Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

INO, Congrats on the Rhino. I have been biased toward Vipers my whole life and still love them to death but I look at aircraft performance from an engineers standpoint, and then occasionally fly planes in gunzo fights in flight sims to test my theories (have to rely on accurate flight modeling then). I'm sure you cant say much on the subject but my sim experience is that when a rhino gets slow it stays slow (compared to -16, -15, MiG-29) but I often use that to my advantage by forcing my much faster opponent to overshoot and then using a 3 digit turning circle to stay on their tail and accelerate at that point. Have scored gunzo kills on the whole teen series as well as MiG, Su, and Raptor. My final word as an engineer? Hell of a turning machine! Weather it can escape or not? Who cares, once you get engaged you have the tools needed to kill anything. Welcome to the boards INO.

F-16.net Sponsor

I always thought the nickname Rhino was given to the Phantom, and does the name Rhino also associate with the Hornets or just the Super bugs?

Quote:

I always thought the nickname Rhino was given to the Phantom, and does the name Rhino also associate with the Hornets or just the Super bugs?

Rhino is associated with the super bugs.

"Rhino" is used at the boat as opposed to "Hornet" largely because of the massive difference in trap weights. Set the arrestor cables for an -18C when it's an -18F, and it'll rip the cables right on and go off the other end. Think I heard of that happening to VFA-102 or VFA-154 in Japan, but don't quote me on that.

Legacy to the old F-4 [Link pending approval] keeping the tradition alive Smile

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were gonna be talking about a situation where a viper engages a super hornet?

I am of the opinion that if neither aircraft has an altitude advantage and they are engaged BVR with pure A-A loadouts, the super hornet would have an advantage due to the larger number of AMRAAMs it has. But I could be wrong since I'm the engineer type too.

Corous wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were gonna be talking about a situation where a viper engages a super hornet?

I am of the opinion that if neither aircraft has an altitude advantage and they are engaged BVR with pure A-A loadouts, the super hornet would have an advantage due to the larger number of AMRAAMs it has. But I could be wrong since I'm the engineer type too.

I think the the Rhinos AESA may be an advantage also.

Obi

Obi_Offiah wrote:

I think the the Rhinos AESA may be an advantage also.

Obi

Hmm, you are right. Greater detection range does help, especially if both are hugging the ground.

yes but Block 60 has AESA as well. F-16E also has integrated IRST. I guess LM is taking lessons learned from F-22 and applying them to Viper. Rhino will out turn the Viper and as such would employ angles tactics while the Block 60 could out power the Rhino and as such should employ energy tactics. Both have reduced RCS, though the Hornet has more reduction, it had a larger RCS in the first place too.

One last thing about the Gilchrist article. As I understand it in the Hornet vs SH comparisons talking about the SH's running out of fuel on simulated missions with the Hornets, what wasnt stated was that the Hornets were getting re-fueled and shot down while the Sh's were doing neither.
Also if you do the math you'll se a SH as a tanker carries more fuel than the KA-6D ever did and can still keep up with a strike package which the K-Truder could not do.
And in the "speed is life" catagory the Hornets, Vipers and the F-14D all top out at around the same speed, Mach 2. The D Tomcat is much slower than the previous versions, acceleration is a whole different matter though lol.

http://www.gandt.com/books/TKS01.asp

a story of a hornet's a$$ being kick by a israeli viper pilot...cool story

yes a "story" starring Pearly Gates and Flash Gordon Rolling Eyes

No Hornet pilot would be suprised to see another plane go vert against him.

This URL was posted before on this website and it is appropriate for the topic. A Navy F/A-18 test pilot on an Air Force exchange tour flying a F-16, discussing the merits of both aircraft. An enlightening article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9262073

Adrian

I've seen that article before and it's a very good one. I know a pilot who came at it from the other direction, he flew Phantoms, Eagles and CJs, then did an exchange tour with the USMC flying Hornets. Same conclusion, Hornet is the one he would want to fight in due to the sytems and info it gave him. The cockpit upgrades for the F-16 will no doubt even this up a bit, but the main fact is that BOTH of these planes are darn nasty to have to defeat in real life.

Happy_Gilmore wrote:

The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running. Having maintained both jets, I can tell you from a maintenance standpoint the Hornet had NOTTA on the Viper. Very unreliable and maintainability is a nightmare, ask any Hornet weenie about the switching valves and hydraulic system migration problems. I could go on and on but since to didn't ask about the maintenance part of it, I'll just shut up.
Have a great day.

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.

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

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 Viper versus F-18 Hornet