F-16 versus Super Hornet

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

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post20 Nov 2003, 21:47

Where the SH falls short in the A2A thing is having enough speed to control how it wants to enter or leave a fight. Something an F-14, F-15, Rafale, and a SU-3x won't have trouble doing. Unless the intercept is nose on, its going to have trouble doing an intercept. It is SLOW and draggy. Having a nice sensor suite and a lot of weapons isn't all that great if you have trouble controlling your opponent. Granted, hardly a big deal given todays diminished A2A threat.

The point being if a carrier ever has to unexpectedly face an orgainized SU-3x threat in the future, the SH doesn't have the speed to control how it wants to engange or disengage.What ever it can do in the future, WVR doesn't mean much when everyone does helmet/heater combos. Without that wonder weapon, a new Viper will eat it alive. Not to mention that a Viper force vs. this thing also has a bit more speed and can also choose to engage on its own terms.

I won't get into the whole sorry saga of the SH program on this forum. Its a good strike fighter, but hardly "Super".
- ELP -
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post14 Feb 2004, 20:02

elp wrote:Where the SH falls short in the A2A thing is having enough speed to control how it wants to enter or leave a fight. Something an F-14, F-15, Rafale, and a SU-3x won't have trouble doing. Unless the intercept is nose on, its going to have trouble doing an intercept. It is SLOW and draggy. Having a nice sensor suite and a lot of weapons isn't all that great if you have trouble controlling your opponent. Granted, hardly a big deal given todays diminished A2A threat.

The point being if a carrier ever has to unexpectedly face an orgainized SU-3x threat in the future, the SH doesn't have the speed to control how it wants to engange or disengage.What ever it can do in the future, WVR doesn't mean much when everyone does helmet/heater combos. Without that wonder weapon, a new Viper will eat it alive. Not to mention that a Viper force vs. this thing also has a bit more speed and can also choose to engage on its own terms.


Check me here but it sound like you're describing a p/w ratio issue. No? I thought the new motors had more cajones than the original F404s? With the increased wing area and gross weight it probably has the turn rate of a barn door, even with a relatively light load, unless the FLCS (to coin a Viper-ism) has a magic line of code that compensates. :?:
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
Offline

Lawman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2003, 21:35

Unread post15 Feb 2004, 09:19

LinkF-16SimDude wrote:Check me here but it sound like you're describing a p/w ratio issue. No? I thought the new motors had more cajones than the original F404s? With the increased wing area and gross weight it probably has the turn rate of a barn door, even with a relatively light load, unless the FLCS (to coin a Viper-ism) has a magic line of code that compensates. :?:


Original 404's put out aprox 16K lbs at peak power with full AB. The Newer 414's that were built on the same design put out 22K lbs at full AB. So we went from 36K combined thrust to 44K which actually gave it an even better T:W ratio then the original plane. And no it wont turn inside an F-16 but it can fly up to 50 degrees nose up and still be controllable, out accelerate the Viper, Out Climb the Viper, and out roll the viper. So again as long as the pilot isnt crazy enough to get into a turn fight with a much smaller plane the SH does have advantages to play on.

Elp seems to have a problem with a plane that peaks out at Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 2. Honestly who makes an intercept about 700 knots. You name me a time either plane has ever engaged somebody at anywhere near Mach 1.5 let alond Mach 2. And all intercepts will be head on against a Su-3X threat when they are attacking the carrier, where the hell else they gonna come from unless they figure out how to swim.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post15 Feb 2004, 20:42

Lawman wrote:[quote="LinkF-16SimDude
Check me here but it sound like you're describing a p/w ratio issue. No? I thought the new motors had more cajones than the original F404s? With the increased wing area and gross weight it probably has the turn rate of a barn door, even with a relatively light load, unless the FLCS (to coin a Viper-ism) has a magic line of code that compensates. :?:


Original 404's put out aprox 16K lbs at peak power with full AB. The Newer 414's that were built on the same design put out 22K lbs at full AB. So we went from 36K combined thrust to 44K which actually gave it an even better T:W ratio then the original plane. And no it wont turn inside an F-16 but it can fly up to 50 degrees nose up and still be controllable, out accelerate the Viper, Out Climb the Viper, and out roll the viper. So again as long as the pilot isnt crazy enough to get into a turn fight with a much smaller plane the SH does have advantages to play on.

Elp seems to have a problem with a plane that peaks out at Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 2. Honestly who makes an intercept about 700 knots. You name me a time either plane has ever engaged somebody at anywhere near Mach 1.5 let alond Mach 2. And all intercepts will be head on against a Su-3X threat when they are attacking the carrier, where the hell else they gonna come from unless they figure out how to swim.


No. I have a problem with a jet that has weak.... scary weak performance when it comes to speed.
Honestly who makes an intercept about 700 knots. You name me a time either plane has ever engaged somebody at anywhere near Mach 1.5 let alond Mach 2.

And all intercepts will be head on against a Su-3X threat when they are attacking the carrier,


That just isn't the case as carrier air also has to protect an area of airspace outside the ships SAM umbrella.History has shown this. The F-14 provided this ability ( even though now it is a maintenance pig sometimes ) Naval jet aviation has a long history of projecting out power... not circling the wagons when a big A2A threat is around. It could be a nice quiet day with nothing expected and all the sudden a carrier group is in an instant hot spot vs an opponent with a stack of big SUs. I DO NOT WANT PARITY. I want domination when deciding a match up.

Engaging and intercept are two different things. Since the SH doesn't have any speed or acceleration of use, it is at serious risk to a jet in the SU-27 3x class. The big SU ( like the F-15 and F-14) has some gas and while it might not be maxed out anywhere close to its top rated speed, can push up its speed enough to keep a SH at risk or just go around it. That doesn't leave much options for the USN except to call up on the USAF when it needs a real air domination move performed. The Super Hornet cannot handle a SU-27 or 3x. Ever hear of China? Yes friendly but that doesn't mean much if things were to change. I would not want to take a carrier battle group through the straits of Taiwan and knowing that my only projection power besides Tomahawk cruise missiles is a jet that is better at strike and very weak in A2A. If the SH goes out side it's SAM umbrella of the battle group, all bets are off. I want to know why I am paying big $$ for a jet that has less air to air performance than almost any fighter. That is a glaring problem, considering that carriers are out there and a flare up could happen at anytime. The SH was sold to the public and congress with the ability to do all tasks. In the end it is:

-Nice striker
-Great Maintenance
-Run for your life ( if you can ) in the scenario above.

BTW in the final qualifications, the USN changed the requirements so it "met" the USN standard. I love naval avation, but I am fed up with the USN trying to mangage carrier air. If the SH best air to air quality is that it has some high alfa, then the pilot is out of speed and will be a strafe target. Good move. The SH community is going to get stomped in friendly ACM with our F-15s ( of which one country still has them and could be a problem in the future ) F-14s ( of which one other country still has ), F-16, ( these users are still "friendly ) Mirage 2000....... ( some friendlies ) EF2000, Rafale.(all friendlies)..... Large SUs. ( not all friendly here ) Also, if WVR is your thing, the C Hornet puts the SH at risk.

I am glad they have a nice strike jet. I am not glad that a carrier group could end up in an instant flare up with its most strong bird being an SH. All this while we have a carrier aviation roadmap that looks like a train wreak ( C Hornets have way too many hours on them now with all the ops tempo ) Kinda scary since carriers have always been our big stick.
- ELP -
Offline

Lawman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2003, 21:35

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 05:16

It is just as fast as the Top of the Line B/D model Tomcats and out accelerates the Turkey.

The Original Hornet had a Max Climb rate of 45K/minute compaired to the S/H 50K/minute. The plane has a shorter Take off distance, higher climb rate, and better subsonic acceleration then the original hornet (a plane that could out accel anything short of the F-15 in our inventory)

The idea that high alpha cabability is useless, try flying behind a plane thats doing 200 knots and can still fight. The low speed Pieroet the Hornet is known for will give anybody hell, let alone an aircraft trying to knife fight at 400 knots.

You know what, screw it, heres a web page. Written by the Chief test pilot on the S/H program. All are welcome to read it, in it he goes over the facts trying to dispel these myths about the New being worse then the old. And since the man has more then 4K hours in both of the planes I think he knows what hes talking about. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/d ... Hornet.htm

Drew
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 06:17

Sounds nice. Wait till some of the embarassing ACM tails roll in. I read some test pilot stuff too. They admitted it is a compromise jet. The only way the SH loaded with gear is going to out do the F-14 is in a maintenance battle or in a diversity of A-G ord battle... and then it can't carry it as far. Other than that it is pretty slow when you hang stuff on it. Funnier yet is the one set of hardpoints canted out at an angle in order to quick fix an early aero design fubar cause they didn't do proper R&D early on. Look. Its a dead issue anyway. We are stuck with it. Please just don't tell me it is "Super" anything.
- ELP -
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 15:36

Thought Tom-cant's top speed was around M2.5 vs M1.8 for the Whorenets?
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 16:22

Hi hi hi, the Lawman-Elp contest about Super Hornet is back. Find a shelter, it's gonna be the war again! :lol:

I don't think, like Elp, that high alpha is absolutely useless. Nevertheless, it usually means losing a lot of speed, which may put the plane in danger in WVR combat. In this case, in a F-16 (with AA load only), you just have to stop pulling the stick to take back a lot of speed, as the jet is so amazingly powerful. I just wonder if a Super Hornet can do that in the same manner :roll: .
Offline

Lawman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2003, 21:35

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 18:04

habu2 wrote:Thought Tom-cant's top speed was around M2.5 vs M1.8 for the Whorenets?

Mach 2.34 at 52K feet with the original P&W engines. When they switched over to the B/D model GE engines they opted for a much better acceleration rate and less compressor stalls at High Alpha rather then the Fuel sucking Mach numbers. Also remember the Hornet unlike the Eagle/Tomcat ect wasnt designed with variable intakes in order to save weight and cost, thats one of the Reasons it cant get into the Mach 2 range, the power is there though.

The point with High AOA being important is that a Plane either loaded with ordanance, or weak on energy that is still flyable is a great thing to have. If you drop below 300 knots and cant fight what good are you after the first few turns. This is the problem the Mig-29's from Germany found when going after the Hornet, they'd wear it down in speed and the thing still turned to fight. It didnt drop its nose and try to run like Elp seems to emply it has to do.

As for the Turkey vs Bug battle.... That isnt a battle Tomcats dont turn below 400 knots. They have massive alpha restrictions to keep the plane from departing. They climb only when they get a head start. That wing is a great advantage at High Mach numbers, but once it opens up to full span the plane handles sluggish at best. Strap a BARCAP load under neath the plane and its not handling at all unless they want to dump those expensive AIM-54's off the bottom. Theres a reason they use F/A-18s at Fallon and not Tomcats. The Cat has a capability no other plane in the world has, but its not very real world now that the only Bomber threats are rusting on the ground and dwindled to numbers of less then 20 or 30 in an area.
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 18:21

Also remember the Hornet unlike the Eagle/Tomcat ect wasnt designed with variable intakes in order to save weight and cost, thats one of the Reasons it cant get into the Mach 2 range, the power is there though.

Not trying to argue (I understand principles behind inlet design) but the F-16's fixed intake gives it M2.05 speed and the inlet is not the limiting factor.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 18:22

Lawman if ever I was going to be wrong, I hope this is the time. Aircrews are depending on this, I wouldn't mind so much if we had a air domination jet already in good health on the deck for a long time, but we don't. I think the following guy keeps the topic in perspective:

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/interviews/snodgrass/

Capt. Dale "Snort" Snodgrass, USN (Ret.)

I think it's a wonderful airplane, but you have to understand it's a compromise design. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. From a flying quality standpoint, it has to be one the easiest planes in the world to fly. I could probably take a guy off the street and in 30 hours have him solo in the thing. It’s designed to be easy to fly because operating the complex radar and weapon systems is a huge challenge. From a tactical perspective, it was designed as a trash hauler…it wasn't designed to be a "hypersonic cruiser" air superiority aircraft. There were a lot of politics at play in its development…the AFX was shot down, the Super Tomcat got shot down, and as a fall back they went with this robust improvement of the existing F/A-18. For the US Navy flying off a carrier with this airplane, it's going to be the most reliable and safest airplane they've probably ever flown, and it will carry the "mail" for a long time.

- ELP -
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 18:43

Isn't "Snort" the guy who did the low-level knife edge pass on/by the carrier deck that you always see photos of?
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

Lawman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2003, 21:35

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 20:28

habu2 wrote:
Also remember the Hornet unlike the Eagle/Tomcat ect wasnt designed with variable intakes in order to save weight and cost, thats one of the Reasons it cant get into the Mach 2 range, the power is there though.

Not trying to argue (I understand principles behind inlet design) but the F-16's fixed intake gives it M2.05 speed and the inlet is not the limiting factor.


More mass, more drag. The Older Hornets Intakes were very simple and draggy, and maximised for airflow at mid-high subsonic speeds. Mach 1.2 is where it really starts to hurt the planes speed. The newer Intake are better designed to give both a better radar cross section and flow at higher speeds.

And the Navy will never have another Fighter first aircraft. The Tomcat was the greatest Naval Interceptor ever created, and was designed for that purpose because of an existing Bomber threat. However since it has only had 4 instances to prove that ability nobody thinks its necessary. This is probably the main reason the Navy is just throwing money at the Boost assisted Amraam.
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 20:53

Found it:
Attachments
F-14FlyBy.jpg
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post20 Feb 2004, 20:50

O.T. VFA 102 ( The Diamondbacks ) Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5
( NAVAL AIR FACILITY ATSUGI, Japan (NNS) ) USN F-18 Super Hornets just got their new JHMCS operational.

Willard tried on one of the helmets and was impressed by the high-tech display projected on the visor, which shows information about nearby aircraft or ground targets.


RE:
7th Fleet Welcomes VFA-102
Story Number: NNS040220-06
Release Date: 2/20/2004 9:05:00 AM
- ELP -
Next

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests