F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post18 Aug 2006, 20:57

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.
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post18 Aug 2006, 20:59

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!
Offline

INO

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006, 06:40
  • Location: Virginia Beach

Unread post18 Aug 2006, 21:53

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.......
Offline

Des

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2005, 04:52

Unread post22 Aug 2006, 02:22

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?
Offline

pafpilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 May 2005, 20:28

Unread post24 Aug 2006, 20:33

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!
A MiG at you SIX, is better than no MiG at all!!
Offline

Obi_Offiah

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09

Unread post25 Aug 2006, 02:51

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
Offline

pafpilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 May 2005, 20:28

Unread post25 Aug 2006, 10:26

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"
A MiG at you SIX, is better than no MiG at all!!
Offline

Obi_Offiah

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09

Unread post25 Aug 2006, 20:20

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
Offline

JCSVT

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2006, 21:39

Unread post25 Aug 2006, 21:30

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.
Offline

pafpilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 May 2005, 20:28

Unread post26 Aug 2006, 10:55

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.
Attachments
f18comp.gif
A MiG at you SIX, is better than no MiG at all!!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Sep 2006, 00:24

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.......... :?
Offline

kaptor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 21 May 2006, 01:13
  • Location: Missouri

Unread post06 Sep 2006, 06:39

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.
SA-1911
SA-XD-9
DSA FAL
DSA AR-M4
Daewoo DR-200
Dragunot
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Sep 2006, 06:53

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......... :?
Offline

kaptor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 21 May 2006, 01:13
  • Location: Missouri

Unread post06 Sep 2006, 06:59

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.
SA-1911
SA-XD-9
DSA FAL
DSA AR-M4
Daewoo DR-200
Dragunot
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Sep 2006, 07:38

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:
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest