F-16 vs F/A-18
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07
hummingbird wrote:Interestingly the French rated the F/A-18C quite highly compared with the F-16 in terms of ACM:
Also quite interesting the Finns rated the Hornet quite highly compared to the F-16 -- only the Mirage 2000 and Hornet made the shortlist in Finland. The F-16 did not!
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43
loke wrote:Also quite interesting the Finns rated the Hornet quite highly compared to the F-16 -- only the Mirage 2000 and Hornet made the shortlist in Finland. The F-16 did not!
What did they prefer over the MLU and erm the Gripen? - Apart from APG-73 and AMRAAM for one - M2000 had no fox 3 capability until the late 90s. (neither did the MLU come to think of it)
I think the FA-18 is treated as 9G as a land based platform isn't it? (HornetFinn?)
On May 16, 1992, Finland announced that it had selected the F/A-18C/D Hornet to replace the entire front-line Ilmavoimat fighter force of two SAAB J-35 Draken squadrons and one squadron of MiG-21bis fighters. The Hornet won in a flyoff against the F-16A MLU, SAAB Gripen, Dassault Mirage 2000-5, and Mikoyan MiG-29.
A letter of acceptance was signed on June 5, 1992 for a total of 64 aircraft, with the first seven F/A-18Ds being built by McDonnell and the remaining 57 F/A-18C single seaters all being assembled by the Valmet Aircraft Industry Co. (now renamed Patria Finavitec OY) of Kuorevesi from McDonnell-supplied kits.
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 24 Jul 2017, 05:57
tailgate wrote:...
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.
...
You are talking about a CLEAN F-16 Block 30/40/50, right?
According to this 2008 article, Jon Beesley, LockMart test pilot, besides stating that the F-35 has equal acceleration to the F-22 and F-16, he also says that the F-22 has the same acceleration as a clean F-16 Block 50. He implies that. Take a look:
https://www.livescience.com/3032-fighte ... fleet.html
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
This is very subjective.
There are obviously many more variables influencing both airplanes acceleration performance...
I dare to say the F-22 is better at higher altitudes, and the F-16 at lower altitudes.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43
He stated A-A config earlier - and it was his opinion.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43
f-16adf wrote:They probably rejected the MLU because of its radar.
Possibly - the FA-18C also probably looked the lowest risk out of that lot in 1992 of actually happening by 1995.
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 24 Jul 2017, 05:57
basher54321 wrote:He stated A-A config earlier - and it was his opinion.
No, he stated that only and after, he edited his reply.
And in the edit he wrote, i wasn't sure if he was still comparing the F-16 acceleration with the F-22...
tailgate wrote:Between the 15/16/22 (aircraft I flew), the F-16 (GE) accelerated better. Just my opinion.
...
I believe in you.
I was only asking when you said the F-16 Block 50 accelerated better, if you were referring to a clean F-16 Block 50 or a combat loaded F-16 Block 50. Just and only that.
tailgate wrote:...
I am not comparing overall capabilities of each, just one aspect.
Neither am i. I was only comparing acceleration.
- Active Member
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46
No worries. Now between blocks (F-16), the Block 30 was the best performer in ACM. The block 30 had the best acceleration of them all. Don't get me wrong, the -129 is a kick in the pants, but the Block 50 also grew a little in the weight department...
Jim
Jim
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
Tailgate,
This article is from a former F-15C pilot. When you flew the Eagle, was that generally how you fought the F-16 (GE Vipers). Was getting slow against a light Block 10 small tail or Block 15 more dangerous because they had a lighter nose (as some F-16 pilots attest to)?
Here is the article:
"In my experience, the best fighter pilot usually wins between an F-15C, F-18, F-16, MiG-29, etc. when that pilot is decidedly better.
(Assume all the jets I talk about are configured air-to-air and are basically ‘clean’ (i.e. no external fuel tanks but with air-to-air missiles loaded).
The F-16 does best in an energy fight, a fight that stays faster with pilots pulling high-g when their speeds are higher but backing off to more of an optimum turn as the fight gets slower . . . as opposed to a fight where everyone pulls as many G’s as they can to try to point & shoot the other guy sooner which causes the fight to get slow much more quickly.
Where the F-16 has the advantage is in straight and level acceleration. Imagine an F-15 and F-16 meet neutral and both pull max G to turn and try to point at each other for the first shot before getting to min range on missiles. Both end up slow after that first turn and neither get a shot because both turned so violently and stayed so close to each other that they are both inside the min range of their missiles.
Now imagine that both jets level out and accelerate straight ahead for a while. If starting from 200 KCAS, the F-16 will get to 400 KCAS about the time the F-15 gets to 300–330 KCAS. So when they start turning again, the F-16 starts the turn at 9 G’s while the F-15 cannot pull anything near 9 G’s. Turn advantage F-16. A big turn advantage.
Every time either fighter reduces G to accelerate, the F-16 takes advantage and turns faster as a result of getting more speed back quicker than the Eagle. Plus, the faster you are, the more thrust you have because more air (i.e. more oxygen) is entering the intake which means more fuel can be added so more thrust is produced. So the same jet at 200 and 400 knots produces a lot more thrust at 400 knots with the throttles in full afterburner.
So how does the F-15 beat an F-16?
He turns the fight into a slow speed and vertical up/down fight as soon as he can. A Viper doesn’t fly nearly as well as an Eagle in a nose high, slow speed fight. The Eagle has the advantage. Plus Eagle pilots do a lot more 1v1 BFM so have seen a lot more of the ‘pictures’ of a vertical fight so fly with more precision in a vertical fight than the Viper pilot.
The pictures for a flat, horizontal fight are the same throughout the 360 degrees of a full turn. The fight looks the same whether your heading is north, south, east, or west. The vertical fight has 4 different zones where you want different pictures and flight parameters because what you want to see going straight up is very different from what you want to see going straight down which is also very different in level flight with high speed at the bottom of the vertical which is just as different when level (though upside down) at the top of the vertical at slow speeds. The basic advice is to lag your opponent at the bottom of the vertical circle (to get more speed when needed) and pull lead at the top to take advantage of the best way to turn at different speeds and G’s.
Many Viper units used to have a min restriction speed of 150 KCAS for safety which made it even easier. A Viper at 150 is going to move forward of an F-15 who is at 110 and/or allow the Eagle to out climb the Viper at the same time when in a slow speed scissors fight. (Called ‘scissors’ because you go back and forth across each others flight paths.)
Bottom Line? Flat, fast, energy fights almost always go to the Viper while slow speed, vertical fights go to the Eagle. As an Eagle pilot, I must force a fight with a Viper into a slow speed vertical fight if I want my best chance to win. But I need to do so at the very beginning of the fight. The longer I wait, the better for the Viper driver.
F-15 vs. F-18?
An F-18 is kind of like an F-15E junior with very similar weapons/avionics systems to an F-15 and very similar capabilities. (Made by the same company. Makes sense.) But in an air-to-air mode, the F-18 has leading edge slats and maneuvering flaps. (Added to allow them to take off and land much slower on a carrier.) During BFM, it allows them to turn and maneuver much better at slow speed.
In my experience, when starting a fight from a beyond visual range, the best pilot wins because of the similarities in basic jet and weapons and avionics between the two jets. Against equal pilots of high skill, if both pilots survive to the merge for a BFM fight, the fight will tend to get slow where the F-18 will out-turn the Eagle but the Eagle will tend to outclimb the Hornet. Once you get 2000 feet vertical on a slow opponent in an Eagle, you have the ability to dive and guns track just about any opponent who is slow and below you and basically horizontal. The slow speed makes it very hard to defeat a gun shot with a guns jink maneuver.
Caveat. I never flew against an F-18 pilot with a lot of air-to-air experience. Most of the Hornet pilots I flew against had transitioned to their jet from other jets (F-104, F-4, etc.) that weren’t good BFM aircraft and had less than 2–3 years in Hornets while I was very experienced by the time I flew against my first Hornet. And F-18 pilots as a whole did not yet have the extensive collective experience of the F-15C community. That’s changed so it would be interesting to learn how the best Hornet pilots of today do against the best Eagle pilots in similar air-to-air configurations.
The original question: F-18 vs. F-16?
I do not know. But if forced to guess, I think it would be similar to the Viper vs. Eagle fight with the F-18 doing better in a slow, vertical fight and the Viper doing better in a higher speed, higher energy fight.
MiG-29 vs. any American modern fighter?
A Fulcrum is very similar to an F-15C in basic aerodynamics and maneuvering capabilities. But the HOTAS (Hands On Throttles And Stick) sucks compared to American fighters. Its my understanding that the Germans couldn’t wait to get rid of their MiG-29’s after East & West merged.
HOTAS is very important during BFM because shot opportunities come and go very quickly and constantly change during different phases of the fight. So you have to constantly work to get and then reacquire a radar lock and to also be ready with the next most likely weapon to be shot so that you can shoot during a 2–3 second window when that is all you have.
When I BFM new F-15 pilots in the Boeing full visual simulator, if we fly exactly the same flight profile, I will typically fire 3–4 times as many shots as the rookie because I recognize when shot envelopes are coming and have selected the correct weapon and gotten the lock ahead of time (when needed). When pointing at my opponent, I can also easily shoot no-lock shots without a radar lock with all of my weapons which new guys tend to not even think about.
Su-27 vs. USAF/USN/USMC fighters (but not the F-22)?
I never flew against them, though I have escorted Flankers across Alaska. They can turn and maneuver very well. They have a lot of gas (i.e. endurance). They have pretty good avionics and weapons. Myself, I do not want to go to a merge against a Flanker. Against an average to below average pilot I will probably be okay. Against a skilled pilot, he may have a big enough turn AND energy advantage that I don’t want to fly either an energy fight or slow speed fight with him.
So my plan would be to pull 10–11 G’s at the merge (I was a G-god at 66.5″ who lifted weights 2–3 times a week and ran 3–4 10K’s a week at my peak so could pull some G’s) . . . which would over-G the jet but not rip the wings off . . . and get the first shot post-merge. That would be a lot easier with the helmet mounted site and AIM-9X.
The real goal would be to never go to a merger with a Flanker. The truth is that in modern, large force scenarios, almost EVERYONE who turns & burns at a merge dies because it so very easy to point for everyone else in the area to shoot from 1+ miles away out to a max visual range or about 5 NM. People don’t survive BFM fights in RED FLAG because everybody and their mother quickly point and shoot at them because they are sitting ducks."
This article is from a former F-15C pilot. When you flew the Eagle, was that generally how you fought the F-16 (GE Vipers). Was getting slow against a light Block 10 small tail or Block 15 more dangerous because they had a lighter nose (as some F-16 pilots attest to)?
Here is the article:
"In my experience, the best fighter pilot usually wins between an F-15C, F-18, F-16, MiG-29, etc. when that pilot is decidedly better.
(Assume all the jets I talk about are configured air-to-air and are basically ‘clean’ (i.e. no external fuel tanks but with air-to-air missiles loaded).
The F-16 does best in an energy fight, a fight that stays faster with pilots pulling high-g when their speeds are higher but backing off to more of an optimum turn as the fight gets slower . . . as opposed to a fight where everyone pulls as many G’s as they can to try to point & shoot the other guy sooner which causes the fight to get slow much more quickly.
Where the F-16 has the advantage is in straight and level acceleration. Imagine an F-15 and F-16 meet neutral and both pull max G to turn and try to point at each other for the first shot before getting to min range on missiles. Both end up slow after that first turn and neither get a shot because both turned so violently and stayed so close to each other that they are both inside the min range of their missiles.
Now imagine that both jets level out and accelerate straight ahead for a while. If starting from 200 KCAS, the F-16 will get to 400 KCAS about the time the F-15 gets to 300–330 KCAS. So when they start turning again, the F-16 starts the turn at 9 G’s while the F-15 cannot pull anything near 9 G’s. Turn advantage F-16. A big turn advantage.
Every time either fighter reduces G to accelerate, the F-16 takes advantage and turns faster as a result of getting more speed back quicker than the Eagle. Plus, the faster you are, the more thrust you have because more air (i.e. more oxygen) is entering the intake which means more fuel can be added so more thrust is produced. So the same jet at 200 and 400 knots produces a lot more thrust at 400 knots with the throttles in full afterburner.
So how does the F-15 beat an F-16?
He turns the fight into a slow speed and vertical up/down fight as soon as he can. A Viper doesn’t fly nearly as well as an Eagle in a nose high, slow speed fight. The Eagle has the advantage. Plus Eagle pilots do a lot more 1v1 BFM so have seen a lot more of the ‘pictures’ of a vertical fight so fly with more precision in a vertical fight than the Viper pilot.
The pictures for a flat, horizontal fight are the same throughout the 360 degrees of a full turn. The fight looks the same whether your heading is north, south, east, or west. The vertical fight has 4 different zones where you want different pictures and flight parameters because what you want to see going straight up is very different from what you want to see going straight down which is also very different in level flight with high speed at the bottom of the vertical which is just as different when level (though upside down) at the top of the vertical at slow speeds. The basic advice is to lag your opponent at the bottom of the vertical circle (to get more speed when needed) and pull lead at the top to take advantage of the best way to turn at different speeds and G’s.
Many Viper units used to have a min restriction speed of 150 KCAS for safety which made it even easier. A Viper at 150 is going to move forward of an F-15 who is at 110 and/or allow the Eagle to out climb the Viper at the same time when in a slow speed scissors fight. (Called ‘scissors’ because you go back and forth across each others flight paths.)
Bottom Line? Flat, fast, energy fights almost always go to the Viper while slow speed, vertical fights go to the Eagle. As an Eagle pilot, I must force a fight with a Viper into a slow speed vertical fight if I want my best chance to win. But I need to do so at the very beginning of the fight. The longer I wait, the better for the Viper driver.
F-15 vs. F-18?
An F-18 is kind of like an F-15E junior with very similar weapons/avionics systems to an F-15 and very similar capabilities. (Made by the same company. Makes sense.) But in an air-to-air mode, the F-18 has leading edge slats and maneuvering flaps. (Added to allow them to take off and land much slower on a carrier.) During BFM, it allows them to turn and maneuver much better at slow speed.
In my experience, when starting a fight from a beyond visual range, the best pilot wins because of the similarities in basic jet and weapons and avionics between the two jets. Against equal pilots of high skill, if both pilots survive to the merge for a BFM fight, the fight will tend to get slow where the F-18 will out-turn the Eagle but the Eagle will tend to outclimb the Hornet. Once you get 2000 feet vertical on a slow opponent in an Eagle, you have the ability to dive and guns track just about any opponent who is slow and below you and basically horizontal. The slow speed makes it very hard to defeat a gun shot with a guns jink maneuver.
Caveat. I never flew against an F-18 pilot with a lot of air-to-air experience. Most of the Hornet pilots I flew against had transitioned to their jet from other jets (F-104, F-4, etc.) that weren’t good BFM aircraft and had less than 2–3 years in Hornets while I was very experienced by the time I flew against my first Hornet. And F-18 pilots as a whole did not yet have the extensive collective experience of the F-15C community. That’s changed so it would be interesting to learn how the best Hornet pilots of today do against the best Eagle pilots in similar air-to-air configurations.
The original question: F-18 vs. F-16?
I do not know. But if forced to guess, I think it would be similar to the Viper vs. Eagle fight with the F-18 doing better in a slow, vertical fight and the Viper doing better in a higher speed, higher energy fight.
MiG-29 vs. any American modern fighter?
A Fulcrum is very similar to an F-15C in basic aerodynamics and maneuvering capabilities. But the HOTAS (Hands On Throttles And Stick) sucks compared to American fighters. Its my understanding that the Germans couldn’t wait to get rid of their MiG-29’s after East & West merged.
HOTAS is very important during BFM because shot opportunities come and go very quickly and constantly change during different phases of the fight. So you have to constantly work to get and then reacquire a radar lock and to also be ready with the next most likely weapon to be shot so that you can shoot during a 2–3 second window when that is all you have.
When I BFM new F-15 pilots in the Boeing full visual simulator, if we fly exactly the same flight profile, I will typically fire 3–4 times as many shots as the rookie because I recognize when shot envelopes are coming and have selected the correct weapon and gotten the lock ahead of time (when needed). When pointing at my opponent, I can also easily shoot no-lock shots without a radar lock with all of my weapons which new guys tend to not even think about.
Su-27 vs. USAF/USN/USMC fighters (but not the F-22)?
I never flew against them, though I have escorted Flankers across Alaska. They can turn and maneuver very well. They have a lot of gas (i.e. endurance). They have pretty good avionics and weapons. Myself, I do not want to go to a merge against a Flanker. Against an average to below average pilot I will probably be okay. Against a skilled pilot, he may have a big enough turn AND energy advantage that I don’t want to fly either an energy fight or slow speed fight with him.
So my plan would be to pull 10–11 G’s at the merge (I was a G-god at 66.5″ who lifted weights 2–3 times a week and ran 3–4 10K’s a week at my peak so could pull some G’s) . . . which would over-G the jet but not rip the wings off . . . and get the first shot post-merge. That would be a lot easier with the helmet mounted site and AIM-9X.
The real goal would be to never go to a merger with a Flanker. The truth is that in modern, large force scenarios, almost EVERYONE who turns & burns at a merge dies because it so very easy to point for everyone else in the area to shoot from 1+ miles away out to a max visual range or about 5 NM. People don’t survive BFM fights in RED FLAG because everybody and their mother quickly point and shoot at them because they are sitting ducks."
- Banned
- Posts: 2848
- Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
- Location: New Jersey
F-15C pilot wrote:Su-27 vs. USAF/USN/USMC fighters (but not the F-22)?
I never flew against them, though I have escorted Flankers across Alaska. They can turn and maneuver very well. They have a lot of gas (i.e. endurance). They have pretty good avionics and weapons. Myself, I do not want to go to a merge against a Flanker. Against an average to below average pilot I will probably be okay. Against a skilled pilot, he may have a big enough turn AND energy advantage that I don’t want to fly either an energy fight or slow speed fight with him.
Different pilot, different opinion
https://hushkit.net/2012/07/13/hushkit- ... inal-word/
Rhino pilot wrote: it would be pretty fun to turn with those guys and see what they can do. We’re definitely not going to keep up with those guys in drag race, but it would be nice to mix it up in the BFM environment.”
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
garrya wrote:
Is this the correct general ranking ( > is superior)
Acceleration: F-16 > F-15 > F-14 > F-18
Instantaneous turn rate: F-18 > F-15 > F-14 > F-16
STR high subsonic (Mach 0.7 to 0.9) : F-16 > F-15 > F-14 > F-18
STR low subsonic (Mach 0.3 to 0.6): F-18 > F-14 > F-16 > F-15
Roll rate: F-16 > F-15 = F-18 > F-14
Post stall nose pointing: F-18 > F-15 = F-14 = F-16
Assuming they only carry light load of 4-6 air to air missiles and nothing else.
Not quite.
Firstly the F-14 has a better ITR than the F-15 & F-16, and probably similar to the F/A-18 (would need official F-18 charts to be sure), the F-15 being last on the list.
Next the low subsonic STR goes to the F-14, then F-18, F-16 & F-15.
As for post stall nose pointability, the F-18 wins hands down, after that the F-14, F-15 and finally F-16 which is limited by its FCS.
Apart from those three points the list looks ok though.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2374
- Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05
hummingbird wrote:
Not quite.
Firstly the F-14 has a better ITR than the F-15 & F-16, and probably similar to the F/A-18 (would need official F-18 charts to be sure), the F-15 being last on the list.
Next the low subsonic STR goes to the F-14, then F-18, F-16 & F-15.
As for post stall nose pointability, the F-18 wins hands down, after that the F-14, F-15 and finally F-16 which is limited by its FCS.
Apart from those three points the list looks ok though.
Not true, we calculated it.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=90
ITR: F-18 is top at the list then F-15, then F-14 then F-16 being last due to its FCS.
As for post stall controlled maneuver, F-18 is the only one with that ability, the rest are only put in spin to recover. F-15, F-14, F-16 were all tested to high AoA: spin resistance, flight departure and recovery, maintain high AoA but none has the control authority of F-18 in post stal regime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests