Da man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 15 Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 28474 times:
This is a theoretical question I'm throwing out.
Say a nation was going to buy some new fighters and they narrowed their choices to either the F-16E/F Block 60 or the F/A-18E/F.
What are the merits of each?
Which one should they eventually choose?
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4578 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 28461 times:
I would say it depends more on their requirements...
The F16 is the lighter fighter (with 1 engine) and for land based missions is quite good.
The F/A18 is a larger heavier fighter (with 2 engines) which is quite useful for overwater missions (1 engine out capability) and is more effective if you need to be able to lug around lots of load. The F/A18 also has minor stealth capabilities which gives it a slight advantage in effectiveness from that side of things. It does however cost more and probably uses considerably more fuel.
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1499 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 28413 times:
The F-16 is a cheaper more versatile plane. The F-18 is a heavier aircraft that is best suited for bombing runs. The F-16 and F-18 are quite different because of these differences. They were developed around the same time, in fact, the F18 is a merely an upgraded version of the F-16's chief competitor for the contract - the F-17. The F-16 has better maneuverability than the F-18. The baseline F18A and B can carry a greater payload. The Super Hornet can carry even more payload a greater distance.
The F-18 also has a stronger undercarriage (mandated by the Navy for carrier ops), which, along with two engines, two tail fins, a bigger bomb bay and a bigger cockpit make it much heavier than the F-16.
In terms of which one they should choose? I'd say it depends on what they want. An F-18 is an excellent (and proven) fighter-bomber, the F-16 is an excellent interceptor, but, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, an excellent close support aircraft.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 28276 times:
The way we look at it in the F-15 community, the F-16 is a light and nimble jet, but it's also a throw-away plane...literally, they don't last long, and that was their intent...cheap but capable planes.
There's F-16's with less than 3000hrs sitting in AMARC, while my unit is still flying Eagles with 7,000 hrs+ on them....same theory applies to the 16 vs 18 thing. My squadron used to have 1981-ish yr old F-16's, but traded them out for our 1975 vintage F-15's...not totally by choice mind you, but they still soldier on.
Don't get me wrong, all 3 are very capable aircraft in their own right.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 28252 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 3): My squadron used to have 1981-ish yr old F-16's, but traded them out for our 1975 vintage F-15's...not totally by choice mind you, but they still soldier on.
Don't get me wrong, all 3 are very capable aircraft in their own right.
DeltaGuy
Where did the F-16s end up going and where did the F-15s come from? Bear in mind a lot of the F-16s in the bone yard are A and B models, replaced in active duty and ANG units by the more capable C and D models. There are a number of F-15A and B models in storage as well, and there are F/A-18 A and B models stored now too.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 28251 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 3): The way we look at it in the F-15 community, the F-16 is a light and nimble jet, but it's also a throw-away plane...literally, they don't last long, and that was their intent...cheap but capable planes.
Belgium, Norway and Denmark are still flying the F-16A and B models they got when the airplanes first went into production and service. I believe Venezuela is also still flying their A and B models. I have to argue the throw away airplane idea because modern fighters are just too expensive to do that with. True enough, the '16 was designed to be a swing fighter that could fly multiple missions and would be signficiantly cheaper than the F-15. But throw away? Not when you consider what electronic and engine enhancements can do for them if the money is there to make the modifications.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 28249 times:
Quoting Da man (Thread starter): Say a nation was going to buy some new fighters and they narrowed their choices to either the F-16E/F Block 60 or the F/A-18E/F.
What are the merits of each?
Which one should they eventually choose?
Cost is often the determining factor. Nations that would like to buy the Hornet may be forced to buy the F-16 because its price is much more in line with what they can actually afford. Put another way, the F-16 will meet their need but not necessarily be what they want. Does that mean they're getting a lesser airplane? No, but it does say that many smaller nations have to take very seriously both initial buying cost and lifetime operating cost, not to mention how many years the airplane can be expected to be an effective component of their air force; more so than nations that have greater wealth.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4104 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 28228 times:
I will put in this quote of Texfly101 from a completely different thread for a bit of backgrounder.....
"It seems that everytime a new bird is proposed that the mission requirements become bloated thru scope creep and the final aircraft doesn't really do the designated job in the most efficient manner. Remember Col. Boyd's rant about what happened to the F-16. In the beginning, it was supposed to be a true energy dog fighter and with no other capabilities. As everyone tacked on things like ground attack etc, it became heavier and less manuverable to the point that he washed his hands of it and did the classic Boyd meltdown in the Pentagon. And he was right, IMO. To see the F-16 loaded up with iron for mud moving is a misuse of what should have been the greatest dogfighter the world has seen."
At the end of the day, each country gets what it pays for, but for the money, I'd say the F-16NG could be a mighty good deal.
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1499 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 28212 times:
Again, this all goes back to what the aircraft is needed for. An F-15 makes the ideal interceptor; the F-16 allows you to buy more aircraft for the same price for the same mission, although without some of the gadgets that are standard on the later F-15Es. The F-18, in my opinion, is in a different league. While some foreign air forces employee the F-18, it was optimized for carrier operations, and since then, it has evolved as a heavy aircraft. While you could take it into a dogfight and conceivably win, it is a much better fighter-bomber (also, how many major dogfights have there been since Gulf War I?).
You really can't compare aircraft like this without giving some kind of background as to what they are to be used for.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5116 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 28098 times:
The F-16 being cheaper if production continues will get more orders that the F-18, because its basic model is cheaper. A lot of the electronics can be added unto the F-16 to put it on par with the F-18.
The "throw away" comment by Deltaguy I put in this light. The F-16 from inception, was designed to be a fighter, I think it was the last pure fighter plane designed by the US, the F-15 is an air superiority a/c technically, not the same thing. The F-16 is a 9g capable a/c, my understanding from all that I have read is that putting it in a 9g turn is pretty simple, hence it pilots were required to complete 9g training in centrifuges.
The Navy used a squadron for its agressor program, a special modified version if memory serves, they were retired early due to air frame fatigue and skin wrinkles due to excessive manuevering, I think that's is possibly where the throw away and low frame hours issue comes from.
SkepticAll From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 28051 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5): True enough, the '16 was designed to be a swing fighter that could fly multiple missions and would be signficiantly cheaper than the F-15.
I know of no reference which described General Dynamics original plans as to incorporate any type of a "swing wing" design. The advent of the YF-16 and YF-17 was to be nothing more than a concept proposal from both General Dynamics and Northrop to test the practicality of building a vast number of high quality but relatively inexpensive aircraft to replace the thousands of F-4's which were nearing retirement age. After the problems with the wingboxes on both the F-14 and F-111, I suspect there was never any discussion of incorporating any type of variable incidence wing into either design.
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 27978 times:
Skeptical,
He said 'swing fighter' not swing wing, and he was referring to an fighter that could swing into the ground attack role if need be. Also 'variable incidence', such as what the F-8 Crusader had, is completely different from swing wing, such as the B-1, F-14 or F-111.
AirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 27974 times:
Hey DEVILFISH, After your Boyd comment, I am surprised to not see a F-5 Tigershark in your ideal Air Force lineup.
I have to agree, programs like LANTIRN turned the F-16 from a dog fighter into a mud duck. If the Air Force wanted an F-16 mud version, they should have developed the NASA F-16XL. At least the Air Force never turned it into an interceptor as they wanted to at one time.
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4890 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 27943 times:
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4104 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 27904 times:
Quoting AirSpare (Reply 13): I am surprised to not see a F-5 Tigershark in your ideal Air Force lineup.
It's kinda hard to resurrect the dead. But don't be disappointed, there's a thumbnail of it as my album photo ID. You'll see the F-16NG join the Gripen in there if it ever see the light of day. And it's more of a compromise lineup than anything - all of which are nothing but a load of wishful thinking.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4578 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4104 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5116 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
