

For example - Mig-29 did not compete at all with Western hardware - due to shorter airframe and engine lifespan), but is not significantly cheaper. Plus this time information on mishaps and troubles with Indian Fulcrums became available.

Both Viper and Hornet are great planes. Which one you choose, depens on how you plan to use it.

For Finns case I will go for Hornet or Gripen, both are first capable of handling rough runways. Hornets undercarriage is lot stronger and more stable (its lower and wider plus wheelbase is longer) - so it is more suitable for off-airfield use.

If you have rough terrain or lot of sea - it is better to have twin engine jet for safety reasons. Finns have proved the case allready (2 plane came home on one engine, one flameout occured on airshow at high AoA - both cases there have been big crashes if they had Viper).

So it depends on how to use it. Both are very potent machines and you cant tell that Viper smokes Hornet any time. Only desktop pilots will say so. :roll:

On the twin engine jets - no all twins present better flight safety. Mig-29 is not controllable on one engine, despite of Mikojan bureau claims. But Hornet is.

In Finnish airshow, one ot its engine flame out at low altitude (about 500 meters or so) at high AoA - but unlike the Mig-29 in Farnborough Hornet recovered and show visitors never realised what happened.

Edit: here you can see this airshow mishap:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 174&q=F-18

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 19:44
by idesof
HunterKiller wrote:Funny thing that all guys talking about Viper be-ing cheaper to run usually present no facts or real life cases.

Finland's case had proven well (they made all the estimations and did not listen manufacturer's PR-talk) that for force less than 100 aircraft (I think that 90% of air forces worldwide are that size) it is enough to have one engine failure (which will crash F-16 but not F-18) in 10 years to offset ANY savings that single-engine jet offers by this time. Not to mention, that lot of ejections can cause mental/physical injury or death to pilot- a new one must be trained instead - and this costs as much another jet).

For example - Mig-29 did not compete at all with Western hardware - due to shorter airframe and engine lifespan), but is not significantly cheaper. Plus this time information on mishaps and troubles with Indian Fulcrums became available.

Both Viper and Hornet are great planes. Which one you choose, depens on how you plan to use it.

For Finns case I will go for Hornet or Gripen, both are first capable of handling rough runways. Hornets undercarriage is lot stronger and more stable (its lower and wider plus wheelbase is longer) - so it is more suitable for off-airfield use.

If you have rough terrain or lot of sea - it is better to have twin engine jet for safety reasons. Finns have proved the case allready (2 plane came home on one engine, one flameout occured on airshow at high AoA - both cases there have been big crashes if they had Viper).

So it depends on how to use it. Both are very potent machines and you cant tell that Viper smokes Hornet any time. Only desktop pilots will say so. :roll:

On the twin engine jets - no all twins present better flight safety. Mig-29 is not controllable on one engine, despite of Mikojan bureau claims. But Hornet is.

In Finnish airshow, one ot its engine flame out at low altitude (about 500 meters or so) at high AoA - but unlike the Mig-29 in Farnborough Hornet recovered and show visitors never realised what happened.

Edit: here you can see this airshow mishap:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 174&q=F-18


I admit that is an awesome display. That thing can change direction on a dime! And its AoA capability, without the use of TVN, is unreal. No doubt, the F-18 smokes an F-16 low and slow. I've always though that was the F-16's biggest weakness: very limmited AoA. I remember reading an AvWeek article in the 1980s about a group that proposed some changes to the aerodynamics to correct that defficiency. Of course, they were never implemented, since the USAF has never seen the F-16 as an Air-to-Air platform. Anyway, the great shame about the bug are its engines, which are not fuel efficient (they are regarded as "leaky turbojets," that is, low-bypass ration turbofans) and do not produce enough thrust. Can you imagine an F-18C with a pair of 25K motors!? That would be something else. Seems like Navy fighters tend to have an issue with bad engines (think Tomcat, which went and got an airforce engine and, toward the end of its life, became the fighter it should have always been).

And by the way, people keep saying the Hornet is limited to 7.5Gs. Not so. It is a 9G airframe through and through. F-35C will be as well. Only the F-35B will be 7.5Gs.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 20:38
by kaptor
Anyway, the great shame about the bug are its engines, which are not fuel efficient (they are regarded as "leaky turbojets," that is, low-bypass ration turbofans) and do not produce enough thrust.


This is incorrect, the F-404 series is very efficient among fighter engines, SFC between 1.85 and 1.74 depending on version. The problem is that there are two of them in an airframe holding only 10Klb of fuel. Thrust is always a balance of power vs SFC vs longevity, the harder you run them the quicker they burn out. Just as the Hornet airframe is restricted to 7.5 for lifetime fatigue reasons so are engines de-rated to some extent for longer lifetime-less maintainance, both important factors over an ocean or on a ship at sea.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 20:39
by kaptor
double post.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 22:28
by idesof
kaptor wrote:
Anyway, the great shame about the bug are its engines, which are not fuel efficient (they are regarded as "leaky turbojets," that is, low-bypass ration turbofans) and do not produce enough thrust.


This is incorrect, the F-404 series is very efficient among fighter engines, SFC between 1.85 and 1.74 depending on version. The problem is that there are two of them in an airframe holding only 10Klb of fuel. Thrust is always a balance of power vs SFC vs longevity, the harder you run them the quicker they burn out. Just as the Hornet airframe is restricted to 7.5 for lifetime fatigue reasons so are engines de-rated to some extent for longer lifetime-less maintainance, both important factors over an ocean or on a ship at sea.


If the Hornet were restricted to 7.5Gs only, then how come it habitually flies airshow routines where it pulls a maximum performance, 9G turn? It may be true that during peacetime it may be thus restricted, but it is not a "hard ceiling," as it were. The Hornet is just as capable as the Viper of pulling 9Gs. Whether pilots are trained or instructed not to pull 7.5Gs during training for lifetime fatigue reasons is another matter.

Again, the F-404 is regarded as a "leaky turbojet" with a low by-pass ratio, far lower than that of the F-100 and F-110. No doubt that the bug's fuel load is light for a twin-engined fighter that size, but the fact remains that the F-404 is not as efficient as a true turbofan.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 22:54
by kaptor
I'm curious how you are able to determine an F-18 ( or anything else ) is pulling 9Gs at an air show?
Yes Hornets can pull 9Gs just as well as Viper, but the Navy still restricts them to 7.5 regardless of your opinion. The 9G capability is available to export customers now, aparently the Navy doesnt see a need for 9Gs.

High or low bypass isnt as important as what you end up with, SFC is the measure of efficiency in an engine
F-100 1.94 in the 229 to 2.1 in all other versions.
F-110 ranges from 1.9 to 2.09 in the block 60.
F-404 from 1.74 to 1.85.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 22:57
by idesof
kaptor wrote:I'm curious how you are able to determine an F-18 ( or anything else ) is pulling 9Gs at an air show?
Yes Hornets can pull 9Gs just as well as Viper, but the Navy still restricts them to 7.5 regardless of your opinion. The 9G capability is available to export customers now, aparently the Navy doesnt see a need for 9Gs.

High or low bypass isnt as important as what you end up with, SFC is the measure of efficiency in an engine
F-100 1.94 in the 229 to 2.1 in all other versions.
F-110 ranges from 1.9 to 2.09 in the block 60.
F-404 from 1.74 to 1.85.


Well, when the announcer said, "And now, for the 9G high-performance turn," I took him at his word.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 23:37
by kaptor
ahhhhhhhh lol

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 00:59
by LordOfBunnies
kaptor wrote:High or low bypass isnt as important as what you end up with, SFC is the measure of efficiency in an engine
F-100 1.94 in the 229 to 2.1 in all other versions.
F-110 ranges from 1.9 to 2.09 in the block 60.
F-404 from 1.74 to 1.85.


Are these numbers dry or wet? They look way to high to be mil thrust. The AB eats fuel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner which could explain the high numbers. those are also in lb/hr/lb right?

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 01:07
by kaptor
yes, lbs of fuel, per lbs of thrust in re-heat/AB.
You can frequently just get dry or wet SFC numbers not always both.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 05:29
by HunterKiller
Heh, in that comparision this 9G is not any advantage for Viper, if both are driven properly. Hornet does not need to pull that G to smoke Viper, because his territory are slow speeds and nose pointing ability. With slow speed, et does not need 9G, because G is function of turn radius and speed.

As you can see from this Finnish video, Hornet's nose pointing ability is pretty close to Fulcrum and Flanker. More power and speed does not give to Viper any advantage. Advantage is to get your enemy in front of your plane's nose. To smoke a Viper it is enough to turn or to pull your nose and hold it to lock your Sidewinders - and Vipers afterburning engine is pretty good target for that.

I would say that chances are 50:50 - so that both are more or less equal.

Why Hornet has less power - I think that this is not fault of engineering, but power and range is allways compromising and Navy probably choose reasonable power and usable range. Good example for lightweight fighter (Flanker and Eagle are heavyweight) with good power is Mig-29- it has good power but virtually no range. Its REAL combat radius with typical profile and underbelly tank (which limits its G to 6,0 as well) is hardly-hardly 125 nm - if Hornet was designed like this, it has virtually no value for Navy.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 16:55
by idesof
HunterKiller wrote:Heh, in that comparision this 9G is not any advantage for Viper, if both are driven properly. Hornet does not need to pull that G to smoke Viper, because his territory are slow speeds and nose pointing ability. With slow speed, et does not need 9G, because G is function of turn radius and speed.

As you can see from this Finnish video, Hornet's nose pointing ability is pretty close to Fulcrum and Flanker. More power and speed does not give to Viper any advantage. Advantage is to get your enemy in front of your plane's nose. To smoke a Viper it is enough to turn or to pull your nose and hold it to lock your Sidewinders - and Vipers afterburning engine is pretty good target for that.

I would say that chances are 50:50 - so that both are more or less equal.

Why Hornet has less power - I think that this is not fault of engineering, but power and range is allways compromising and Navy probably choose reasonable power and usable range. Good example for lightweight fighter (Flanker and Eagle are heavyweight) with good power is Mig-29- it has good power but virtually no range. Its REAL combat radius with typical profile and underbelly tank (which limits its G to 6,0 as well) is hardly-hardly 125 nm - if Hornet was designed like this, it has virtually no value for Navy.


Well, there is no more heated pissing contest than that between bug and Viper advocates. Obviously, drivers will play to their own strengths and try to exploit their oponent's weaknesses. All I can tell you, though, is that when the U.S. Navy recently paid a visit to Israel and hornet drivers got a chance to go up against Israeli Vipers, the kill ratio in favor of the Israelis was something like 300-to-1. No joke. Of course, most of that has to do with Israeli pilots being by common consent the best in the world. In the end, there is no arguing that whomever wins between a hornet vs. Viper dogfight it has nothing to do with the plane.

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2006, 23:36
by INO
If the Hornet were restricted to 7.5Gs only, then how come it habitually flies airshow routines where it pulls a maximum performance, 9G turn? It may be true that during peacetime it may be thus restricted, but it is not a "hard ceiling," as it were. The Hornet is just as capable as the Viper of pulling 9Gs. Whether pilots are trained or instructed not to pull 7.5Gs during training for lifetime fatigue reasons is another matter.




kill ratio in favor of the Israelis was something like 300-to-1. No joke.



Dude,

Where do you get your info. How do you know what navy pilots are trained to do or not to do and what an F-18 is capable of? When you get some stick time in any tactical jet (non computer sim) let me know. 300-1. Please. I havent heard someone so full of sh!t in a long time. Dont try to post your BS about an F-18 here son. And the F-18 already has JHMCS, 9x and APG-79 so its not something that we will get, its something we have. And you can guess what the capabilities of these systems are, and it would be just that, a guess. The capabilities of these systems are classified for a reason. But if it makes you feel important, then go ahead and dazzle me with all of your knowledge.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2006, 06:35
by kaptor
I get my info from Navy manuals, the DOD, the manufacturer, and published sources, I also have a family relative who works as a liason between the Gov and Boeing on the SH program. Boeing has stated the export Hornets can have 9G capability if the customer desires, probly just a software change.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2006, 10:38
by idesof
INO wrote:Dude,

Where do you get your info. How do you know what navy pilots are trained to do or not to do and what an F-18 is capable of? When you get some stick time in any tactical jet (non computer sim) let me know. 300-1. Please. I havent heard someone so full of sh!t in a long time. Dont try to post your BS about an F-18 here son. And the F-18 already has JHMCS, 9x and APG-79 so its not something that we will get, its something we have. And you can guess what the capabilities of these systems are, and it would be just that, a guess. The capabilities of these systems are classified for a reason. But if it makes you feel important, then go ahead and dazzle me with all of your knowledge.


I have read your posts elsewhere and have always doubted the veracity of your statements regarding you allegedly being a "fighter pilot" with the U.S. Navy. While there are a number of things you've written that point to you being at best a "fighter pilot" flying off the aircraft carrier USS Imagination, none give it away more so than your lack of knowledge about the results of excercises flown between the U.S. Navy, Marines and the IDF. 300-to-1 was an exaggeration, but it was, approximately, the israelis winning 220 out of 240 engagements.

Please, it would be greatly helpful for all involved for you to stop masquerading as a "pilot." I am not certain what you wish to accomplish from your fraud. Should you wish to continue perpetrating this fraud, I am sure this may be taken up with the relevant authorities.

P.S. - Also, in order for you to be able to call me "son," you would have to be well into your 80s, which would also make it difficult for you to act in the capacity of a "fighter pilot."

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2006, 16:34
by INO
Please send the authorities my way. I'm in hangar 404 at Oceana in the JOPA. Then after they come talk to me I'll accept your public apology for calling me a liar. I have never flown off the USS imagination. However, I have taken traps and cat shots off the JFK, Truman and TR. If you dad is in his 80's that would put you in your 60's. So, maybe I should call you gramps instead of son. Now I understand your ramblings. Anyways, your info is second rate at best. And YOU masquerading as a reliable source on Hornet/Rhino capabilities and tactics or any other type of tacair scenario is laughable. The only thing that I am trying to accomplish here is straightening out the BS you and others post. I could care less if you "believe" that I'm a fighter pilot or not. I also don't care if you feel all warm and fuzzy inside or sleep well at night. My goal in life isn't to make you feel better about yourself. But I will tell people that they are full of crap when they talk smack about things that they don't know. I'll make a deal with you. I wont tell you how to flip burgers at McDonald's and you don't tell me how to fly Rhino's in the Navy.

Also the 7.5 g limiter can be over ridden in U.S. Hornets and Rhinos. It is not something "practiced" or normally used. Can it be done easily? Yes. Does it require a software change? No. The G limit override allows the Rhino a 33% increase in available g. So, a 7.5g base would give you a 10g limit. A software change would only be needed to raise the limiter from 7.5 to 9.0g's.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2006, 18:41
by idesof
INO wrote:Please send the authorities my way. I'm in hangar 404 at Oceana in the JOPA. Then after they come talk to me I'll accept your public apology for calling me a liar. I have never flown off the USS imagination. However, I have taken traps and cat shots off the JFK, Truman and TR. If you dad is in his 80's that would put you in your 60's. So, maybe I should call you gramps instead of son. Now I understand your ramblings. Anyways, your info is second rate at best. And YOU masquerading as a reliable source on Hornet/Rhino capabilities and tactics or any other type of tacair scenario is laughable. The only thing that I am trying to accomplish here is straightening out the BS you and others post. I could care less if you "believe" that I'm a fighter pilot or not. I also don't care if you feel all warm and fuzzy inside or sleep well at night. My goal in life isn't to make you feel better about yourself. But I will tell people that they are full of crap when they talk smack about things that they don't know. I'll make a deal with you. I wont tell you how to flip burgers at McDonald's and you don't tell me how to fly Rhino's in the Navy.

Also the 7.5 g limiter can be over ridden in U.S. Hornets and Rhinos. It is not something "practiced" or normally used. Can it be done easily? Yes. Does it require a software change? No. The G limit override allows the Rhino a 33% increase in available g. So, a 7.5g base would give you a 10g limit. A software change would only be needed to raise the limiter from 7.5 to 9.0g's.


Far beyond your self-righteous diatribe--and the personal attacks which are beneath me to answer--what "crap" exactly is it that you are trying to counter as regards what I have written? My points regarding the Hornet have been the following:

1. It is underpowered.
2. It is a short-legged aircraft.
3. Its low-speed maneuverability is enviable, but at higher speeds it is no match for a Viper or a Fulcrum.
4. There is not hard 7.5g limit on the bug.

Point No. 4 you obviously have no quarrel with, and it only serves to confirm what I have always contended. Points 2 and 3 have been widely accepted, by Hornet advocates included. In fact, the superbug was created, among other reasons, to rectify point No. 2, although it continues to be a short-legged aircraft comparatively speaking. As for No. 1, only die-hard Hornet advocates would have a quarrel with that. So, tell me again, where is the bullsh*t? And if this bullsh*t is so patently wrong, why even bother to counter it? If you are really who you say you are, it would be beneath you to argue the point. And having known fighter pilots, they know a thing or two about civility and comportment before a civilian. You are either not a fighter pilot or if you are, you are guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and are subject to being reprimanded. Another dead give-away that you are a fraud: you would have never written "I could care less if you "believe" that I'm a fighter pilot or not." You would have written "naval aviator" if you really were one, not fighter pilot. So do us all a favor and quit trying to pass yourself off as one and get back to your videogames, will you?

Moreover, as a naval aviator, you would have known the results of joint Navy-IDF excercises and the fact that a better-flown Viper will beat a hornet flown by an inferior oponent any day. Your ignorance of these excercises are further indication that you are not who you say you are.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2006, 22:13
by INO
My comments are for the Rhino as that is what "I" fly. Not a video game version, but lot 28 and 29 Rhinos. Thanks for trying to quote some UCMJ articles. Officer unbecoming? Nice try. Telling someone that they are wrong or just plain ignorant isn't a UCMJ offense. Calling someone a liar, I believe, is slander though and isn't very nice. Especially when "I" am out there defending your right to call me a liar and give bum gouge about an aircraft that "I" fly.

First point. Do I wish I had more power in the Rhino? Sure, but everyone I know wants more power in whatever they fly. Except maybe the Raptor guys. Is the Rhino powerful enough. Depends, but it works just fine right now.

Second. The Rhino is short legged compared to what? A Viper? Eagle? Raptor? With the internals of a RHino plus a centerline, 2,3,4 or 5 wet with an ARS pod and in flight refueling, why dont you let "me" know how far I can or cant go. Rhinos are flying 6-8 hour missions as we speak. My longest is about 5 hours and that wasnt very fun. With todays RVSM restrictions we (as in all of us that fly Rhinos) or "I" if you need that said can still two leg it from California to Va Beach with a centerline only.

Third. Maneuverability at slow speeds is second to none. Maneuverability at high speeds is also top notch. "You" may be confusing power addition to high speed maneuverability. Two extremely different subjects. If you could look at an EM diagram for todays top fighters, that would help you understand alot. Unfortunately, you cannot as they are classified. So until such time as they become unclassified or you get a clearance, let the professionals judge high speed maneuverability.

Fourth. There is a 7.5g limiter on the Rhino. It can also be lower depending on the aircrafts configuration, but not higher so 7.5 is a hard limit. "I" and other Rhino drivers can spike it over 7.5 during certain situations. This is called an overstress and make the maintainers unhappy as it gives them extra work to do. There is also an override and is for emergency use only. Not something used in training or everyday flying. Using the override is just like spiking the g over 7.5 or whatever the g limit is. Once again an over stress. Not something we in the community do. So your BS comment about a 9g maneuver at an air show is the first of your bad comments. This may not be your bad comment as you heard it second hand from an "announcer". But, passing bad gouge is passing bad gouge.

You, just like numerous other civilians, get info from suspect sources or read a biased article from another bad source and then claim that it is gospel. Then when I tell you you are wrong, because I know and fly said aircraft, all of a sudden I'm a liar, fraud, poser, etc. I dont know anything about a Navy-IDF exercises with your said 240-220 loss. I also just called two other guys that fly Rhinos and they dont know anything about your 300-1 loss excersise either. Maybe they are liars, posers frauds as well. When I go to work on Monday, I will look into it and ask some of the patch wearers about it. I will also check your figures as I think they are flat wrong. That said, during certain exercises there are a given ROE. Depending on that ROE, one could handcuff an opponent and make the odds looked skewed in either direction. If you are claiming that they were full up engagements then I will tell you that you are dead wrong. How about a source for this 300-1 or 240-220 loss record.

Also your comment of "A better flown Viper will beat a hornet flown by an inferior opponent anyday" No kidding. That is the under statement of the year. I also hope that you are comparing X pilot angainst Y pilot on a given day. If you are saying that the IDF pilots are a class above U.S Naval aviators, well buddy those are fighting words.



The personal attacks came when you called me a liar, fraud, poser etc... So, if you feel insulted that I called you a burger flipper or just plain ignorant then get over it. As far as the gramps comment, well if the shoe fits....

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2006, 04:17
by idesof
INO wrote:My comments are for the Rhino as that is what "I" fly. Not a video game version, but lot 28 and 29 Rhinos. Thanks for trying to quote some UCMJ articles. Officer unbecoming? Nice try. Telling someone that they are wrong or just plain ignorant isn't a UCMJ offense. Calling someone a liar, I believe, is slander though and isn't very nice. Especially when "I" am out there defending your right to call me a liar and give bum gouge about an aircraft that "I" fly.

First point. Do I wish I had more power in the Rhino? Sure, but everyone I know wants more power in whatever they fly. Except maybe the Raptor guys. Is the Rhino powerful enough. Depends, but it works just fine right now.

Second. The Rhino is short legged compared to what? A Viper? Eagle? Raptor? With the internals of a RHino plus a centerline, 2,3,4 or 5 wet with an ARS pod and in flight refueling, why dont you let "me" know how far I can or cant go. Rhinos are flying 6-8 hour missions as we speak. My longest is about 5 hours and that wasnt very fun. With todays RVSM restrictions we (as in all of us that fly Rhinos) or "I" if you need that said can still two leg it from California to Va Beach with a centerline only.

Third. Maneuverability at slow speeds is second to none. Maneuverability at high speeds is also top notch. "You" may be confusing power addition to high speed maneuverability. Two extremely different subjects. If you could look at an EM diagram for todays top fighters, that would help you understand alot. Unfortunately, you cannot as they are classified. So until such time as they become unclassified or you get a clearance, let the professionals judge high speed maneuverability.

Fourth. There is a 7.5g limiter on the Rhino. It can also be lower depending on the aircrafts configuration, but not higher so 7.5 is a hard limit. "I" and other Rhino drivers can spike it over 7.5 during certain situations. This is called an overstress and make the maintainers unhappy as it gives them extra work to do. There is also an override and is for emergency use only. Not something used in training or everyday flying. Using the override is just like spiking the g over 7.5 or whatever the g limit is. Once again an over stress. Not something we in the community do. So your BS comment about a 9g maneuver at an air show is the first of your bad comments. This may not be your bad comment as you heard it second hand from an "announcer". But, passing bad gouge is passing bad gouge.

You, just like numerous other civilians, get info from suspect sources or read a biased article from another bad source and then claim that it is gospel. Then when I tell you you are wrong, because I know and fly said aircraft, all of a sudden I'm a liar, fraud, poser, etc. I dont know anything about a Navy-IDF exercises with your said 240-220 loss. I also just called two other guys that fly Rhinos and they dont know anything about your 300-1 loss excersise either. Maybe they are liars, posers frauds as well. When I go to work on Monday, I will look into it and ask some of the patch wearers about it. I will also check your figures as I think they are flat wrong. That said, during certain exercises there are a given ROE. Depending on that ROE, one could handcuff an opponent and make the odds looked skewed in either direction. If you are claiming that they were full up engagements then I will tell you that you are dead wrong. How about a source for this 300-1 or 240-220 loss record.

Also your comment of "A better flown Viper will beat a hornet flown by an inferior opponent anyday" No kidding. That is the under statement of the year. I also hope that you are comparing X pilot angainst Y pilot on a given day. If you are saying that the IDF pilots are a class above U.S Naval aviators, well buddy those are fighting words.

The personal attacks came when you called me a liar, fraud, poser etc... So, if you feel insulted that I called you a burger flipper or just plain ignorant then get over it. As far as the gramps comment, well if the shoe fits....


From Bill Sweetman--heard of him?--writing for Jane's International Defense Review--heard of it?

"According to one source, US Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets from the Balkans theater recently engaged in mock combat with Israeli Air Force fighters. The Hornets were armed with AIM-9s, and the Israeli fighters carried Python 3 and Python 4 missiles and Elbit DASH helmet sights. IDR's source describes the results as "more than ugly", the Israelis prevailing in 220 out of 240 engagements."

Granted, you have a situation here where one side did have a huge technological advantage, namely, helmet mounted sights and high-off-boresight missiles. I suppose in this case, doesn't matter how good the Hornet pilots were, they were going to get whipped.

By the way, I appreciate that you would want to defend Naval Aviators. However, I don't think that many would argue that the Israeli Air Force, man-for-man, is not the best air force in the world.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2006, 05:13
by INO
Sorry, I normally don't read Jane's. Bill Sweetman? Nope. I admit I'm guilty of not reading Jane's. There are a few copies that float around the squadron every blue moon, but I normally study the Tac Man and Top Gun manuals.

Baby Hornets limited to a 9m with no AMRAAM, 9x or helmet vs helmet and python 3's and 4's. Lets just find a guy, handcuff him and kick the crap out of him. Same results.

And Air Force is Air Force. Nice having several thousand feet of concrete to land on. Like I told my dad (AF F-4 and F-16 guy) flaring is for wussies. And I'm not knocking the IDF. Good guys that see alot of action. But come on, they aren't Naval Aviators. Try landing on the boat in the middle of the night with no moon, bad weather, pitching deck and having been strapped to an ejection seat flying a self escort strike mission for 4+ hours.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2006, 17:01
by Lawman
I remember hearing about that excercise. Yes a Marine squadron went down to run with the Israeli's. From what I recall they were flying red air to simulate Mig-29's because they had the same kind of low speed nose pointing ability of the Fulcrum. The Marines were using the excercise to test tactics that they believed to be inferior when engaging a threat that has a Helmet Mounted HOBS weapon system such as Python. I also remember that the excersice in question took place almost 15 years ago..... So as you can see from excercises like Red October Naval/Marine Air has come a long way in incorperating tactics to defeat a threat armed with such weapon systems.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2006, 21:14
by INO
Ohhh that exercise. Thats the one that all Naval Aviators learn in Navy flight school. I just realized that I got robbed in my training in Pensacola, Corpus, Meridian and Virginia Beach. I guess that I'm not a real fighter pilot after all. D@mn, I guess I should have been reading my Jane's subscription instead of Natops, SOP's, Tacmans and TopGun. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2006, 22:02
by Lawman
INO wrote:Ohhh that exercise. Thats the one that all Naval Aviators learn in Navy flight school. I just realized that I got robbed in my training in Pensacola, Corpus, Meridian and Virginia Beach. I guess that I'm not a real fighter pilot after all. D@mn, I guess I should have been reading my Jane's subscription instead of Natops, SOP's, Tacmans and TopGun. :roll:


Dont forget Combat Aircraft Magazine, its the authority on BFM tactics the world over. I mean after all thats where I read about the excercise so it must be spot on right? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2006, 11:16
by HunterKiller
Hehh, Hornet with power like F-16 will be another Fulcrum - good power, but no range and funny small payload.

Putting 2 engines into small airframe strong enough for deck use is trading power for safety.

I think that Hornet is overall better balanced aircraft than Fulcrum. Fulcrum was not even chosen by Soviet Navy for carrier use - mainly because of non-existing combat range.

For optimum performance/range/payload only one engine is required for plane with weight from 10-16 tons.

And F-16 and F-18 arent directly comparable, because Hornets airframe strenght is something that Vipers can dream about. Viper will collapse after one deck landing. Strenght need materials, materials add weight, more weight mean less fuel, less fuel means less power and range.

How many hours aistrip use Hornet lasts? Not less than 7,000. How many Viper?

Case with carrier-based aircraft for landbase use was well proven with Phantom - German one's are all well over 7000 hours and will fly up to 2012 (it means add another 1200 hours).

And those planes were never made to combat each other (meeting even foreign F-16 and Navy's F-18 is very unlikely), but to combat Soviet Fulcrums, Floggers, Flankers and Fencers. They would problably be good at this and americans would dominate this combat, no doubt.

Many countries have preferred Hornet to Viper - Canada, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Australia. Why?

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2006, 03:32
by JCSVT
You tell him INO!

Never tell a pilot you know more about his plane than he does. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2006, 05:15
by Ayubi
HunterKiller wrote:Hehh, Hornet with power like F-16 will be another Fulcrum - good power, but no range and funny small payload.

Putting 2 engines into small airframe strong enough for deck use is trading power for safety.

I think that Hornet is overall better balanced aircraft than Fulcrum. Fulcrum was not even chosen by Soviet Navy for carrier use - mainly because of non-existing combat range.

For optimum performance/range/payload only one engine is required for plane with weight from 10-16 tons.

And F-16 and F-18 arent directly comparable, because Hornets airframe strenght is something that Vipers can dream about. Viper will collapse after one deck landing. Strenght need materials, materials add weight, more weight mean less fuel, less fuel means less power and range.

How many hours aistrip use Hornet lasts? Not less than 7,000. How many Viper?

Case with carrier-based aircraft for landbase use was well proven with Phantom - German one's are all well over 7000 hours and will fly up to 2012 (it means add another 1200 hours).

And those planes were never made to combat each other (meeting even foreign F-16 and Navy's F-18 is very unlikely), but to combat Soviet Fulcrums, Floggers, Flankers and Fencers. They would problably be good at this and americans would dominate this combat, no doubt.

Many countries have preferred Hornet to Viper - Canada, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Australia. Why?


Don't forget, the countriess you mentioned above are not "war countires', The last time these countries went to war was probabley WW2, korean or vietnam. But alot of airforces do perfer the viper over hornet, some of those countries are also "war countires" like pakistan which was at war in 1999 or 1971(for air war). Counrties like turkey and grece also have f-16. Agreed that the hornet has the strenght the viper can only dream off, but the viper has the kill record, sales, mounverabilty etc the horent can only dream off!1

Also agreed that the hornet has the strenght the viper can only dream off, but then again, when was the last time you saw a viper on a aircraft carrier.

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2006, 05:45
by INO
Here is the big thing. How many countries need a plane that can land on a carrier like ours and need two engines (safety) for blue water ops? The 18's are made for carrier use. 16's are a great platform as well. They were made for land use. Both great planes but you must look at what and where there use is. Just think, the engineers can build a plane like the Rhino, ie heavier airframe, gear, etc.. for sea use, and still have the performance. 18's can take a beating (repeated traps and cat shots) and perform for many years. Comparing these airplanes isnt like apples and oranges. But these platforms aren't the same. Hope I didn't confuse anyone.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 21:10
by RoAF
HunterKiller wrote:
Many countries have preferred Hornet to Viper - Canada, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Australia.


Austria chose the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its F-5s, which in turn replaced their Saab J35. So no Hornet or Viper there.
Portugal has F-16s.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:38
by idesof
RoAF wrote:HunterKiller wrote:
Many countries have preferred Hornet to Viper - Canada, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Australia.


Austria chose the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its F-5s, which in turn replaced their Saab J35. So no Hornet or Viper there.
Portugal has F-16s.


Exactly. Canada and Australia? Lots of desolate land mass with nowhere to land should you flame out. Twin-engined fighter perfect for them, even if Australia is not going for the F-35. Finland similar problem. Although smaller, it is sparsely populated and sparsely developed. Again, a twin-engined thing.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:39
by idesof
JCSVT wrote:You tell him INO!

Never tell a pilot you know more about his plane than he does. :lol:


Your credulity amazes. What are you, a toddler?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:44
by idesof
INO wrote:Ohhh that exercise. Thats the one that all Naval Aviators learn in Navy flight school. I just realized that I got robbed in my training in Pensacola, Corpus, Meridian and Virginia Beach. I guess that I'm not a real fighter pilot after all. D@mn, I guess I should have been reading my Jane's subscription instead of Natops, SOP's, Tacmans and TopGun. :roll:


Would you like to spew a few more acronyms to convince us once and for all that you really are who you say you are? Oooh, Natops, SOP's, Tacmans - gee, wizz, he must be a fighter pilot! You know what you have to do to prove who you say you are to those of us who doubt you and in the process make us all look like a bunch of idiots. But of course you won't do it, because you can't, and doubts about your identity will persist.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 00:41
by Lawman
idesof wrote:
INO wrote:Ohhh that exercise. Thats the one that all Naval Aviators learn in Navy flight school. I just realized that I got robbed in my training in Pensacola, Corpus, Meridian and Virginia Beach. I guess that I'm not a real fighter pilot after all. D@mn, I guess I should have been reading my Jane's subscription instead of Natops, SOP's, Tacmans and TopGun. :roll:


Would you like to spew a few more acronyms to convince us once and for all that you really are who you say you are? Oooh, Natops, SOP's, Tacmans - gee, wizz, he must be a fighter pilot! You know what you have to do to prove who you say you are to those of us who doubt you and in the process make us all look like a bunch of idiots. But of course you won't do it, because you can't, and doubts about your identity will persist.


He's on Airwarriors.com a Navy/Marine Aviation site full of real deal, no-sh*t, one and two anchor winged aviators. They routinely go through and find the BS filled, sack faced, wanna-be's and expose them for who they are. Ino is the real deal, same as TurnandBurn55, Smirroso, and Guppygoshawk. I can assure you of that, who do you think link them over to the little bug bashing threads :wink:

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2006, 01:20
by INO
Idesof,

Ok smart guy its put up or shut up time. If you are so sure that I am not a Rhino driver, then put up some $$. I would love to take your money but can't as that would be bad form. However, I want you to put up your next month of Social Security or 1/2 months pay if you are still working, to a worth while cause. I say you donate said sum 50/50 to F-16.net and Airwarriors.com. Airwarriors is a site that helps guys on the street become naval aviators. It answers all types of questions and gives guys in the pipeline a place to talk shop in some private forums. It also is a place that busts frauds who say that they are Naval Aviators. I am sure the webmasters of these two sites could use the money. Help keep the sites up and running so you can call me a fraud and liar some more. So what say you?

If not, you can just make a very public apology here and now and we can let this drop. Your choice.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2006, 01:49
by snypa777
It`s ONNNNNNNN NOW!!!!!!!! I must say this thread makes for some entertaining reading, a real soap opera! :lol: I understand the sentiments but gentlemen, please!!!!!!

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2006, 18:33
by jensmatin
F16 versus F18 is all about the pilot,
next week, a detachment of my sqn will go to Swiss where we will fly our Belgian F16A MLU against some swiss F18's, so I will reply over 2weeks

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2006, 20:57
by idesof
INO wrote:Idesof,

Ok smart guy its put up or shut up time. If you are so sure that I am not a Rhino driver, then put up some $$. I would love to take your money but can't as that would be bad form. However, I want you to put up your next month of Social Security or 1/2 months pay if you are still working, to a worth while cause. I say you donate said sum 50/50 to F-16.net and Airwarriors.com. Airwarriors is a site that helps guys on the street become naval aviators. It answers all types of questions and gives guys in the pipeline a place to talk shop in some private forums. It also is a place that busts frauds who say that they are Naval Aviators. I am sure the webmasters of these two sites could use the money. Help keep the sites up and running so you can call me a fraud and liar some more. So what say you?

If not, you can just make a very public apology here and now and we can let this drop. Your choice.


You have established no proof, and you have not specified what you would do if no such proof is provided. As for me, I reject your terms. I have nothing to prove and nothing to gain. The burden of proof, as they say, is on you. I should not have to prove that unicorns do not exist.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2006, 20:59
by idesof
jensmatin wrote:F16 versus F18 is all about the pilot,
next week, a detachment of my sqn will go to Swiss where we will fly our Belgian F16A MLU against some swiss F18's, so I will reply over 2weeks


Hey, I'm ready for some Swiss cheese!!! Good luck, and hope your unit gets to squash some bugs!

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2006, 21:53
by INO
As for me, I reject your terms.


I figured as much from someone like you.

If you really want to know, then all you have to do is ask the webmaster on AirWarriors. He is also a Naval Aviator as are numerous others on that site. Thats also the site that I post on all the time as EODDave. Feel free to venture over to that site and read my bio. I'll leave a nice message there for you. But once again I'm sure you will have another smart a$$ comment on why "I" am not who I say I am. Or that its to much work for you to do. You would rather go on calling me a liar, fraud, unicorn or whatever.

To all others on this site, sorry that you had to see all this childish BS. Some peoples glasses are always half empty. Feel free to come on over to AirWarriors if you want to read up on what it takes to get into Naval Aviation or talk to guys that are joining, training or flying the US Navy's finest Aircraft.

Till then.......

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2006, 02:22
by Des
INO
Melbourne airshow, the SH demo team led by Ricardo Travis was one of the most incredible displays i've ever seen, especially when the Hornet had a half decent load on board, considering that all airshow routines that i've seen are done by aircraft in "clean" configuration.
Also just wondering if you have ever flown alongside Aussie RAAF Hornets in DACT?

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2006, 20:33
by pafpilot
Well , a very nice topic turned into something really foolish to read and with no conclusion.It was supposed to be a F-16 vs F-18 thread , but turned eventually to be a thread where people fight like children over something really stupid :shock: .If INO is a pilot or not , it is none of our business. If he really is , then we will come to know while reading his posts.Hey ideasof! cool down man , no big deal. :wink:
No one ,in my opinion here, was able to justify his/her remarks regrading which which plane is better then the other! :evil:
And another thing , many people here are comparing the F-16 with F-18 super-hornet. It should be F-18C versus F-16 blk 60 , because F-18C is the most advanced version of hornet(not E/F) and blk 60 is the most advanced version of F-16.So compare them instead of comparing F-18C with AMRAAMs and an F-16 with only sidewinders!

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2006, 02:51
by Obi_Offiah
pafpilot wrote:And another thing , many people here are comparing the F-16 with F-18 super-hornet. It should be F-18C versus F-16 blk 60 , because F-18C is the most advanced version of hornet(not E/F) and blk 60 is the most advanced version of F-16.So compare them instead of comparing F-18C with AMRAAMs and an F-16 with only sidewinders!


Hi parpilot!

The Super Hornet E/F is more advanced than the A-D Hornets, some Super Hornets are even equiped with AESA radars.

Obi

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2006, 10:26
by pafpilot
The Super Hornet E/F is more advanced than the A-D Hornets, some Super Hornets are even equiped with AESA radars.

The topic of the thread is "F-16 versus F-18 Hornet" , no "F-16 versus F-18 Super Hornet"

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2006, 20:20
by Obi_Offiah
pafpilot wrote:
The Super Hornet E/F is more advanced than the A-D Hornets, some Super Hornets are even equiped with AESA radars.

The topic of the thread is "F-16 versus F-18 Hornet" , no "F-16 versus F-18 Super Hornet"


Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were saying that the F/A-18C Hornets were more advanced than the E/F Super Hornets. You meant the Cs were the most advanced versions excluding the E/F?

Obi

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2006, 21:30
by JCSVT
You can't really compare the F-16 Blk 60 to the F/A-18C becaues the the legacy Hornets aren't really updated any more. Blk 50/52 can be compared to the C models but the Blk 60's equipment is closer to that of the Super Hornet's.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 10:55
by pafpilot
Obi_Offiah ,I think it was my mistake.....i didnt make my point clear.I meant that F-18c is the most advanced version of Hornet , and Super Hornet is a totally different aircraft. SH is more advanced than Hornet , and SH was not an upgraded version of hornet but many believe it to be a totally different aircraft. In case of Viper , it has received massive modifications from the past 2 decades and the airframe has not undergone that much modifications as were done for the SH.SH is 25% bigger than Hornet.
You can't really compare the F-16 Blk 60 to the F/A-18C becaues the the legacy Hornets aren't really updated any more. Blk 50/52 can be compared to the C models but the Blk 60's equipment is closer to that of the Super Hornet's.

The design of the Super Hornet may have gone through a more extensive evolution than any other combat aircraft.Vipers were given modifications but those didnt include a much larger airframe.Although later versions were bigger than A/B blocks , but those only included avionis,fuel modifications.Radar upgrades , avionics are almost upgrade on every aircraft. But the SH is much larger in size than the Hornet and many experts say its a totally different aircraft than the Hornet.F-16 has different blocks but it was always called as a Viper/Fighting Falcon . It is believed that a major reason the Super Hornet maintained the "F/A-18" designation was for political reasons. This would help to procure the development of an essentially new combat aircraft at a time when Congress was unwilling to sponsor new military systems.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2006, 00:24
by Corsair1963
idesof wrote:
HunterKiller wrote:Thats complete Bravo Sierra!

Finnish Air Force looked for new 4gen fighter jets to replace old Fishbeds on early-90s and the initial competition was:

1. F-16C
2. Mirage 2000-5
3. Jas 39 Gripen
4. MiG-29

They draw very comprehensive specification. None of those four were selected, MiG-29 was left out because of technical and quality issues. F-16 however was never favourite in this group, because Gripen offered this time better specs, off airfield capability and US was reluctant this time to sell F-16C with AMRAAMS. French, Swedes and Russians all agreed to sell planes medium range AAM-s. Testing took almost 3 years. Finns were first time allowed to buy fighter only by technical and flight data, not by cost or by politics.

Finally US reallised that they will probably loose that competition and offered finally F-18C with AMRAAMs.

This was REAL test, not any paper bullshit, it included even starts from snowy roadstrips, any kinds on real life radar tests against variuos air targets.

Why F-18 - because finns opten for clear fighter, Hornets were sold without AG weapons.

F-18 won that competition clearly, because of its real road capability and superior radar performance and firepower. F-16C was not ever considered. The Gripen came second, F-16 third and Mirage fourth.

And on this economical bravo-sierra what some viper lovers are talking. Finns made their estimations on ALL costs and the result was: it is enough to make only one single-engine fighter (from 64 jets) crash because of engine failure and this mill momentarily offset all money saved by lower price and running cost of single engine jet.

From 1994, finns have suffered 2 cases when Hornets came back with one engine (one of them in airshow and high AoA - when Viper would certainly crash).

So if those two cases were with single engine jet which would probably crashed, then finns were loosing more money that they could ever save in next 50 years from fuel and other costs.

So dont talk that bullshit on the overall cost superiority for Viper - Finnish case had proven exactly the opposite.


Only reason anyone these days would chose an F-18C over an F-16C Block 50 is the two-engine safety issue. The F-16 has repeatedly kicked the F-18's a$$ in foreign sales for a reason. Compare the latest F-18C vs. the latest F-16C Block 50 with AN/APG-68(V)9 radar, and the F-18's previous radar advantage disappears. Also, far smaller RCS for F-16, thus F-18 gets detected first. Moreover, F-18 can't make it to the corner store without refueling. F-16 higher maneuverability all around except AOA and low-speed handling. F-16C, non-Block 60 vs. F-18E BVR, F-18E wins every time due to AESA and reduced RCS. Close in, the F-18E has got the maneuverability of a brick. F-16E, as the Block 60 is now being called, vs. F-18E BVR, close call, although I do believe the 18's radar is still longer-ranged and the RCS may be lower. Still, why the USN didn't just stick to their plain vanilla 18Cs and F-14Ds a little while longer and just wait for the F-35C is beyond me. The super bug is an inferior machine in almost every measure compared to the F-14D. And the F-35C is in another league altogether. Again, why the hell the USN went with this super piece of $hit I have no clue. Wonder whether Randy Cunningham was involved in any way :wink:



Intersting point about Randy Cunningham! He was a big supporter of the F-14D then mysteriously switched camps to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Make you wonder.......... :?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2006, 06:39
by kaptor
Only after he actually FLEW in a SH, a number of others have had the same change of heart AFTER they actually knew what they were talking about.
I know a pilot who flew F-4Gs F-15C F-15E and F-16CGs, he got a cross training assignment with the USMC and flew Hornets for a bit ( RIO in the Ds ) he became an instant convert to the way Hornets get things done after flying engagements against F-14s. He said the RADAR in the F-14s was quite easy to defeat and actually snuck up on 14s from the rear on more than one occasion after avoiding the Tommys RADAR.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2006, 06:53
by Corsair1963
kaptor wrote:Only after he actually FLEW in a SH, a number of others have had the same change of heart AFTER they actually knew what they were talking about.
I know a pilot who flew F-4Gs F-15C F-15E and F-16CGs, he got a cross training assignment with the USMC and flew Hornets for a bit ( RIO in the Ds ) he became an instant convert to the way Hornets get things done after flying engagements against F-14s. He said the RADAR in the F-14s was quite easy to defeat and actually snuck up on 14s from the rear on more than one occasion after avoiding the Tommys RADAR.



Of course what model was he talking about? The F-14A/B use the old AWG-9 Radar vs the APG-71 of the F-14D. Which, is like comparing a 60's Cadillac to a 90's Mercedes......... :?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2006, 06:59
by kaptor
True but most Tommy fans would deny that the power of the AWG-9 could ever be defeated lol.
I believe he flew against the Ds when he was flying Beagles.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2006, 07:38
by Corsair1963
kaptor wrote:True but most Tommy fans would deny that the power of the AWG-9 could ever be defeated lol.
I believe he flew against the Ds when he was flying Beagles.



Until the advent of the AESA Radars the APG-71 was hard to beat so likely he was in a early A and/or B Model. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2006, 03:54
by TalleyHo
Comparing a Navy plane vs an airforce plane isnt exactly the most fair compairison.
Consider the Navy planes, have alot more weight due to increased strength on air frame, stronger and heavier landing gear. Build the Hornet with Air Force specs and not Navy, im sure things will be alot different.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 20:37
by Corsair1963
TalleyHo wrote:Comparing a Navy plane vs an airforce plane isnt exactly the most fair compairison.
Consider the Navy planes, have alot more weight due to increased strength on air frame, stronger and heavier landing gear. Build the Hornet with Air Force specs and not Navy, im sure things will be alot different.



Well, in the case of the F-16 and F/A-18 both fly the same mission. So, any comparison would only be natural..............

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2006, 14:04
by Danimal
The F-16 does have lower wing loading, bleeding off less energy in high G turns, lower aspect ratio for quicker roll rates and a better thrust to weight ratio. The F/A-18 does have a slightly more capable radar package (until the APG-68 version 10) but despite all this they have nearly identical real world performance, especially if we're talking about super hornets and CJ's. However, speaking from experience, my unit's F-16CJ's consistently owned spanish F/A-18C's. Although I would most likely chalk that up for more experienced pilots plus we had JHMCS and they didn't. So realistically I'd say that the battle would go back and fourth with no clear cut winner.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2007, 20:04
by velos35
I recently read an article written from a viper pilot who happened to fly Hornet also.He stated that there is a big difference in acceleration and turn performance... :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2007, 19:00
by Cad
No doubt that the f-16 would accelerate faster than the Hornet, but the Hornet would decelerate faster also.

F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2007, 00:24
by Parkeran
The F-18 I think has a good chance at taking down the F-16. The F-18 can take-off from just about anywhere as well as having the advantage of a better radar. Not only this but i'm a HUGE F-18 Hornet fan! :oops:

Cheers :cheers:

Parkeran

Re: F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2007, 00:41
by Corsair1963
Parkeran wrote:The F-18 I think has a good chance at taking down the F-16. The F-18 can take-off from just about anywhere as well as having the advantage of a better radar. Not only this but i'm a HUGE F-18 Hornet fan! :oops:

Cheers :cheers:

Parkeran


Really, so many variables and that isn't even talking about the skills of the individual pilots. 8)

As for being a HUGE Hornet fan. Does that also apply to the Super Hornet?


By the way..................glad to have you aboard! :D


FLY NAVY :wink:

RE: Re: F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2007, 08:08
by Parkeran2
Hi,
I think that the Hornet and the F-16 both stand an equal chance ( even though I am a Hornet Fan). I think it all comes down to the skill of the pilot and the condition of the plane.
Keep Soaring High
Parkeran2 8)

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2007, 09:08
by Pilotasso
Danimal wrote:The F-16 does have lower wing loading, bleeding off less energy in high G turns, lower aspect ratio for quicker roll rates and a better thrust to weight ratio. The F/A-18 does have a slightly more capable radar package (until the APG-68 version 10) but despite all this they have nearly identical real world performance, especially if we're talking about super hornets and CJ's. However, speaking from experience, my unit's F-16CJ's consistently owned spanish F/A-18C's. Although I would most likely chalk that up for more experienced pilots plus we had JHMCS and they didn't. So realistically I'd say that the battle would go back and fourth with no clear cut winner.


Several things I would like to point out here. First of all, the plane that has higher wing loading is the F-16 not the Hornet. The Hornet radar is not only slightly superior, it is considerably superior. If your talking about APG-65 VS APG-68V9 then the difference is not too much but if your going to include the APG-70 then I have to completely disagree that they are on par.

Spanish F-18's are A MLU's not C's.

My country also trains frequently with Spains F-18's, and among Pilots in my country, they too find that the F-18's fall somewhat behind but only due to worse piloting on the part of the spanish drivers. As far as perfomance goes I have never heard anything bad so far. Infact our pilots say that their kit is better than ours (F-16 MLU). The recent aquisition of helmet mouted sights and (yet unspecified) IR targeting pods has narrowed the gap, but it does give the edge in a knife fight. It will be interesting to see what will happen when they meet again.

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2007, 02:14
by costadelmar

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2007, 02:26
by Entropy
They were both proposed by the same guy, Boyd, were they not. That's the way I understood it. If they were, wouldn't it just be natural that they perform similarly. Although, even though th M.C. has F-18s (and I do love them), I think the Viper would probably come out on top.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2007, 03:32
by redbird87
I am not a big Hornet fan. I think its range limitations are very problematic. As a multi-purpose strike aircraft the Super Bug is inferior to the latest F-15E variants in every major way (cost, range, acceleration, speed, payload, radar power). Its supposed stealth advantage goes out the window with the huge drop tanks and external stores it must carry. The exception is the obvious carrier landing ability - which is kind of a big point granted:-) The Navy and a majority of their pilots seem to be very pleased with its handling and strike capabilities. Its avionics package is second only to the F-22 and F-35.

Comparing types currently available to US pilots, the Block 2 F-18 E/F with AESA radar suites and Joint-helmet mounted cueing system would at least equal, and probably best our latest F-16s assuming equal pilot skill. I am basing this on the fact that most modern A2A engagements are going to be very brief. The more the F-16 can lengthen the combat, the better its chances due to its advantages in fuel efficiency and retained energy. But the targeting systems and missiles are getting to be so good, I am not sure we can expect many drawn-out gun fights in the future. I could certainly be wrong about that. Please let me know what you all think.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2007, 18:52
by agu
F-16 will have no chance at all when put against FAF Hornet.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2007, 16:18
by Pilotasso
...so YOU think. ;)

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2007, 06:28
by Scorpion1alpha
agu wrote:F-16 will have no chance at all when put against FAF Hornet.


:?:

What's an "FAF"?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2007, 09:58
by Pilotasso
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
agu wrote:F-16 will have no chance at all when put against FAF Hornet.


:?:

What's an "FAF"?

Finish air force?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2007, 20:50
by agu
Yes..

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2007, 02:23
by Spartan-120
redbird87 wrote:Comparing types currently available to US pilots, the Block 2 F-18 E/F with AESA radar suites and Joint-helmet mounted cueing system would at least equal, and probably best our latest F-16s assuming equal pilot skill. I am basing this on the fact that most modern A2A engagements are going to be very brief. The more the F-16 can lengthen the combat, the better its chances due to its advantages in fuel efficiency and retained energy. But the targeting systems and missiles are getting to be so good, I am not sure we can expect many drawn-out gun fights in the future. I could certainly be wrong about that. Please let me know what you all think.


But that's where the Super Hornet's unholy slow speed maneuverabilty comes into play. Just because it's out of energy doesn't mean it's no longer a threat, because it can still point its nose and weapons almost anywhere in the sky. +1 for the Super Hornet. And at those slower speeds the Super Hornet definitely has the F-16 at a disadvantage. If the F-16 tries to turn with the Super Hornet at those speeds, he's duck soup. If he stay at higher speeds, he runs the risk of overshooting, at which point he's probably duck soup. If he tries to come down on top of the Super Hornet, the Super Hornet can still nose up on him, giving him a nice look-up shot with his target silhouetted against the cold sky, at which point the F-16 is probably duck soup.

Any victory over the Super Hornet is going to come from pilot skill, because the Super Hornet is not a machine to be trifled with in close. It's no slouch at higher speeds and really excels at lower speeds. And when Block 3 comes online in a couple years, the F-16 is just going to have that much more trouble, because the Block 3 is going to be opening a whole new can of Ps with its new engines.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2007, 20:47
by Pilotasso
Spartan, any speed advantage can be converted into climbing manuevers, then use gravity as aid to turn faster into the opposition, if the hornet is slower it will have difficulty pulling up againts gravity, thus a falcon in the situation you described would infact find the F-18 low and slow in its sights while looking down. This is an elementary BFM tactic.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2007, 04:23
by Spartan-120
Pilotasso wrote:Spartan, any speed advantage can be converted into climbing manuevers, then use gravity as aid to turn faster into the opposition, if the hornet is slower it will have difficulty pulling up againts gravity, thus a falcon in the situation you described would infact find the F-18 low and slow in its sights while looking down. This is an elementary BFM tactic.


That's true, it's going to find the Super Hornet low and slow, but it will also find the Super Hornet looking right back at it. It does have enough power to nose up and pull up into the F-16 (with some effort). And if the SH noses into the Falcon while it's climbing above him and gets off a missile, the Falcon is going to lose a lot of that energy it had because now it's defensive and maneuvering hard to defeat that missile. At the least it's going to end up down a lot closer to the Super Hornet. And while the Falcon is busy being defensive, the Super Hornet will be using that time to accelerate and pick up its own energy margins (I'm assuming this is a Block 2 SH. Makes things a little harder for the SH. The Block 3 will be a whole new headache for the F-16). At which point the SH is right back in the game.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2007, 10:06
by Pilotasso
I dont know, in the first half of my message above I did say with nose high you can turn faster with gods G, so I doubt the hornet would be aiming back at the falcon with the same easiness. I think its more likely that the falcon would find the hornet still turning. I.e. exposing a great part of its plane to gunshots, but of course all this is academic, it depends much more on pilot skill and initial distance when the manuevers are initiated because both planes are too much matched to take any conclusions.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2007, 02:48
by Spartan-120
Pilotasso wrote:I dont know, in the first half of my message above I did say with nose high you can turn faster with gods G, so I doubt the hornet would be aiming back at the falcon with the same easiness. I think its more likely that the falcon would find the hornet still turning. I.e. exposing a great part of its plane to gunshots, but of course all this is academic, it depends much more on pilot skill and initial distance when the manuevers are initiated because both planes are too much matched to take any conclusions.


True, the Super Hornet and F-16 are well matched, but the two have enough performance differences that a mistake by either pilot will likely determine the fight fairly quickly. But the SH does have just enough power to nose up on the Falcon in just about any flight regime, and has the control authority to do so quite rapidly, even at slow speed. Definitely faster than a Falcon can pull over the top of a high yo-yo or similar maneuver. It also likes to hold its knots at those slow speeds.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2007, 06:27
by Scorpion1alpha
Pilotasso wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
agu wrote:F-16 will have no chance at all when put against FAF Hornet.


:?:

What's an "FAF"?

Finish air force?


Roger that.

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2007, 02:09
by avon1944
Spartan-120 wrote:going to find the Super Hornet low and slow, but it will also find the Super Hornet looking right back at it

What a surprise, a carrier jet that has some of its best performance when low and slow. Just like around the 'boat'.

Adrian

Interesting

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2007, 19:42
by the_Hudge
The US Navy has a horrible record at spending and procurement policy. The A-12 and the choices over the A6 are proof of that.

ASW is lacking in the USN due to several reasons. There was a feeling that landbased P-3s and either the P7or P8 would tackle most of the downgraded sub threat from the PLAN, Iran and so on. The P8 continues to have delays, issues and will not reach the fleet until 2012. The trusty SH-60B/Fs like the Hornets and the S3s are wearing out as they have been used much more than anyone expected. The H-60 Romeos and Sierras will provide an answer to this but these new birds arent reaching the fleet fast enough. The P7 from all the VP and VS communities was a better platform than the selected P8. The P3/S3 and H60 was an effective ring protecting the various FFGs,DDs, and DDGs of the CVSG. The PLAN have show than even Song SSKs can get past the ASW provided by these ships and the outnumber and over worked H-60B/F.

There should always be some platform to CV based organic tanking. Im not sure how the Super Hornet matches up against the KA-6D. I do no that the Super Hornet is slow enough. Having it carrying fuel and a buddy store means that it will be a lousy BARCAP platform.


The Super Hornet is overweight, over priced and I think overrated. It's new and shiny so it doesnt have the gripes older platforms have. It doesnt deal with the supply problems with parts. It is slower than the C and even the EA-6, which can hit mach 1.8 in a dive. Sad to say, the F18E/F is the A6F in new skin.


There are the usual gripes from the former F14 people. Some are real concerns. As someone mentioned above, the F16 has a higher TTW than the F18A/C. The stronger engines of the Super Hornet are negated by the extra weight, larger wing area and increased drag. And the Super Hornet only tops out at Mach 1.6 if it is light enough. It cant climb, it cant enter or leave the fight the way other aircraft F14,F15.F16,F18,Rafale,Su30,33,J11 can.

The Super Hornet in my mind is the product of poor planning, some political consideration and simple lack of vision of the future.

We now have an CVW that lacks long distance ASW, long range Air Defense and strike. The TLAMs can tackle many targets at distant ranges but the Super Hornet cant carry buddy stores, AAMs, AGMs and be everwhere. The loos of speed means loss of flexibility.

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2007, 02:58
by Ozzy_Blizzard
Guys SH may be a bit of a slouch in raw performance terms, but the block two is a far better BVR performer than allmost all of its contemporaries, including the cat. Its radar/missile combo and EW suite are practically world beaters and it is also a better strike platform. Whats goint to serve you better in BVR? Higher sprint speed or better instentainious turn rate? Or one of the best LPI radar systems operational anyware, arguably the most sophistocated EW/EWSP suite on a fighter, and some LO cahrecteristics? F/A-18E/F Bk II would shoot down a viper long before they ever merged. And even if they did, how much is maneuver going to help you when your facing an AIM 9X with its kinematic performance and off broadsight capability???

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2007, 23:56
by avon1944
Ozzy, that is one of the most eloquent defenses of the Super Hornet I have ever read, thanx.

Adrian

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2007, 05:07
by Spartan-120
Oh Hudge, just you wait until Block 3 joins the fleet in 2009. The F-16 will never know what hit it WVR. The main upgrade will be a full 25% increase in installed thrust (up from 44,000 to 55,000 pounds of thrust), for little or no increase in engine weight or SFC, through the use of advanced fan designs, materials, and construction techniques. This will pretty completely make up for any deficiencies in acceleration, top speed, rate of climb, and instantaneous/sustained maneuvering that the old Super Hornets might have had (what I've read says it was the equal of any -402 equipped F/A-18C up to Mach 1 in level flight).

RE: F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2007, 02:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yeah, the SH with the upgrade is going to have T/W to spare, beyond even what Eagles dream of, roughly 1.25 at full fuel (Eagle around 1.13, Raptor around 1.27). Its going to be a top shelf airplane as far as non VLO is concerned

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2008, 22:46
by Dedaylewis
:D As you all know twin engine aircraft are better in the fight. For the sole reason that Two engines are better than one.

f-18 foolproof f-16 topgun flight school

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2008, 14:24
by yunus
I think the F-18 was designed from outset to be easier to fly requires less training. F-16 as great as it is requires higher skill level. Nations who have recognised this have opted for f-18.

RE: f-18 foolproof f-16 topgun flight school

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2008, 02:50
by INO
So, the F-16 takes a higher skill level to fly? And you got this information where? Or maybe you have seat time in both? Just curious which nations have recognised this as "the" reason to chose an 18 over a 16.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2008, 03:17
by outlaw162
Variations in pilot skill level are more apparent in aircraft that are more difficult to fly.

There is a certain amount of humor in hearing a comparison between these 2 fighters as to which one is more difficult to fly.

IMHO, compared to the Century Series (100-110) fighters, the F-16 is an extremely easy and forgiving aircraft to fly.

The gap between the performance of the best pilot in the squadron and the worst is narrowed considerably. Both best & worst are nearly on the same level because these aircraft are so capable. Time marches on.

The gap between the best & the worst in the earlier fighters very often resulted in a new surviving worst.

Re: Interesting

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2008, 02:25
by LordKadghar
the_Hudge wrote:The TLAMs can tackle many targets at distant ranges but the Super Hornet cant carry buddy stores, AAMs, AGMs and be everwhere.


You are correct. Fortunately, after some time of deploying with the Rhino, the Navy has learned the advantages of having more than a single Super Hornet on the flight deck. Therefore one can have some Rhinos with buddy stores configured as tankers, some configured with AIM-120s as fighters, and some with a strike loadout as strikers. It's not like every single plane is going to be intended to do every single mission on every single flight. The advantage here is that you can mix and match as is necessary to accomplish the mission... which rolls into the whole discussion about common parts between strikers, fighters, and tankers (and EA assets in the near future).

BTW-- I don't know where this discussion of "Blocks" started, but nobody in NAVAIR refer to them. The Super Hornet starts with Lot 21, and the latest is Lot 29.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2008, 02:40
by outlaw162
I thought the Rhino was the F-4. Do they call the F-18 the Rhino now? Is there room in fighter aviation for two Rhinos?

regards

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2008, 02:58
by LordKadghar
Good question-- the F-4 was the Rhino also. Problem now is that with both the Super Hornet and Hornet around the boat, there is potential for confusion, which is a big deal given that the arrestor cables need to be set differently for a C model vice an E/F. As a result, when calling the ball, it becomes either "Rhino, ball" or "Hornet, ball".

I think you're right, that it may be a nod to tradition with the old Phantoms, but I can't say for sure.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2008, 19:04
by INO
I am pretty sure that lot 30's are already flying in fleet squadrons.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2012, 09:08
by radar
Pilotasso wrote:
Danimal wrote:The F-16 does have lower wing loading, bleeding off less energy in high G turns, lower aspect ratio for quicker roll rates and a better thrust to weight ratio. The F/A-18 does have a slightly more capable radar package (until the APG-68 version 10) but despite all this they have nearly identical real world performance, especially if we're talking about super hornets and CJ's. However, speaking from experience, my unit's F-16CJ's consistently owned spanish F/A-18C's. Although I would most likely chalk that up for more experienced pilots plus we had JHMCS and they didn't. So realistically I'd say that the battle would go back and fourth with no clear cut winner.


Several things I would like to point out here. First of all, the plane that has higher wing loading is the F-16 not the Hornet. The Hornet radar is not only slightly superior, it is considerably superior. If your talking about APG-65 VS APG-68V9 then the difference is not too much but if your going to include the APG-70 then I have to completely disagree that they are on par.

Spanish F-18's are A MLU's not C's.

My country also trains frequently with Spains F-18's, and among Pilots in my country, they too find that the F-18's fall somewhat behind but only due to worse piloting on the part of the spanish drivers. As far as perfomance goes I have never heard anything bad so far. Infact our pilots say that their kit is better than ours (F-16 MLU). The recent aquisition of helmet mouted sights and (yet unspecified) IR targeting pods has narrowed the gap, but it does give the edge in a knife fight. It will be interesting to see what will happen when they meet again.

Good post. Frisian flag 2012 exercises in Holland Finnish airforces gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter ( Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes ( Norway, Belgium) and Gripen ( Swedish) of course we dont know what were the rules in that exercises, but still its a amazing numbers...Finnish fighters probably could use their own data link?!

F-16 Versus the F-/A18

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2012, 09:03
by avon1944
Sorry I am late to the discussion, here is an article I came across in about 2005. Its good reading, enjoy.

PILOT REPORT
"A Navy Test Pilot's Perspective" by Tougas, John Toonces "Flight Journal" Jun 03 Issue
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... 62073/pg_3 ___ GONE!!

As a Navy test pilot on an Air Force exchange tour, I have the best job in the world: I get to fly the F-16 Viper and the F/A-18 Hornet. Last summer, I completed Viper conversion training at the 310th Fighter Squadron at Luke AFB, and the first thing they teach is the single-engine, single-seat mindset-a new concept for a twin-engine fighter pilot. The Viper has only one engine and pilots quickly learn the "Iguana stare," which is when one eye constantly monitors the engine instruments, and the other scans everything else. Some USAF pilots have labeled the F-16 a "lawn dart," as it has one of the highest accident rates in the Combat Air Force. It's a myth that the high accident rate is caused by the lack of redundancy inherent to a single-engine fighter. The reality is that most F-16 mishaps occur because of factors other than engine failure. Running into things (the ground or other airplanes) accounts for more than three-quarters of F-16 mishaps.
After 50 hours in the jet, I've come to consider the aircraft at least a close acquaintance, and we're working toward becoming good friends. During that time, I've formed some opinions and impressions of the Viper compared with my normal mount: the F/A-18 Hornet.

THE COCKPIT
When compared with the Hornet's, the Viper's cockpit is more compact and is very comfortable. The ejection seat's fixed, 20-degree recline angle is great for all phases of flight except air-combat maneuvering (ACM). During a fight, the pilot has to constantly lean forward to look over a shoulder or check six, and at 7 or 8G, the fixed recline angle produces a sore neck and back in nothing flat. A flight surgeon once told me that 90 percent of all fighter pilots suffer from chronic neck and back pain and Viper drivers suffer the most. The single-piece bubble canopy is one feature that I wish the Hornet had.
The glass comes down to the elbows and wraps around the pilot; it provides great six o'clock and over-the-nose visibility without a canopy bow or heads-up-display (HUD) post to obstruct the view.
The main instrument panel is centrally located, compactly organized and easy to scan. The Viper is a fly-by-wire electric jet, but it still has what are considered old-fashioned, round airspeed and altitude dials, tape gauges for vertical speed indicator (VSI) and angle of attack (AoA) and an analog attitude indicator. These are the primary flight instruments because the HUD is technically not certified for IFR (instrument flight). In the Hornet, I use the HUD as my main information source and crosscheck the steam gauges during instrument approaches. The Viper HUD gives the same data as the Hornet HUD does, but the format's different. Adapting was easy except for one important item: the angle of attack bracket.

The two indicators look exactly alike, but they work exactly opposite; when landing, one tells the pilot to pull when he should push, and vice versa. It's potentially very confusing. Flying AoA "backward" was tough at the beginning, but I eventually figured it out. The rest of the Viper's HUD symbols are busy but easy to interpret. By flipping a few switches, the pilot can customize HUD information as needed for the mission.
The Viper's side stick and throttle are marvels of ergonomie design. For single-seat strike fighters without the benefit of a guy in the back (GIB) to operate the radar and weapons systems, the hands-on throttle and stick (HOTAS) design is key to managing the airborne workload. As its name impliesHOTtAS allows complete pilot control of the weapons systems with hands-on maintenance of the flight controls. The Viper has 16 hotHOTome of the "HOTAS-able" functions include: radar mode select, bomb pickle, gun trigger, missile pickle, chaff/flare dispense, etc.
The throttle designator control (TDC) is a feature that's found in both aircraft, and it's essentially the "mouse" of the weapons system. It's used for slewing the cross-hairs over targets detected on the radarscope or in the HUD and locking onto them. The Viper's TDC is on the throttle under the left thumb; it took some getting used to for making fine-tuning adjustments. The Hornet's TDC is a little easier to use because of its location under the left index finger. I have much more dexterity with my index finger and found sensor slewing much easier in the Hornet.
In the Viper, all radar and targeting forward-looking infrared (FLIR) pod information is presented on the two monochrome multifunction displays (MFDs). They are smaller and are of older technology than the Hornet's, but the displays are easy to read in all lighting conditions. The F/A-18 has three color MFDs with the center one being a larger digital moving-map display. The moving map, or multipurpose color display (MPCD), is the key
feature that distinguishes the two strike fighters. The sheer amount of situational awareness that the Hornet's MPCD provides the pilot of threats, friendly locations, geographic references and navigational data significantly enhances combat effectiveness. Without the moving-map display, the pilot's mental workload doubles, and some of the more senior pilots, including myself, will "down" the aircraft and not fly it if the map display fails. Some newer block Vipers have display upgrades that mirror the current capability of all Hornets, but those are exceptions. Avionics in the Hornet are far superior to those found in almost anything I have flown. The one exception is the Super Hornet; it has two additional displays that improve on the Hornet's design.
The F-16 consoles aren't as well organized as the Hornet's; some switches are hard to reach. For the most part, that doesn't affect normal operations but could delay pilot reaction time during an emergency. For example, the Viper's throttle obstructs access to the engine control switch with afterburner selected. This switch is used to back up the electronic engine control during certain failures; reaching around the throttle could delay completing the critical action procedures if the engine gets sick right after takeoff.
The Hornet's consoles are logically grouped by systems. The environmental control system control panel, electrical control panel and lighting control panel are separate units. Conversely, the Viper's left console has flight-control switches mixed with the electrical switches and fuel transfer switches; they're clustered together. After about a dozen simulations and flights, I was able to adapt to the F-16 normal and emergency procedures checklists, but the Viper's cockpit layout appears to be a product of evolution, whereas the Hornet's cockpit layout has changed little since day one.

SIDE STICK VERSUS CONVENTIONAL CENTER STICK
Both the Hornet and Viper use fly-by-wire flight-control systems, which means aircraft response is governed by a set of programmed flight-control laws that "live" in the flight-control computers, which I affectionately refer to as "George." In other words, the pilot isn't flying the airplane, George is. The pilot tells George he wants the airplane to do something, and George then zips through the math to figure out which flight-control surfaces should be moved to fulfill the pilot's request. The big difference (and it is a big one) is that the Hornet uses a conventional center stick, and the computer senses stick position to interpret what the pilot wants. The Viper uses a side stick, and the computer senses stick force from pilot input.
Flying a side-stick control takes a while to get used to, but once you do, it's a joy. The conformal stick's shape feels very natural (it fits in the hand like a melted candy bar), and it allows easy access to nine of the 16 HOTAS controls. Two fully adjustable forearm rests on the right cockpit bulkhead stabilize and isolate the pilot's arm and wrist, so when rattling around the cockpit during turbulence or going after the bad guy, the pilot's arm won't accidentally move and initiate unwanted control inputs. In its original design, the Viper's control stick didn't move at all; it just measured pressure from the pilot's hand. However, after initial F-16 flight tests, a ¼ inch of stick movement was incorporated to give a small dead band and a nominal breakout force to give better "feel" of a neutral stick because otherwise it was entirely too sensitive. The control harmony is quite good (the pressures required for pitch and roll mix well), but without the capability to physically position the stick, it's easy to contaminate roll inputs with unwanted pitch inputs, and vice versa.
My first Viper instructor predicted that I would over-rotate on takeoff and drop the right wing; he was right. The over-rotation occurs because a pilot is used to "moving the stick and then something happens" at rotation speed. When I reached 145 knots and pulled back, of course the stick didn't move but a scant ¼ inch, so I pulled more. The inexperienced have no way of knowing how hard to pull, so I pulled probably twice as hard as was necessary.

After a half-second delay, the nose abruptly responded to my input and pitched up to about 10 degrees, while at the same time the right wing dipped to about 10-degrees wing down. I released back-stick pressure, and the aircraft held 10-degrees pitch as I gently leveled the wings. According to my instructor Lt. Col. Dan Levin, who has more than 3,000 Viper hours, pilot-induced-oscillations (PIO) are very common on takeoff for transition pilots.

TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE
In my opinion, the Viper's biggest strength is its brute force: it has lots of horsepower. The biggest kick in the pants-next to a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier-is the kick from stroking full afterburner in a General Electric-powered, bigmouth Viper on a cold winter morning. With a greater than 1.2:1 thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff gross weight, it takes all of 1,200 feet to get airborne at 160 knots, and the jet can be supersonic just two miles later, if it's left in burner. The acceleration is unbelievable! If there weren't a 7G restriction on a fueled center-line tank, I would easily have 9G available to pull straight into the vertical and accelerate on the way up. Of course, I've done the "quick climb" to 15,000 feet, and after level-off, I still have 350 knots. The Viper can out-accelerate most anything in the air, including the Hornet.
To accurately compare the Hornet's performance to the Viper's, I took off from the same runway. The Hornet needed 200 feet more than the Viper to get airborne at about the same speed, and at the end of the runway it had only 330 knots versus the Viper's 500-plus. The best climb angle that I could get out of the Hornet before airspeed started to decay was 45 degrees, and I leveled off with 200 knots; the Viper's climb took one minute less. The Hornet's lack of thrust seems to be where all the critics linger, and that's valid-to a point. When a pilot flies into battle, lots of thrust is nice to have and is definitely fun to have, but it isn't necessarily a must-have-depending on the aircraft's other attributes. Like the Viper, the Hornet has different engine versions in inventory, but even with two "big motors," the GE-404-402 has 18,000 pounds of maximum thrust each, and in a drag race, the Hornet would be no match for the Viper.
When the wheels are in the well, the Viper flight controls change from takeoff and landing gains (it automatically changes modes, as it requires different pressures for the same reaction) to cruise gains. This reduces the PIO tendency in pitch when the aircraft is slower and near the ground. The acceleration in after-burner seems to build with airspeed, and it's really a kick! The faster I go, the faster I go; this is primarily because of the fixed-geometry inlets that become more efficient as airspeed increases. Canceling afterburner (AB) at 300 knots and 2,000 feet AGL does not stop the amazing acceleration.
Even in military power, the Viper easily slips above the 350-knot climb speed in a 15-degree climb. On the other hand, the Hornet has a smooth and steady acceleration and quickly reaches the standard climb profile of 300 knots in a 15-degree climb at military power. In the Hornet, the nose must be lowered to about 5 degrees at 10,000 feet for it to accelerate and maintain a 350-knot climb speed.
Once in the air, the Viper pilot can drill around all day at 350 to 400 knots and still have fuel to spare. If there's a concern about fuel conservation, the Hornet works best in the 300- to 350-knot speed regime. Roll performance in the Viper is slightly faster than the Hornet's. A full-deflection aileron roll is eye watering in a clean Viper (about 360 degrees per second) and very impressive in a slick Hornet (about two-thirds the speed of a Viper). One nice feature of the side-stick controller is the capability to rapidly capture a precise bank angle by simply releasing the stick. The jet's controls essentially freeze when the pilot lets go of the stick, even when whipping around at maximum rate roll. This is real handy in rolling in on a target (both air-to-air and air-to-ground). The Hornet's roll control is equally precise, but it requires a bit more finesse. Its flight-control system in cruise is a "G-command" flight-control system; it continuously trims to IG flight regardless of aircraft attitude. If a pilot rolls inverted in a Hornet and lets go of the stick, the jet "pulls" IG and enters a gradual dive to maintain IG. Doing the same in the Viper causes the pilot to get light in the seat; the jet doesn't feel any pilot input, so it continues to head straight and inverted. The Hornet's G-command has bitten a few transition pilots during ACM when they were confronted with very nose-high, low-speed attitudes. Tomcat drivers learning the Hornet typically release the controls, as that is what they were used to doing in the F-14, which stops flying around 100 knots. In the Hornet, this just leads to a further nose-high attitude, as the Hornet reverts to pulling and placing IG on the airplane.
The Viper rolls well, but it is easy to inadvertently add G during rolling maneuvers because it takes some concentration to prevent accidentally applying back-stick pressure while exerting side pressure in for the roll. I encountered this early in my training. It was challenging, at first, to perform a pure, constant IG maximum-rate aileron roll: nose up and then fly a gentle arc up and then down while rolling so the seat of my pants stays in the seat all the way through. My tendency was to load the roll to 2G halfway through by applying too much back pressure. The next time, I overcompensated and got light in the seat, as I saw about O.SG. Again, the learning curve is steep; eventually, I could max-perform in roll without inadvertently pulling or pushing G.
In the beginning of the training, it's difficult to yank the nose around in a minimum-radius, maximum-G level turn without accidentally introducing aileron in it that isn't wanted. On my first few attempts at a 9G level turn, I tended to ratchet the wings back and forth from one bank angle to another. The side stick feels only the first 25 pounds of pilot input in the longitudinal axis, at which time it gives all 9G (or whatever's available at that speed). Apparently, I must have also inadvertently applied a small amount of lateral-stick force, and that caused unintended bank-angle changes and the subsequent ratcheting. After a few more tries at a 9G level turn, I learned that by using a smooth, gradual G buildup and by toning down the amount of pull, I could nail a 9G, 360-degree turn while maintaining constant altitude within 100 feet.
This jet can hurt you because it has absolutely no problem holding 9G, especially down low. The Hornet is limited to 7.SG by the flight-control software, even though the airframe can handle 9G; in fact, some foreign versions were going to be sold as 9G jets. The tradeoff is fatigue life. When dog-fighting in a Hornet, I rarely see 7.SG, and if so, it's momentary because I'm usually closing to guns after the second merge and am trading airspeed for nose position.

SLOW-SPEED CHARACTERISTICS
There's no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet. But that's another story. The Hornet flies very comfortably at AoAs of up to 50 degrees and has great pitch, roll and yaw authority between 25 degrees of AoA and the lift limit of 35 degrees of AoA. Most crowds are amazed when the Blue Angels perform the Hornet low-speed pass, which is around 120 knots and only 25 degrees of AoA. There are no nasty departures to worry about, and if the pilot happens to lose control, the best recovery procedure is to grab the towel racks (two handgrips on the canopy bow used during cat shots). On the other hand, a Viper has a 25-degree AoA limiter built into its software, and even fewer degrees of AoA are available if it's carrying air-to-ground goodies on the hard points. Up against the limiter, the nose stops tracking; in that case, it's time to drop the hammer and use the big motor to get the knots back, which by the way, happens in a hurry.
The Hornet, however, will stand on its tail, hold 100 knots and 35-degrees AoA and swap ends in a maneuver called "the Pirouette," which looks like a jet fighter doing a hammerhead with a quarter roll. To the spectator and the participant, it looks and feels impossible. The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown. In a Hornet, it's difficult not to get the first shot in a close-in dog-fight that starts from a perfectly neutral merge (going opposite directions at the same altitude). My Viper buddies tell me there is very little room for error when they fight the Hornet. The best way to handle the situation is to get the Hornet to slow down, while they maintain energy so the Viper's superior thrust-to-weight will out-zoom the Hornet and then they can shoot at it from above. As a Hornet driver, I have never lost to a Viper guy that I saw, but I have run into Viper drivers that said the same thing about their jet.

LANDING
As I dirty up for landing (lowering the gear handle is the only pilot action, all other configuration changes are automatic), the Viper becomes a blended-rate command, AoA-command flight-control system. I can trim the aircraft hands-off to the approach AoA of 11 degrees, and the flight-control system should maintain that AoA. In my experience, the Viper is very pitch-sensitive-especially in the flare.
Landing the Viper is easy, but landing the Viper while making it look good is far from easy. The airspeed is controlled with the throttle, and the glide slope is controlled with the stick (at least on the front side of the power curve). The pilot must use the throttle very judiciously on final; with the huge General Electric motor, it's easy to gain excess airspeed rapidly and then float a quartermile down the runway. If the pilot misjudges and gets slow, he can scrape the tailpipe or prang the landing gear, with a bounce back into the air below flying speed (very bad).
The Hornet, by contrast, is very easy to land. The aircraft is trimmed for on-speed, and the glideslope is flown with the throttles until touchdown at 650 to 700fpm. Both aircraft have a HUD flight-path marker (FPM) to tell the pilot where the jet is going. The pilot places the FPM on the piece of runway he wants to touch down on, and that's where he'll land. In the Hornet, the throttle is the primary control for the FPM; in the Viper, it's the stick. The vertical-G load on an average trap at the boat is about 2.7G. The longitudinal deceleration from grabbing an arresting cable is about 4G. That landing is actually a precisely controlled crash. It's easy to nail the glideslope in the twin-engine Hornet by adjusting one throttle at a time by "walking the throttles." Precise glide-slope control is really handy when landing on the boat. As a Navy carrier pilot, I'm not the best at flaring the Viper; I usually bounce once or twice, which I'm told isn't bad.

CONCLUSION
I am often asked, "Which one do you like the best?" The answer is easy, and I reply with this analogy: the F-16 Viper is like the Dodge Viper, and the F/A-18 Hornet is like a Lexus. If I want to cruise around town and experience pure acceleration performance, I would drive the Viper. If I want to cruise in total luxury on a long road trip with all the amenities and Gucci displays, I would drive a Lexus.
It's definitely more fun to fly the Viper, but the Hornet is the aircraft that I would want to take into combat. The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet's cockpit design, and its avionics controls and displays. The only jet that I've flown that is better is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Another major consideration is the Hornet's capability to take a surface-to-air missile (SAM) up one tailpipe and still make it home on the other engine, as was demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Speed is nice to have, and 1 wish the Hornet had more, but my confidence in the jet that I grew up in is high. However, the more exposure I get to the various Viper upgrades and different blocks, the more I appreciate its capabilities. The real bottom line is this: if I were a bad guy, I would hate to go up against either one.

BY LCDR JOHN "TooNCES" TOUGAS

RE: F-16 Versus the F-/A18

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 08:29
by Des
straight from the horses mouth

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 11:08
by hornetfinn
I find it interesting that F/A-18 Hornet is often said to have low thrust-to-weight ratio and slow acceleration. However with F404-GE-402 engines Swiss, Finnish and some later US C-D Hornets have, the power-to-weight ratio is very comparable to most F-15Cs, MiG-29 and F-16 Block 50/52 (with F100-PW-229 engines). Also acceleration is similarly very good, comparable to those mentioned aircraft. Of course with the earlier F404-GE-400 engine the power-to-weight ratio is not very high, but still quite comparable to Su-30MK and much better than JAS Gripen or Mirage 2000. It's also quite comparable to many F-16 versions with F100-PW-200/220 engines. Of course Hornet has higher drag than most of the mentioned aircraft, but that doesn't affect subsonic acceleration much.

For example having witnessed Finnish Hornets taking off with similar external loads to F-16s, JAS Gripens and Mirage 2000s etc in exercises in Finland, the Hornets seemed to need much shorter takeoff distances and climb much steeper after takeoff. Of course being bigger and more powerful than those aircraft means that similar external load affects it less. Also Hornets seemed to usually operate with less external fuel as they have usually only one external centerline tank while F-16s, Mirage 2000s and Gripens usually used two or three tanks. I think Hornet has very respectable range and combat radius figures compared to F-16 or other similar aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 18:14
by zero-one
Was watching an old History Channel Documentary called "Jets and Super planes" produced in 1998.

In my oppinion, its not the average Discovery channel documentary that preatty much targets a novice audience

This documentary is more of an intermidiete course in fighter aircraft, none of the Advanced stuff you'll learn from Gums and other guys over here, but its preatty good in my oppinion.

Anyway, The episode about the F/A-18 was surprising as the narator labled it as the most maneuverable aircraft in the World, At first I thought it was just the typical exageration that you would here from such documentaries, considering that the episode focused on the Hornet and Rhino.


So I watched the Viper episode and was surprised when the
Narrator blurted

“The Viper is a very agile aircraft, only the Navy’s F-18 Hornet can turn tighter and has more energy on a dogfight”

I could accept the “Turn tighter” part but that would be at slow speeds, but is there any part of the envelope where the Rhino or Hornet would have more energy than a Viper?

It was also mentioned that the Hornet uses a Stable airframe unlike the Viper that uses an unstable airframe, is this true?
I thought all planes after the Viper used Unstable airframes?

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 00:01
by neurotech
Describing an F-16 or F/A-18 as "unstable" is a misnomer. I think the F-117 was the only production jet that could be considered aerodynamically unstable without FBW. The Hornet (& F-16) has Relaxed Static Stability, compared to earlier jets. The YF-17 Cobra was stable and flew without FBW. The YF-16 could have been modified for static stability if they couldn't develop the FBW as planned.

The F/A-18 will bleed significant energy when turning tighter than the Viper. The Viper can maintain energy in a tight turn better than the Hornet.

If that documentary came out in 1998, it probably doesn't cover the Super Hornet properly since it was still in flight testing then. The older Hornets didn't have the upgraded FBW software back then that provided the improved AoA performance.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 02:42
by exfltsafety
neurotech wrote:Describing an F-16 or F/A-18 as "unstable" is a misnomer.
The F-16 is unstable in the pitch axis when subsonic as mentioned in http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-948.html. See FlightTestJim's post that contains following quote from a Joe Bill Dryden article: "This (the F-16) is the first operational aircraft intentionally designed to have a negative static margin. In subsonic flight, the F-16 is negatively stable (read, unstable) in pitch. "

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 05:43
by neurotech
exfltsafety wrote:
neurotech wrote:Describing an F-16 or F/A-18 as "unstable" is a misnomer.
The F-16 is unstable in the pitch axis when subsonic as mentioned in http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-948.html. See FlightTestJim's post that contains following quote from a Joe Bill Dryden article: "This (the F-16) is the first operational aircraft intentionally designed to have a negative static margin. In subsonic flight, the F-16 is negatively stable (read, unstable) in pitch. "

There are several Books that describe reference "Relaxed Static Stability" for the F-16 so I'm not the only one who thought that. The F/A-18 is also described as Relaxed Static Stability, and there is manual reversion (pitch axis) in case of failure.
One refer below;
http://books.google.com/books?id=l-cjq0 ... ty&f=false

As for the Joe Bill Dryden article, the links seem to be down.
http://web.archive.org/web/200811221013 ... /f16_aero/

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:23
by johnwill
Here are the facts. Wing plus fuselage center of lift is forward of the CG at speeds below 0.95 mach. To balance the airplane, the horizontal tail load is up (positive). That is for cruise or maneuvering. That means without the tail load, the airplane would pitch up. Unstable.

During transition from 1g cruise to a pull up or turn, there is a very brief time where the tail has a down load increment to get the pitch rate positive. But once the pitch rate starts, the unstable airplane wants to pitch up on its own, so the tail load goes positive again to control g.

Above 0.95 mach, the fuselage plus wing center of lift shifts aft of the CG, reversing the required tail load to balance the airplane, cruise or maneuvering. The shift is quite abrupt, starting at 0.93 mach and completed by 0.96 mach.

Also at 0.95 mach, the flaperons begin a transition to 2 degrees up, completed at 1.05 mach. That incremental down flap load relieves the need for so much down tail load and reduces trim drag.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 00:47
by exfltsafety
All of Joe Bill Dryden's articles can be found at http://www.codeonemagazine.com/magazine_detail.html?item_id=101. Use the pull down list to browse past issues at upper right. The first one in the list is the Semper Viper Special Issue with Joe Bill's articles. Select it and then select View as PDF. His article on Aerodynamics starts on page 7.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 12:12
by zero-one
So I guess all US fighter designes since the F-16 had relaxed Static Stability

By the way regarding the review by JOHN "TooNCES" TOUGAS of the F-16 vs the F/A-18, I always wondered if he was a bit biased towards the Hornet since he was first and formost a Navy pilot,

Also he described that one of his reasons was due to the Hornet's more advanced Avionics, However F-16s are still in production and wouldn't the new F-16 blocks have more advanced sensors and avionics than the legacy Hornet variants.

Hope someone can shed some light on this

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 15:42
by neurotech
See above for the description of the F-16 aerodynamics.

Both the F/A-18E/F and the F-16C/D are still in production. If the EA-18Gs are included, more F/A-18 series jets are currently being produced than F-16C/Ds.

Early on, the F/A-18 had better cockpit multi-function displays and layout. The F/A-18C introduced color MFDs on a production fighter. The F-16C Block 50s (and MLU jets) have similar displays now.

The production F/A-18E/F has AESA radar and further upgraded avionics. With the exception of the Block 60 jets for UAE, no production F-16 has AESA radar. This may be changing if the F-16V Block 70 goes into production. AESA upgrades are also an option for current F-16s

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 03:26
by deadseal
having fought a hornet in a block 40 i'll chime in with my 2 cents. The hornet has one big AOA move. I.E. it can point VERY quickly only once. In an F-16, if you can survive (flare/min range) it's missles, it is a giant pig in space after the one move. point right at it to min range and then go straight up...the hornet can do nothing about that except watch you go and realize he is about to die in the next 6-9 seconds....my 2 cents.

Long range?? yes the AESA hornets will kill every viper out there until the f-16 gets it's own aesa. Legacy hornets? no problem...I think that navy guys spend most of their time trying to get back aboard their bo aat safely versus focusing on tactics. I would too if that was my only base and landing on it is tough as hell.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 07:57
by neurotech
deadseal wrote:having fought a hornet in a block 40 i'll chime in with my 2 cents. The hornet has one big AOA move. I.E. it can point VERY quickly only once. In an F-16, if you can survive (flare/min range) it's missles, it is a giant pig in space after the one move. point right at it to min range and then go straight up...the hornet can do nothing about that except watch you go and realize he is about to die in the next 6-9 seconds....my 2 cents.

Long range?? yes the AESA hornets will kill every viper out there until the f-16 gets it's own aesa. Legacy hornets? no problem...I think that navy guys spend most of their time trying to get back aboard their bo aat safely versus focusing on tactics. I would too if that was my only base and landing on it is tough as hell.

Hornets (like every other jet) have to maintain their energy state, and doing high AoA moves bleeds energy fast. I've watched video of nuggets getting close to below Cessna stall speed in a dogfight. The Navy F/A-18s get to practice against F-16s at NSAWC (TOPGUN) and learn how counter the F-16 (or MiG-29) in a dogfight.

The F-14A Tomcat was considered harder to land than the Hornet. The F404 engines are pretty responsive behind the boat. The Super Hornet is more stable and has even better engines. Usually squadron workups consist of tactical training, then they shift focus to FCLPs before going for Carrier Quals.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 14:15
by Des
deadseal wrote:having fought a hornet in a block 40 i'll chime in with my 2 cents. The hornet has one big AOA move. I.E. it can point VERY quickly only once. In an F-16, if you can survive (flare/min range) it's missles, it is a giant pig in space after the one move. point right at it to min range and then go straight up...the hornet can do nothing about that except watch you go and realize he is about to die in the next 6-9 seconds....my 2 cents.


Even if the Hornet's got aim-9x missilies?

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 14:30
by deadseal
Des wrote:
deadseal wrote:having fought a hornet in a block 40 i'll chime in with my 2 cents. The hornet has one big AOA move. I.E. it can point VERY quickly only once. In an F-16, if you can survive (flare/min range) it's missles, it is a giant pig in space after the one move. point right at it to min range and then go straight up...the hornet can do nothing about that except watch you go and realize he is about to die in the next 6-9 seconds....my 2 cents.


Even if the Hornet's got aim-9x missilies?


that is a problem...but then so do I :wink:

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 14:32
by deadseal
typically bfm is fought with legacy missiles as valid for a kill. otherwise we would all kill each other with 9-Xs at the fights-on and the world would end

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 14:40
by zero-one
deadseal wrote:having fought a hornet in a block 40 i'll chime in with my 2 cents. The hornet has one big AOA move. I.E. it can point VERY quickly only once. In an F-16, if you can survive (flare/min range) it's missles, it is a giant pig in space after the one move. point right at it to min range and then go straight up...the hornet can do nothing about that except watch you go and realize he is about to die in the next 6-9 seconds....my 2 cents.


Well, that One Big High AOA move can be a very effective"Coup de Grace" manuever for Rhino pilots, if they know exactly when to use it

But if you're not sure it would work, you can probably do many smaller high AOA maneuvers to keep your energy up.

I Love the Comparison between the Loaded Rhino and Loaded Flanker on Youtbe where both planes where pulling High AOA maneuvers,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gX_vZB-2nE?

while the Flanker was pulling a bit more, it was apparent that it had to put its nose down after every big High AOA maneuver to regain lost energy

The Rhino on the other hand simply leveled off after pulling a smaller yet considerably High AOA maneuver.

There was one where the Rhino seemed to pull a Cobra, but didn't get passed 90 AOA, maybe 70-80 degrees, but it had the same effect, quick deceleration

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 01:02
by sprstdlyscottsmn
neat video. Always love the squared loop.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 03:11
by deadseal
I love how the video says "dogfight" when its clear that whoever put that together doesn't know sh*t about dogfighting. Those moves are suicide. any fighter pilot on your six would gun your ****** brains out when you try that.The only time I think that an all out stop would be adventegous is in a 1 circle fight, but you wouldn't have the energy for that any way if you were forced 1 circle. If you were the 2nd guy to turn and force the 1 circle, you gave up turing room and the other guy can just go vertical when that happens.I guess what I am trying to say is that the world is not just airshow pet tricks, but is energy and energy recognition. oh and the 9x of course

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 09:08
by zero-one
deadseal wrote:I love how the video says "dogfight" when its clear that whoever put that together doesn't know sh*t about dogfighting. Those moves are suicide. any fighter pilot on your six would gun your ****** brains out when you try that.The only time I think that an all out stop would be adventegous is in a 1 circle fight, but you wouldn't have the energy for that any way if you were forced 1 circle. If you were the 2nd guy to turn and force the 1 circle, you gave up turing room and the other guy can just go vertical when that happens.I guess what I am trying to say is that the world is not just airshow pet tricks, but is energy and energy recognition. oh and the 9x of course


Ofcourse in these Airshows, they don't only show the maneuvers significant in combat, but also a demonstration of the plane's aerodynamic limits.

Most of those maneuvers will definitely get you killed if used the wrong way, but it demonstrates that these aircraft can sustain controlled flight at those attitudes,

In a dogfight, that can be crucial

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 15:37
by deadseal
true

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 15:57
by sprstdlyscottsmn
what I got ou of the video is that a SHornet can pull maneuvers that are 80+% of a Flanker maneuver and not fall down afterward. This translates to better energy retention and low dynamic pressure control ability. Definitely a great show for the Rhino, better than any I have seen in person.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 04:03
by Des
zero-one wrote:
deadseal wrote:I love how the video says "dogfight" when its clear that whoever put that together doesn't know sh*t about dogfighting. Those moves are suicide. any fighter pilot on your six would gun your ****** brains out when you try that.The only time I think that an all out stop would be adventegous is in a 1 circle fight, but you wouldn't have the energy for that any way if you were forced 1 circle. If you were the 2nd guy to turn and force the 1 circle, you gave up turing room and the other guy can just go vertical when that happens.I guess what I am trying to say is that the world is not just airshow pet tricks, but is energy and energy recognition. oh and the 9x of course


Ofcourse in these Airshows, they don't only show the maneuvers significant in combat, but also a demonstration of the plane's aerodynamic limits.

Most of those maneuvers will definitely get you killed if used the wrong way, but it demonstrates that these aircraft can sustain controlled flight at those attitudes,

In a dogfight, that can be crucial


Means nothing if your opponent has HMS

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 17:59
by zero-one
I would'nt go to such absolute terms yet. HMS and HOBS are deadly but must also be aided with maneuvering to further increase the Pk of missiles. Ofcourse you can do without much maneuvering, but why choose not to maneuver if maneuvering will increase your advantage?

If not, then they ought to arm B-2 Bombers with hundreds of Aim 9Xs and AMRAAMs and equip them with HMS,
-More missiles
-More Range
-Larger space for AESA

:D

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 03:17
by deadseal
zero-one wrote:I would'nt go to such absolute terms yet. HMS and HOBS are deadly but must also be aided with maneuvering to further increase the Pk of missiles. Ofcourse you can do without much maneuvering, but why choose not to maneuver if maneuvering will increase your advantage?

If not, then they ought to arm B-2 Bombers with hundreds of Aim 9Xs and AMRAAMs and equip them with HMS,
-More missiles
-More Range
-Larger space for AESA

:D


I am not opposed to a large b-2 style airplane with 69 Aim-120's on some kind of internal rotary, and a HUUUUGGGGEEEE AESA. It just better be able to turn around in a hurry when something pk misses and it's staring at an F-11b in the face!