F-16 vs F/A-18

[zero-one]

Zero,

I will use your own words as my response:

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but thank you... I guess. Point is you can't force people to talk about things that are boring just because its more likely. So, we're sorry if you find us fixated on a less likely scenario.

[zero-one]

.in the 22, I’m taking you vertical with speed and power, where I have tons extra to burn.

Interesting, I noticed that your BFM tactics on the 22 seem awfully similar to your tactics on the Eagle. not surprised because the ATF's maneuvering requirements were heavily influence by the Eagle,

but are there any unique Raptor tactics that you use as well. I'm curious cause when you go in DACT with an Eagle, both of you are going vertical, is the Raptor's advantage in the vertical so overwhelming that you can basically beat the Eagle in his own game or do you tend to take advanatge of the Raptor's unique kinematic advantages

[mixelflick]

I have heard and seen reference to the F-22's performance in the vertical being (in a word) astounding. There is no doubt it's head and shoulders above even the F-15...

[marsavian]

AIM-9X is a different story but both have HMS so nose pointing not required - sounds like mutual suicide

Not required but likely preffered. Most fighters are only configured to carry 2 9Xs. I really don't think a HOBS shot would be a pilot's first option, given a choice.

Thats also what puzzles me a bit, to me, a hornet's job should be easy in WVR,

Get to your corner speed which I hear is around 300 KCAS, a hornet also decelerates faster than any American fighter, so this should not take too long I think.

point your nose with that world beating slow speed maneuverability, get the target within your engagement zone then Fox 2.

Its a low off boarsite shot and if you end up slow, use the Turbo nose down logic (if you are a Rhino) to gain back E.

But then again, I've never flown anything weiging more than 50 grams so this is all just Nerd talk and theory. But thats why I'm perplexed at how Viper drivers beat Hornet guys even when they can literally point and shoot their way out of a furball.

F-16s defeat F-18s on the way down to your scenario. By being able to turn tighter for longer at higher speed they usually get an advantageous position first. Of course if they haven't by the time speeds are well under 300 knots they might be in trouble as turn rates and radius have got less for both with the F-18 still having a considerable high AoA ability in its pocket ready to use at the death. This is why it is fundamentally a question of discipline for rate/energy fighters, they can't prematurely bleed off their speed and energy for the sake of a few extra degrees of instantaneous manoeuvrability otherwise they lead themselves vulnerable when close to stall speeds.

[F-16ADF]

I have seen Block 52's and and F/A-18C's turn on the same day. The F-16 easily wins the rate, the Hornet wins the radius, but not by much. It's really an insignificant margin.

As JB said, they have one good move then they are slow ducks......read his old posts. He flew fighters for over 20+ years, he knows what he is talking about-

[marsavian]

So we always hear that a Hornet pilot fighting an energy fighter like a Viper, an Eagle or a Fulcrum should force the fight into a slow speed, high AOA fight. Vise versa for Viper who should force the fight into a high speed, high G maneuvers.

So if its not classified I'd like to ask?

1. How do you force someone to go fast? I mean I can see how the Hornet could force someone to go slow by forcing the other guy to overshoot. But how does someone force another to stay fast or go faster.

2. What happens when you go on a neutral merge with a super maneuverable plane (i.e Raptor, Flanker) that can fight both fast and slow? Do you wait for him to move first?

1. By going fast yourself thereby inviting the opponent to follow otherwise he risks being at a low energy Ps state making him vulnerable to fast slashing attacks on re-engagement.

2. Positioning becomes key against a fighter that can out turn and out accelerate you. Complicated 3D maneouvering that involves constant change of direction while retaining energy in the hope of making a passing shot count. Only the best most intelligent pilots would survive.

[hummingbird]

I'll take the actual performance figures over your "calculations" thank you, and here the F-14 is the clear winner (hence it's significantly smaller turn radius of 1,500 ft @ 10,000 ft).

I wish it was my or Spurt calculations but it was NASA's who delivered the CLmax from real world measurement. What we did is multiply it with references wing area and speed to draw the curve.There is less room for error than you extrapolate from E-M graph.
As for turn radius, it is calculated with STR rather than ITR

There is no error in the EM charts, they are based on exhaustive real life testing. Thus they at any point trump any armchair calculations you guys have attempted.

Here's an illustration of the minimum radius at each aircraft's max rate of turn based directly on the official EM charts:


In short in any purely horizontal fight the F-14B/D will be able to comfortably keep either the F-15 or F-16 in its sights without issue. The F-14 will only start to struggle if the fight is taken to the vertical, but in terms of ITR its got the advantage across the board.

[rheonomic]

Wow, so if you fly M0.2 slower you can turn tighter? Who would've thought that?!

[F-16ADF]

That's a pretty drawing.

Does the USAF fly any HAF Block 50 or 52's? The answer is no.


The USAF operates one squadron of Block 52's (SCANG). 2 squadrons of Block 42's with -229 IPE motor (OKANG, OHANG). All are lighter than the HAF 52 jet. And I have already proved that by the (non HAF) weight chart which I posted. And the (non HAF) chart of a standard USAF Block 52 at 10K and DI of 50 which is posted earlier in this thread.

Obviously you and your buddies don't understand weight differences between various F-16 Blocks. Nor do you understand the GW effect/turn rate adjustment chart (why do you think the T.O. provides for it?), nor do you understand the difference between a Plateau and a Spike. (read JBGator's post on it)

It's very simiple: The lighter the jet= improved performace.

As with my earlier Non HAF Chart, a USAF Block 52 has far more internal fuel than the HAF Viper, Same goes for the Block 42 with the Pratt 229. Guess what, it's the same exact jet (physically) yet substantially lighter. The USAF Block 52 is loaded with 61% internal fuel, the USAF Block 42 is loaded with 71% internal fuel.

Adjust the Block 42 for 50% internal fuel and it nearly dominates the Tomcat.

Here is the Block 42 vs F-14B comparison:

The blue line is the Tomcat, the Black line above the old Ps=0 is the new adjusted F-16 sustained turn rate. Both lines terminate at Mach 1.

[F-16ADF]

And let me ask you this. You guys posted the "Abbostford 1986" air show F-14 demo as the "supposed" best. Sorry, it's not. I have already posted an F/A-18A of the RCAF at the same airshow (Abbostford 1986) as the Tomcat. And it beats the Tomcat's turn by over a degree. And the Canadian Hornet is flying with a centerline external fuel tank. Or are you going to seriously imply that it has a smaller turn radius against the Hornet? Completely laughable....

here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgO6rhyA2FA



And if the Tomcat is such a great turner, please show me one demo of it completing a 360 turn in less than 19 seconds, or 18 seconds, or 17 seconds, or 16 seconds, or equaling Solo Turk's 15 second time. Oh, that's right there are none-






And lets read what CDR Nawrocki had to say about the F-16N vs F-14D:

"I was flying in VF-126 (Bandits) when we got the F-16N. Prior to that, I made 2 cruises in VF-114 in the F-14A, and went through NFWS while in the F-14. I have over 1000 hours in the F-14A. Typically, we would go out and fight F-14's, or F-18's and, after they left we would fight each other, guns only. It was very common to go to the full 9.3 G's regularly, particularly when we fought each other. I once pulled 10 G's and it wasn't a write up if the FBW let you. The F-14 and the F-18 were no match for the F-16N. Not even close. But you have to understand that the F-16N was not at a real combat load. No drop tanks, no weapons hanging from hard points, the most aft CG of any F-16 model and big GE engines, a TACTS pod on one wing and a captive AIM-9 on the other really put it in a class by itself. I also fought the F-14D and it was no contest past the merge in a 1V1. Now, the F-14 could shoot you in the lips at long range, but we are only talking close in fighting."




So here we have it from a Naval Aviator who flew the Tomcat, Viper, Scooter, and Crusader. I will trust Mr. Nawrocki's view of this issue over a bunch of kids who probably were not even born when TOPGUN came out back in 1986.


Read this by CDR Nawrocki:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53704
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=60




And here is a demo of a F-14D back from 1991 (it has a 360 turn and high alpha pass).... If the F-14D is so great how come I'm not seeing it? It's the same old almost lethargic near boring display as all the rest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6dnYnKEfeA






And what did the French say of the F-14D when they fought it back in 2002?

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/pages/do ... IfMyo.99:i

Faced with the F-14 and F-18C (USS Stennis and Roosevelt) in 2002

Rafale kill on F-14D.jpg (4.65 KiB) Viewed 7678 times

F-14 in the HUD of a Rafale
Just operational in the Flotilla 12F, the Rafale battle against the F-14 Tomcat and F-18 Hornet in Basic Fighter Maneuvering (BFM) measurements:



Translated from French:

"... Against the Tomcat, it's a real butcher's shop ... The Rafale is incomparably more manageable than the heavy F-14 and we take advantage of the commitment ..."

"... in the face of the F-18, the task is more complicated but thanks to the flight controls, the weight / thrust ratio and its low wing load, it quickly shows its superiority ... The fighting often starts at 10000 ft and 400 kts to finish at 5000 ft and 150 kts ... The Rafale is very agile, especially at low speed ... "

Source Air Fan n ° 282


The article of Rafale M vs F-14D, F-18C was also in an issue of Combat Aircraft from late 2002. I use to have that issue but seemed to have either lost it or misplaced it.



But, It sure seems the Rafale pilots thought the F/A-18C was far more of a challenge. Let me guess, the French pilots are full of BS and you armchair DCS guys know the real score?




I understand you guys like the Tomcat, but the inaccuracies are becoming almost laughable-

[hummingbird]

What's laughable is when airshow demos are used as ultimate proof of max turn performance. The abbotsford video shows the F-14 in a sustained turn with a low entry speed, and it kept going for several circles keeping within the ~19 secs, which was a record.

Also had you payed attention I used the GE 129 chart for the F-16C, not the PW one.

Either way you're welcome to believe what you want to believe. I am only interested in reality, and here the F-14 has a clear advantage in ITR & radius over the F-15 & F-16, regardless of wether it's a HAF or USAAF F-16.

The french opinion is of no interest as they fought F-14's constrained by a 6.5 G limit, something you wouldn't be constrained by in real combat, and they no doubt used the vertical plane to good effect as well.

Either way you'll be able to experience it for yourself once Heatblur's F-14B DCS module is out.

[F-16ADF]

Sorry, you are lying. The RCAF Hornet (with an external tank) beat the Tomcat. I have already proved it.

If airshow demos are so inaccurate, than why does your website post them?



Guess what the HAF Block 50 is 700lbs heavier than the USAF Block 50. I have already posted that weight chart as well.


And are you going to seriously imply the F-14D can beat a Big Inlet Block 30? The Block 30 beats all other Viper versions and will destroy the Tomcat.



More lies, about the "G" limits. The Tomcat had near laughable low G limits(in the 4-5G range) in the late 70's, mid 80's, and later 1990's. Sure it had no limiter but it was nominally a 6.5-7G jet.


AND IF COMBAT IS YOUR SOLE CRITERION, LETS SEE WHAT A TOMCAT AVIATOR WHO ACTUALLY FLEW ONE IN COMBAT HAD TO SAY?????

When IN COMBAT according to LT. Larry "Music" Muczynski he PULLED A 7G TURN.

Here it is from his own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjDTGS4BDmU


Notice he DOESN'T SAY 9G. AND HE IS IN ACTUAL COMBAT


If you think that I'm lying why don't you email CDR John Chesire (he flew the F-14A from 1976-1990) and get his opinion of actual Tomcat G limits. I did.
His website is Flitetime.net

[hummingbird]

Seems like you're very much attached to the F-16, as such I don't really care for discussing anything you consider as "fact".

[F-16ADF]

"your" facts are all lies.

It seems like you are attracted to the Tomcat dare I say?

[hummingbird]