F-16 vs F/A-18

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 10 Aug 2015, 13:31

Is the F/A-18 considered as strategic asset because its ability to launch from aircraft carriers while the F-16 is more tactical asset because its cheap and reliable ?

slapshot! · by **slapshot!** » 10 Aug 2015, 19:24

The F/A-18 has roughly the same overall ability as the F16 in terms of putting bombs on target. It just does so in a less efficient manner because of what it needs to be carrier-capable. The main difference is one is built to the USAF wants and needs, and the other is built to the USN wants and needs. They both accomplish the same mission, with different ways of being deployed.

There are cases when we have an airbase nearby, and other times we only have water nearby.

madrat · by **madrat** » 10 Aug 2015, 19:39

The carriers are strategic assets that operate aircraft on the tactical level. Carriers haven't operated strategic aircraft for several decades now. It's politically implausible to declare nuclear strategic capabilities on carriers today. Does it matter to the enemy if carriers or submarines sit off shore with nuclear tips? Neither one will be stopped from delivering it's cargo on target if that becomes necessary. It's just as possible to load conventional loads on those same missiles.

cassava · by **cassava** » 26 May 2017, 11:27

It was in 2003 when 2 USN Hornets of USS Carl Vinson flew over Indonesian air space in order to escort the fleet. Due to the report from Indonesian domestic airlines they saw through radar about a quick and high manouvre aircraft within their lines. Responding the report Indonesian AF scrambled 2 Falcons to identify what was happened up there. The Falcon's pilots said that they were engaged first so they made an evasive manouvre. One of the pilot admits he saw the USN fleet while was doing a manouvre. Another Falcon also engaged the Hornet and waited an order to release its AIM9. Both parties stopped their action when a Falcon made a rocking wing. A communication had made the Indonesian told the Hornets flight had interfered the domestic airlines line and asked them to make a contact with the nearest atc.

Both parties confirmed each other and made a military salute before the Indonesian returned to base.

hummingbird · by **hummingbird** » 23 Aug 2017, 22:24

Interestingly the French rated the F/A-18C quite highly compared with the F-16 in terms of ACM:

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 25 Aug 2017, 01:44

Can someone translate the lower left on the last image? I understand the load outs, but not what the distances are meant to be.

hummingbird · by **hummingbird** » 25 Aug 2017, 02:09

Temps de Montée = Time to climb

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 25 Aug 2017, 20:59

My journey started in the 15, after many years transitioned to the F-16, and when my unit was inactivated in 2006, I was selected and transitioned to the F-22. The F-22 was where I ended my career.

This is my opinion and based on personal experience. The block 30/40/50 F-16 (GE equipped) has the best acceleration of the three I mentioned. Those jets would jump out to their maximum quick and could probably go beyond it if were not for the fixed intake and the canopy. In all my years of flying, nothing beat the F-16 (GE) for acceleration. period. It was a screamer and it was one of the best ACM platforms I ever flew.

I'm a newbie, limited to three post....lol, so hence the edit

Sorry Gents, should have mentioned low altitude in A/A config. The F-16C (GE) will surprise you with its acceleration. An old Eagle driver like me was quickly impressed on my first few rides. I never flew it, but I hear that the-229 F-16 is a sage burner also. I know allot of Viper drivers who flew the older Pratt versions, and the difference was substantial between the two. I can just speak the GE equipped block onwards.

Here is a little tidbit that will get you guys all riled up. The F-15A/C (flew both) were not particularly fast at low altitude, above 30 and that changes. Ready......I've flown a lot of Eagles and not a single one of them would accelerate in the vertical straight from brake release, I know, we've tried. I know some of you guys on here will figure out why, but I'll give a hint.............denser air at low altitude, T/W ratio versus decreasing thrust. A specially modified Eagle (think Streak) but me and my compatriots never got a line Eagle to do it.....lost quit a few beer bets on this.

I say this and this only about the 22 (opsec). It's a generational leap above anything currently flying anywhere in the world. It brings a whole different aspect to air combat. F-35 excluded, of course.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 25 Aug 2017, 21:06

tailgate wrote:My journey started in the 15, after many years transitioned to the F-16, and when my unit was inactivated in 2006, I was selected and transitioned to the F-22. The F-22 was where I ended my career.

This is my opinion and based on personal experience. The block 30/40/50 F-16 (GE equipped) has the best acceleration of the three I mentioned. Those jets would jump out to their maximum quick and could probably go beyond it if were not for the fixed intake and the canopy. In all my years of flying, nothing beat the F-16 (GE) for acceleration. period. It was a screamer and it was one of the best ACM platforms I ever flew.

Jim

Having run the numbers of the heavy HAF Blk50 vs a -220 powered 15 I can't say I am surprised there, but I am surprised that it outdoes the Raptor in acceleration. I always thought that the 22 ran away from everything once supersonic. You're saying it wasn't much different than a 15?

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 25 Aug 2017, 21:43

Not the first pilot to state that - probably the first ex F-22 pilot

Didn't know the F-16 had 2 canons de 20mm - learn something every day.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 25 Aug 2017, 22:39

basher54321 wrote:
Didn't know the F-16 had 2 canons de 20mm - learn something every day.

I thought it had six :roll:

hummingbird · by **hummingbird** » 26 Aug 2017, 01:09

basher54321 wrote:Not the first pilot to state that - probably the first ex F-22 pilot

Didn't know the F-16 had 2 canons de 20mm - learn something every day.

Probably a typo for the -16 & -18 as it's stated correctly as 1 cannon below

How reliable the charts are though, haven't the slightest clue. Interesting to note the French observation though.

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 26 Aug 2017, 16:55

The data looks mostly correct being simple public figures - the only thing I cant verify is the M2000-5 climb data which you might expect to be close to the M53-2 powered M2000C considering the engine looks to be the same.

Of course the question is who has produced it (outside of a French person) and for what audience - because having figures that make the M2000 look good at ~39,000ft is great if the reader is after a high altitude interceptor - which is why the M2000 kept the movable intake cones after all - but get some operationally representative figures at useable speeds and altitudes and almost guarantee it doesn't look so hot.

As for their representation of aerial combat as consisting of a simple turn fight - it maybe gives a clue as to the date this was done because no mention of AIM-9X (which I can use in my diagram

) - also even French wiki makes no mention M2000-5 etc ever got a HMS system.

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 26 Aug 2017, 17:04

tailgate wrote:I'm a newbie, limited to three post....lol, so hence the edit

Sorry Gents, should have mentioned low altitude in A/A config. The F-16C (GE) will surprise you with its acceleration. An old Eagle driver like me was quickly impressed on my first few rides. I never flew it, but I hear that the-229 F-16 is a sage burner also. I know allot of Viper drivers who flew the older Pratt versions, and the difference was substantial between the two. I can just speak the GE equipped block onwards.

Here is a little tidbit that will get you guys all riled up. The F-15A/C (flew both) were not particularly fast at low altitude, above 30 and that changes. Ready......I've flown a lot of Eagles and not a single one of them would accelerate in the vertical straight from brake release, I know, we've tried. I know some of you guys on here will figure out why, but I'll give a hint.............denser air at low altitude, T/W ratio versus decreasing thrust. A specially modified Eagle (think Streak) but me and my compatriots never got a line Eagle to do it.....lost quit a few beer bets on this.

I say this and this only about the 22 (opsec). It's a generational leap above anything currently flying anywhere in the world. It brings a whole different aspect to air combat. F-35 excluded, of course.

Hi Jim / Tailgate - very glad you could drop by - another well respected member of this board (ex 15/16) also claimed the big engine F-16C was better sub 30,000ft so that makes at least 2 with that opinion.

What made you think it could go up vertically then - did you skip the Aero 101 class?

You cant have been out that long - did A-A get so easy in the F-22A you decided to start flying airliners ! ?

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 26 Aug 2017, 20:25

Thanks for the greeting Basher. I hung up my boots July 2016. I'm not taking the airline route, but will figure out something down the road. I've actually gotten into arguments (me, who flies the thing) with people (who don't fly the thing) because
they read somewhere that one of the "fame to claim" is that the Eagle will accelerate going straight up. It's a myth and it won't do it. Need to stop perpetuating this myth. On several occasions me and my buddies would try and test out the theory, just as a point of fact, but we could never do it.
I loved the Viper, to me it's what a fighter aircraft should be. I'll admit being an Ex-Eagle driver I was sceptical of it when I took my first rides. It proved me wrong. I would take the Viper to any fight.