F-16 vs F/A-18

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

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 12:51

Zero, ask yourself why the Raptor was cancelled, HUM........

Because Barack Obama (who many in the US and around the world think is the second coming of Jesus Christ) wanted the US defense budget cut as far as possible for his social welfare programs. What did Obama pass in 2010????? Do you arm chair kids on this site (and on Picard 1-7, Eagles.ru, Airliners.net, Forums, and all the other Horse Sh*t sites) even remember????

THE SO CALLED ACA (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT) AKA OBAMA CARE!

I have been paying taxes in this country since I was 16 years old. Quite frankly, I do not need a bunch of egotistical European punk kids to tell me the Rubics of my country.

Obama increase the welfare roles, increased the disability roles. And remember all the supposed "IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP HIM" talk? OR THE SUPPOSED $2,400 SAVINGS IN YEARLY PREMIUM DEDUCTIBLES THAT HIS "AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT" WAS TO GIVE US? The resultant is that Health Care costs have increased, and continue to, duh-



I have health insurance provided by my employer, yet my premiums and out of pockets have increased for over 2 years in a row.



So once again, if you people want to continue this game. Go ahead, but realize the US is broke.


Seriously, I don't need the lecture-
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2688
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 13:09

Amen.

(I grew up next door to SAC, if that is clue enough.)
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2342
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 13:38

f-16adf wrote:Quite frankly, I do not need a bunch of egotistical European punk kids to tell me the Rubics of my country.


Not European as well, sorry, I'm Asian to keep you from guessing. I'm from an allied country, so take your guess there, Japan, S.Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand maybe. :mrgreen:

Anyway, you guys don't know how great you have it. The Raptor was never canceled, it was reduced, so were the EF, Rafale, Grippen, Su-27 and Mig-29 orders, they were all canceled.....errr reduced

Imagine if you switched AFs with the UK, you only had a few hundred EFs which is not as good as their premier air superiority fighter, 1 carrier which is smaller then theirs and you needed their help so you can get in the whole stealth game.

But even then you wouldn't be considered broke.

lets switch you again with China, ahhhh yes mighty china that had to buy an old dilapidated Russian aircraft carrying cruiser and promise not to make it a Carrier but then had to break that promise (because thats what the Chinese gov does) and make it a carrier just to get into the carrier game. Oh a massive bulk of your Air force is also made up of 3rd generation Russian copies, nearly all your 4th gens are Russian copies and your only operational 5th gen is obviously a copy from your Rival across the Pacific.

But even then you're still not broke.

Let me tell you what broke looks like.

Switch air forces with the Philippines. Yup they have 12 light advance trainers with secondary fighter capabilities (F/A-50s) serving as their primary air superiority and attack platforms. they got 12...Missiles? yup Aim-9Bs that don't work. Oh but don't worry, from what I hear their fleet will soon sky rocket to 36 and Aim-9Ls are already on order.

The Gripen is being evaluated but cost is an issue. Becasue the Gripen is quite expensive, thats right kids, the Gripen is too expensive for them.

They are so pathetic, that their government has no choice but to cozy up with china who is building artificial military bases as close as 13km away from them. And from what I hear, the president in that country would often say. "Theres nothing we can do, lets just try to get along"

THATS WHAT BROKE IS
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 13:53

Also, why do you think all the Defense Contractors (McAir, GD, NA, Republic, etc) are no longer? Because there is no money....


Apologies for interrupting the ranting but the above is because the Consolidation Curve is a thing.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 17:29

They consolidated, because of the end of the Cold War. Resulting from the subsequent defense draw down. So technically their survival depended on a "fatter" defense budget. With the recession of 1991 (anybody remember that?) and the last few years of Bush 41 and later Bill Clinton (the guy who said "I didn't create a 4 trillion dollar national debt") everything contracted.


As far as the F-22 is concerned: Barack Obama said the 22 was an exorbitant waste of money-
It was cancelled under him (Gates). The US Senate (democrat controlled) voted 58-40 to cancel it.

"Not only is this (cancellation) a major victory for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who lobbied strenuously (something he rarely does) to kill this program, and for President Barack Obama, who pledged to veto the defense bill if it contained a nickel for more F-22s."


And once again, remember what Obama did spend on back in 2009? Hum, any body remember????

The so called 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009' (ARRA) aka THE STIMULUS.
He spent nearly $800 billion and it didn't do jack sh*t.


His signature so called ACA came one year later. So somebody tell me exactly where the money is going to come from for more of: jet, tank, bomber, ship X,Y,Z while the US is still deployed around the world (and with then candidate Hillary Clinton calling for regime change in Syria)?

The US government is more and more focusing on entitlement program spending. Why, because it's all about votes. Why do you think the democrats want to give amnesty to nearly 10 million undocs aka illegals? Because in them they see millions more potential democrat votes. Where is the money going to come from for these people (SNAP, disability)? From our tax dollars-
Last edited by f-16adf on 05 Feb 2018, 20:16, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 19:20

hummingbird wrote:Again you seem to have a reading comprehension problem because there is nothing that I "didn't realize", on the contrary I showed you how you could draw the lift line past slat & flaps deactivation. I have the actual lift curve for way beyond that point. In short NO extrapolation was done or is needed, all the data is there.

I don't have any comprehension problem but you clearly have a memory problem, because these are the same arguments you brought up last time and were proven to be wrong.
a) There is a slight decrease in CLmax even before the deactivate point of slats and flaps, however, it is a steady decline so you will only realize once you draw the line and put the number in.
b) Both wings swept and flaps deactivate points change with altitude, so you can't use the 35k ft lift chart for sea level.
c) Lift charts at lower altitude were limited due to G-limits, and with point b above, there is need to extrapolation. Using the lift charts with deactivated maneuver device doesn't work either because it applies when both slats and flaps are deactivated.
hummingbird wrote:on the contrary I showed you how you could draw the lift line past slat & flaps deactivation( slats @ M 0.85 / flaps @ M 0.83 at <14 kft, 0.85 at >20 kft) as well as full wing sweep, because (now keep attention this time)

I can't understand how you could be so blatantly dishonest and try to draw a false narrative while the graph is still in the open.
flaps.png

@35k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.86 ; partially extended between Mach 0.86 and Mach 0.87, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.87
@14k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.665 ; partially extended between Mach 0.665 and Mach 0.753, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.753
@sea level => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.51 ; partially extended between Mach 0.51 and Mach 0.58, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.58

There is ≈ 0.3 Mach differences between deactivate points of flaps @sea level and @35k ft
Last edited by eloise on 05 Feb 2018, 19:32, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 19:22

f-16adf wrote:And if we are seriously going to keep comparing weights. The cover of the NATOPS F-14BD manual says 1987 and 1990:

Which was when the Tomcat was still a pure air to air fighter. I imagine by 2000 it gained weight for the A-G mission (resulting in even lower performance metrics). Because after all, the MSIP Eagle gained 500-600lbs over the original F-15C.


By all accounts the F-14 actually got lighter as the old bulky electronics were exhanged with lighter newer ones less susceptible to the vibrations of carrier take off & landings. Also the AA load out remained the same. In addition to this a DFCS was added which further enhanced maneuverability.

As for the F-16C, I quoted the basic aircraft weight with pilot of the GE 129 equipped version which is listed as 20,100 lbs for the Blk 50/52, i.e. ready to go only missing the fuel & ordnance.

Now if you have an official chart that lists a lower basic aircraft weight you're welcome to post it. Using the words of an "AF CAPT." can't really stand in for the actual specification sheets.

Anyway since you seemingly want to go to great lengths to make the comparison 100% "fair" right down to the most minute detail, how about we shave off a further 2,000 lbs in fuel and 390 lbs in 2x AIM-9's for the Tomcat so that we arrive at the same 3,550 lbs fuel load pr. engine and identical weapons loadout. That's a 2,390 lbs lighter & less draggy Tomcat, I'll let you guess what effect that will have on the F-14 chart.

In end though I hope you'll realize that under equal conditions there is no way that the F-16C can compete with the F-14 in the horizontal at around M 0.6. The speed needs to be noticably higher for the F-16C to even achieve a similar or slightly higher rate, and that results in a considerably larger radius which in itself can negate a sizeable advantage in rate.

In an all or nothing fight the F-16 pilot needs to go vertical whilst the F-14 pilot needs to take care not to spend too much energy during the first 180.

All in all I consider the F-16 the better dogfighter (the best in US inventory after the F-22) and always have, but it will have its work cut out for it against an F-14 under combat conditions, so much so that the margins between failure & success will be incredibly slim. The matter is entirely different in a mock fight as here the F-14 is seriously hampered by its Navy restriction.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 19:32

hummingbird wrote:Here's what I been trying to get across fromt he start:
ITR = F-14 > F-15 > F-16 (F/A-18 unknown, probably close to F-14, be it better or worse. F-16 is CADC restricted)
Min radius = F-14 > F-15 > F-16 (F-16 is CADC restricted)
STR = F-16 = F-14 = F-15 (virtually identical max STR, difference is in speed needed)
Min sustained radius = F-14 > F-16 > F-15 (F-14 wins hands down due to lower speed needed before max STR)

Except that F-15 ITR is better than F-14 according to NASA test data
and min radius is min sustained radius, how can you calculate min radius with ITR when they are by definition not sustainable ?
STR, ITR of Superhornet at slow regime is better than all teen series if we go by pilots testimony.
Acceleration go to F-15 and F-16
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 19:51

eloise wrote:I don't have any comprehension problem but you clearly have a memory problem, because these are the same arguments you brought up last time and were proven to be wrong.
a) There is a slight decrease in CLmax even before the deactivate point of slats and flaps, however, it is a steady decline so you will only realize once you draw the line and put the number in.
b) Both wings swept and flaps deactivate points change with altitude, so you can't use the 35k ft lift chart for sea level.
c) Lift charts at lower altitude were limited due to G-limits, and with point b above, there is need to extrapolation. Using the lift charts with deactivated maneuver device doesn't work either because it applies when both slats and flaps are deactivated.


The slats (& flaps) do not deactivate before M ~0.85 irrespective of altitude (0.82-0.85 to be specific), you have the chart yourself (Note description below: "Maneuver slat/flap automatic schedule for CADC"):
Image

As for the point of deactivation, this is where the biggest change to the lift curve occurs, but again it is clearly mapped and thus there is no need for guesswork when drawing the curve for lower altitude, the initially change with sweep is even there (and wouldn't you know it, the first onset is within 0.03 M there as well). In other words no change occurs that isn't already covered, and that is applied on the low altitude chart with the 9 G lift curve I presented as well.

I can't understand how you could be so blatantly dishonest and try to draw a false narrative while the graph is still in the open for everyone to see.
flaps.png

@35k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.86 ; partially extended between Mach 0.86 and Mach 0.87, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.87
@14k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.665 ; partially extended between Mach 0.665 and Mach 0.753, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.753
@sea level => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.51 ; partially extended between Mach 0.51 and Mach 0.58, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.5

There is ≈ 0.3 Mach differences between deactivate points of flaps @sea level and @35k ft


Blatantly dishonest? Harsh words...

I suggest you check out the normal operation, i.e. automatic CADC schedule diagram:
Image

Again, there's a 0.03 difference between the <14,000 ft & >20,000 ft programs.

You're posting the manual operating limits diagram, hence the wording "maneuver flaps may be fully/partially extended".
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 20:09

Hummingbird, nobody here is buying your lies.


Show me one EM comparison between a jet with 50% fuel to one with 60% or 70%. You are just making yourself look like a fool. That may work with your cadre of followers on Eagles, but it is't working here.


The Block 40 is 18,700lbs. Subtract a little over a hundred because the -229 is lighter, and subtract over 100lbs because the NSI is lighter than the MCID aka big mouth.




And on the ACM range Gums in his F-16 said he "ran the other teen series out of gas".


And look what CDR. Nawrocki had to say:

"we'd meet the F-14s at the Yuma range, run them out of gas and then fight one v one guns only until we ran out of gas"

and

And what does this Naval Aviator who also authored this article have to say, sound similar?
According to CDR Nawrocki:

"I have time in the F-14 (2 cruises in VF-114, Enterprise) and the F-16N (VF-126). We would fight the F-14's until they were out of gas and then we would typically fight each other, guns only until we were bingo. When we were in A-4's we would also fight each other, guns only as it was spectacular training for us...and fun! We most definitely trained to fight the F-16 as an F-16. We also provided adversary support to the fleet (F-14's and F-18's mostly...occasionally supporting F-15's) as all sorts of aircraft, including full up F-16's when they wanted to see what it could do. And it could do a lot. It had the most aft CG of the F-16's, no hard points, no Aux tanks, never carried anything but a TACTS pod and a captive AIM-9. Big GE motor... It was a rocket ship!"

CDR Nawrocki also authored this:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53704



So I think that a Naval Aviator who flew the F-14A, F-16N, F-8, A-4 should know what he is talking about.


He also added:

"The A model had a slightly different leading edge slat program (also, as I recall...it was 30 years ago!) that resulted in slightly reduced bleed rates. The F-14A was a 6.5 G airplane (as was the "D" model, as I recall - I never flew it, but fought it once), so when you talk about "corner velocity" it is at that max G. The F-16N was a 9.3 G airplane so the corner velocity was at that G loading. The corner velocity of an F-14A at it's designed 6.5 G limit was 325 KIAS. The corner velocity of the F-16N at it's 9.3 G limit was 408 KIAS. All corner velocity is, is the lowest speed at which you can generate your designed maximum load limit. If you look at an energy diagram, the turn radius remains surprisingly constant as the speed degrades below corner and your available G load also degrades. As you go above corner, your turn radius suffers. So, in a one circle fight, where you are both following a single circle, being at or below corner is better. Issues such as the lowest speed at which you can generate a pure vertical maneuver and bleed rates at corner come into play. Below vertical speeds, roll rates come into play with bleed rates as the fight usually degenerates into a rolling scissors. In a slick F-14A, you were generally about 20 degrees nose low at corner and max G to maintain your airspeed. By virtue of your loss of altitude, your total energy state (kinetic or airspeed + potential or altitude) was reduced. The same could be said if you maintained altitude and bled airspeed. In a fight, energy state is critical. It's that energy differential, altitude or airspeed, which facilitates gaining a positional advantage, nose on, with weapons separation which is your goal. It is a complicated chess match. If you go into a 2 circle fight (think both of you making a left turn at the merge), the important consideration becomes turn RATE. A higher G-rated fighter will always have a rate advantage (as opposed to a radius advantage) in a 2 circle fight. Energy loss is still an issue, though and the critical speed is corner velocity. In the radius fight, you can get slow and still be close to min radius, in a rate fight if you go above OR below corner, you lose turn rate. Higher turn rates get you nose on first. In the F-16N, at 408 KIAS and 9.3 G's you were about 8-10 degrees nose low as compared to the F-14A at 20 degrees nose low. Obviously, you lost energy faster in the 14A. The main advantage to the A+ (B) or D was that the bigger GE engines reduced bleed rates. Rate, radius and bleed rates are hugely important, but an understanding of the 3 dimensional geometry involved is something that is more art than science. When I fought the 9G F-15 (when it was slick), I found it to be very close in performance to the F-16N. The big mouth on the C was an improvement as speed increased, as it allowed greater power...sort of like bigger intakes on a muscle car. I'm not sure if that sheds any light on your questions or not. Let me know if there's anything else."




Let me guess little old Hummingbird is right and CDR. Nawrocki is wrong, CDR. Chesire is wrong, Tbarn is wrong. LCDR Joe Ruczika is wrong.


Out of your desperation, you are just making yourself more of a fool-
Last edited by f-16adf on 05 Feb 2018, 20:19, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 20:11

eloise wrote:Except that F-15 ITR is better than F-14 according to NASA test data


Well exhaustive flight testing with real life combat loads proves this wrong, there's really nothing more to say to that.

and min radius is min sustained radius, how can you calculate min radius with ITR when they are by definition not sustainable ?


I didn't calculate absolute min radius, I presented the radius at max sustained rate.

The absolute min radius will be at min flying speed, now I'll let you take a guess at which plane of the two can remain aloft at the slowest speed. The answer should be pretty obvious.

STR, ITR of Superhornet at slow regime is better than all teen series if we go by pilots testimony.
Acceleration go to F-15 and F-16


I don't give much for pilot testimony, it has a very bad habbit of being extremely coloured and misleading, not to mention often completely wrong. However that being said the Super Hornet is no doubt a whole lot better than the F-15 & -16 in that regime, question is wether it's better than the F-14 and if so by how much and where does it reverse?
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 20:14

I've loved reading all this but you can't put "charts" into real world performance, there are just two many factors involved.

Against any variant of the Tomcat, it was outclassed by most you have mentioned.

Against the Eagle, it simply could not match power and maneuverability.
Against the Viper, it was outclassed in every aspect. I could turn inside the Tomcat all day until it ran outta gas......

Against the 22, there is nothing I can say here that would be off any interest.

The Tom's shortcomings were really evident during exercises with Rafale and Typhoon. It was an excellent Interceptor with a very good weapons system. Naval aviators proved the Tom's prowess quite a few times. I like the Tom, but it's day had come, and there is a reason why it was retired. JMHO
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 20:18

f-16adf wrote:Hummingbird, nobody here is buying your lies.


Show me one EM comparison between a jet with 50% fuel to one with 60% or 70%. You are just making yourself look like a fool. That may work with your cadre of followers on Eagles, but it is't working here.


The Block 40 is 18,700lbs. Subtract a little over a hundred because the -229 is lighter, and subtract over 100lbs because the NSI is lighter than the MCID aka big mouth.




And on the ACM range Gums in his F-16 said he "ran the other teen series out of gas".


And look what CDR. Nawrocki had to say:



Lies? So far I've only quoted & provided first hand source material, so where exactly is it that I "lie" ? What false data have I provided ?

Now in contrast I've asked you to provide your sources for the weight difference, yet you now refuse to post them?
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post05 Feb 2018, 20:21

tailgate wrote:I've loved reading all this but you can't put "charts" into real world performance, there are just two many factors involved.

Against any variant of the Tomcat, it was outclassed by most you have mentioned.

Against the Eagle, it simply could not match power and maneuverability.
Against the Viper, it was outclassed in every aspect. I could turn inside the Tomcat all day until it ran outta gas......

Against the 22, there is nothing I can say here that would be off any interest.

The Tom's shortcomings were really evident during exercises with Rafale and Typhoon. It was an excellent Interceptor with a very good weapons system. Naval aviators proved the Tom's prowess quite a few times. I like the Tom, but it's day had come, and there is a reason why it was retired. JMHO


I believe you tailgate, the very real & strict 6.5 G restriction made it a true thing.

Thing is though that we're talking about a real combat scenario here, and then said restriction goes right out the window.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests