Jawed
Topic Author
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:47 am

F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:30 am

Does anyone know how an F-16 vs. an F/A-18 would match up in a combat situation? In other words, who would win? Assume similar rockets are mounted, but take into account the different flight capabilities and targeting systems, etc.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:44 am

F16 better as a dogfighter
F18 better as everything else.

Well ok, the older models of the F16 were also better at clogging up tarmac and pissing the crew chief off with horrid reliablity.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:50 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):
F16 better as a dogfighter
F18 better as everything else.

Well ok, the older models of the F16 were also better at clogging up tarmac and pissing the crew chief off with horrid reliablity.

No, I believe the F/A-18 is slightly better at clogging up ramps, and CVN deck space.

The F-16 is better at air to air, and air to ground.

The F/A-18 is better at everything else.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:26 pm

in terms of maneuverability, across the entire flight envelope, there is only a very small area where the F-18 could out-maneuvre the F-16 and that is somewhere, if I remember correctly) between 0.3M and 0.5M.

about 95% if the flight envelope the F-16 will always outmanoeuvre the F-18
 
zululima
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:21 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:07 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 3):
about 95% if the flight envelope the F-16 will always outmanoeuvre the F-18

...but if you've gotten yourself into a maneuverability situation, you've already screwed up. The best way to win is with a beyond visual range kill, waaaay before a dogfight. I'm not sure of the F-18's radar & missile package (which version are you talking about anyway, the E/F models are completely different than A-D), but if it were the F-15 vs. the F-16, the Eagle would be the champ because the F-16 would be toast before it got near the F-15. The whole "who would win" question depends mostly on the scenario in which the jets engaged one another. Are we assuming both have E-3 radar assistance, or neither? Who has enough fuel and top speed to avoid a disadvantaged engagement? Did they both have opportunity to use radar detection at max. radius or did they first see each other visually? The most important factor for such closely matched fighters is really who is in the cockpit and best able to use their plane's advantages most successfully. Just like the old F-86/Mig 15 dogfights, the F-86 had much higher kill-to-loss ratio because of better trained pilots.
I didn't get a 'Harumph' outta that guy!
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:16 pm



Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 4):
...but if you've gotten yourself into a maneuverability situation, you've already screwed up. The best way to win is with a beyond visual range kill, waaaay before a dogfight. I'm not sure of the F-18's radar & missile package (which version are you talking about anyway, the E/F models are completely different than A-D), but if it were the F-15 vs. the F-16, the Eagle would be the champ because the F-16 would be toast before it got near the F-15. The whole "who would win" question depends mostly on the scenario in which the jets engaged one another. Are we assuming both have E-3 radar assistance, or neither? Who has enough fuel and top speed to avoid a disadvantaged engagement? Did they both have opportunity to use radar detection at max. radius or did they first see each other visually? The most important factor for such closely matched fighters is really who is in the cockpit and best able to use their plane's advantages most successfully. Just like the old F-86/Mig 15 dogfights, the F-86 had much higher kill-to-loss ratio because of better trained pilots.

I"m not sure, but from a point of sensors and weapons I think both more or less level out (the bigger superhornets might have an advantage that they carry A LOT of missiles). Bit in a one vs one engagement, I'd put my money on the F-16 any day.
 
dalb777
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:35 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:50 am

Sorry to slightly deviate from the topic, but where would an F-15 fit in here?
Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:50 am



Quoting Dalb777 (Reply 6):
Sorry to slightly deviate from the topic, but where would an F-15 fit in here?

I'm just speculating now (don't have any hard data on the F-15 unfortunately) but I reckon that the F-15 has the advantage in the BVR and close to visual range. Since it can bolster more energy to fire away a missile at high energy, turn away and repeat it. In this way, playing with an F-16 and F-18. It can do this for a longer time.

In a "knife" fight the F-16 will probably hold it's own pretty good
 
A320ajm
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:57 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:43 am

Another aircraft that would be interesting to see in this situation is the F-14 Tomcat.
I could see it beating all of them - a true legend!  Wink
Any thoughts?
A320ajm
If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:20 pm



Quoting A320ajm (Reply 8):
Another aircraft that would be interesting to see in this situation is the F-14 Tomcat.
I could see it beating all of them - a true legend!
Any thoughts?

sure, in far away BVR conditions it's phoenix missiles are unmatched
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:03 pm

Since the F-16 won the fly off with the F-17 and the F-18 is a derivative of the F-17 one would assume the F-16 is superior to the F-18.
 
N1641
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 2:10 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:54 pm

ya the F-16 won the contract already
 
9VSIO
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:00 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:46 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The F-16 is better at air to air, and air to ground.

The F/A-18 is better at everything else.

Erm, what other forms of air combat are there? :P
Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

F-16 Vs F/A-18:

Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:12 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
Since the F-16 won the fly off with the F-17 and the F-18 is a derivative of the F-17 one would assume the F-16 is superior to the F-18.

It did, but the YF-17 was the development prototype. I can't remember what the percentages were but from here, there appears to be quite a bit of change.



This has already been a topic on this before. Search is thy friend
 
zululima
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:21 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:39 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
Since the F-16 won the fly off with the F-17 and the F-18 is a derivative of the F-17 one would assume the F-16 is superior to the F-18.

A superior economic choice, that is. The Navy took the F-18 over the F-16, so it must have been superior to them. The Air Force chose the F-16 in large part because they were looking for a cheap dogfighter to compliment the BVR dominance of the expensive F-15. One engine is cheaper than two, both for production and maintenance. The Navy however, likes twin engines for overwater reliability and thus took the Hornet.
I didn't get a 'Harumph' outta that guy!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:12 am



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7):
Quoting Dalb777 (Reply 6):
Sorry to slightly deviate from the topic, but where would an F-15 fit in here?

I'm just speculating now (don't have any hard data on the F-15 unfortunately) but I reckon that the F-15 has the advantage in the BVR and close to visual range. Since it can bolster more energy to fire away a missile at high energy, turn away and repeat it. In this way, playing with an F-16 and F-18. It can do this for a longer time.

Many years ago, I watched my brother - then an f-18 pilot - dogfight an F-15 in the NAS Lemoore simulator. He got waxed every time, and he's a pretty fair pilot.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:38 am

If out to sea the F-18 would win everytime. All he has to do is draw the F-16 into the AEGIS kill bubble and then hope his IFF is working.

Dan in Jupiter
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:12 am



Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 12):
Erm, what other forms of air combat are there? :P

I'm not a native speaker, but I guess he was being sarcastic

Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 14):
to compliment the BVR dominance of the expensive F-15.

the F-15 is newer than the F-16
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:16 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17):
Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 14):
to compliment the BVR dominance of the expensive F-15.

the F-15 is newer than the F-16

The F-15 first flew in July 1972. The lightweight fighter program that both General Dynamics and Northrop participated in didn't produce prototypes until 1974, and the Air Force didn't select the F-16 until January 1975.

[Edited 2008-02-25 05:17:10]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
The F-15 first flew in July 1972. The lightweight fighter program that both General Dynamics and Northrop participated in didn't produce prototypes until 1974, and the Air Force didn't select the F-16 until January 1975.

you are right, thanks for correcting me
 
mjstormtrooper
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 4:54 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 11, 2008 6:27 pm

The F-18 would win because it looks better!!!!!!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 11, 2008 6:32 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 3):
in terms of maneuverability, across the entire flight envelope, there is only a very small area where the F-18 could out-maneuvre the F-16 and that is somewhere, if I remember correctly) between 0.3M and 0.5M.

Exactly, and that is because the F-18 needed the low end in order to fly the approach pattern for carriers.

One could argue that is just one of the sacrifices that the F-18 needed to fly off carriers.

The F16 didn't have to make so many sacrifices to performance.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 11, 2008 7:36 pm



Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 14):
A superior economic choice, that is. The Navy took the F-18 over the F-16, so it must have been superior to them.

In 1974, Congress killed the Navy's new fighter development program and basically ordered the Navy to choose its new fighter from between the two Air Force LWF/ACF contenders. It was clear from that moment on that they preferred the YF-17. That's because they wanted two engines. GD and Vought teamed to offer a navalized F-16, but it was clear the Navy wanted two engines and the F-17 (F-18) was their only real choice. When the YF-16 was declared the winner of the ACF in early 1975, it was already being reported that the Navy would likely buy the YF-17.
 
wingnut767
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:50 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 11, 2008 8:21 pm



Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 4):
The whole "who would win" question depends mostly on the scenario in which the jets engaged one another.

 checkmark 

And also who is flying them. You can argue about which one is the better aircraft all you want but I would say the odds are with whoever is the best better Pilot.
Yakum purkan min shmaya
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2108
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 11, 2008 8:59 pm

Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 14):
A superior economic choice, that is. The Navy took the F-18 over the F-16, so it must have been superior to them. The Air Force chose the F-16 in large part because they were looking for a cheap dogfighter to compliment the BVR dominance of the expensive F-15.

Correct. The Air Force could not afford all the F-15's it wanted/needed, so it used the Hi/Lo mix concept. A smaller number of F-15 (Hi) complimented by more squadrons of the cheaper, simpler (Lo) F-16. Putting it more bluntly, if the Air Force could afford all the F-15's it wanted, the need for the F-16 wouldn't have been there. I'm not slamming the F-16 as I truly love the airplane. The same could be said somewhat for the Navy with the F-14 and F-18, a Hi/Lo mix as well though the F-18 was replacing attack planes too so it still had a role.

It could also be said the AF is doing that with the F-22/F-35 to some extent.

And as far as the original question, I would put my money on the very nimble F-16 in a 'everythings equal' dogfight.

[Edited 2008-05-11 14:00:42]
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 11, 2008 9:57 pm



Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 24):
Putting it more bluntly, if the Air Force could afford all the F-15's it wanted, the need for the F-16 wouldn't have been there.

Yes it would have, the Lightweight Fighter program was aimed almost as much at the export market as it was at the USAF. The YF-17, afterall, has direct lineage to the F-5 export fighter. It was a political ballet that the Pentagon, the Air Force, and the contractors were engaged in throughout the LWF program. The Air Force initially only saw it as a technology development program, not as the road to a new fighter to supplement expensive F-15s. As it grew, the LWF started to threaten the F-15 and the Air Force brass resisted. Congress and the contractors wanted to sell lots of fighters to US allies and essentially acquiesced to Air Force demands for more F-15s to get them. To smooth things over, the LWF was renamed the Air Combat Fighter, suggesting a more air-to-ground role than the F-15, and the Air Force finally got on board. They logically chose the cheaper design and the one that shared the F100 engine with the F-15. The Navy had been dragged in in the meantime, and they chose the YF-17 for its two engines.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon May 12, 2008 7:46 am

Maybe the Navy has their heads up their asses. Perhaps we should just sink those carriers and turn them into reefs. WTF Those bugs are useless right? Not. As with most fighters the bug and super have holes in their game but to say that an F-16 will wax them all the time is ludicrous. When talking about the bug think Zero or Spitfire. No, they do not do well in the vertical. Strength lies in turning and pointing ability. Add Aim-9x and helmet mounted sights (as with all fighters) and the WVR game becomes very interesting. BVR is a different story. I would take the super every time.
 
Jabs
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:32 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Fri May 16, 2008 11:44 am

Take a look at this.



F-18 vs F-16 - A Navy Test Pilot's Perspective

As a Navy test pilot on an Air Force exchange tour, I have the best job in the world: I get to fly the F-16 Viper and the F/A-18 Hornet. Last summer, I completed Viper conversion training at the 310th Fighter Squadron at Luke AFB, and the first thing they teach is the single-engine, single-seat mindset-a new concept for a twin-engine fighter pilot. The Viper has only one engine and pilots quickly learn the "Iguana stare", which is when one eye constantly monitors the engine instruments, and the other scans everything else. Some USAF pilots have labeled the F-16 a "lawn dart", as it has one of the highest accident rates in the Combat Air Force. It's a myth that the high accident rate is caused by the lack of redundancy inherent to a single-engine fighter. The reality is that most F-16 mishaps occur because of factors other than engine failure. Running into things (the ground or other airplanes) accounts for more than three-quarters of F-16 mishaps.

After 50 hours in the jet, I've come to consider the aircraft at least a close acquaintance, and we're working toward becoming good friends. During that time, I've formed some opinions and impressions of the Viper compared with my normal mount: the F/A-18 Hornet.

THE COCKPIT

When compared with the Hornet's, the Viper's cockpit is more compact and is very comfortable. The ejection seat's fixed, 20-degree recline angle is great for all phases of flight except air-combat maneuvering (ACM). During a fight, the pilot has to constantly lean forward to look over a shoulder or check six, and at 7 or 8G, the fixed recline angle produces a sore neck and back in nothing flat. A flight surgeon once told me that 90 percent of all fighter pilots suffer from chronic neck and back pain and Viper drivers suffer the most. The single-piece bubble canopy is one feature that I wish the Hornet had. The glass comes down to the elbows and wraps around the pilot; it provides great six o'clock and over-the-nose visibility without a canopy bow or heads-up-display (HUD) post to obstruct the view.

The main instrument panel is centrally located, compactly organized and easy to scan. The Viper is a fly-by-wire electric jet, but it still has what are considered old-fashioned, round airspeed and altitude dials, tape gauges for vertical speed indicator (VSI) and angle of attack (AoA) and an analog attitude indicator. These are the primary flight instruments because the HUD is technically not certified for IFR (instrument flight). In the Hornet, I use the HUD as my main information source and crosscheck the steam gauges during instrument approaches. The Viper HUD gives the same data as the Hornet HUD does, but the format's different. Adapting was easy except for one important item: the angle of attack bracket. The two indicators look exactly alike, but they work exactly opposite; when landing, one tells the pilot to pull when he should push, and vice versa. It's potentially very confusing. Flying AoA "backward" was tough at the beginning, but I eventually figured it out. The rest of the Viper's HUD symbols are busy but easy to interpret. By flipping a few switches, the pilot can customize HUD information as needed for the mission.

The Viper's side stick and throttle are marvels of ergonomie design. For single-seat strike fighters without the benefit of a guy in the back (GIB) to operate the radar and weapons systems, the hands-on throttle and stick (HOTAS) design is key to managing the airborne workload. As its name implies, HOTAS allows complete pilot control of the weapons systems with hands-on maintenance of the flight controls. The Viper has 16 HOTAS controls, and all are easily actuated with minimal movement. Some of the "HOTAS-able" functions include: radar mode select, bomb pickle, gun trigger, missile pickle, chaff/flare dispense, etc.

The throttle designator control (TDC) is a feature that's found in both aircraft, and it's essentially the "mouse" of the weapons system. It's used for slewing the cross-hairs over targets detected on the radarscope or in the HUD and locking onto them. The Viper's TDC is on the throttle under the left thumb; it took some getting used to for making fine-tuning adjustments. The Hornet's TDC is a little easier to use because of its location under the left index finger. I have much more dexterity with my index finger and found sensor slewing much easier in the Hornet.

In the Viper, all radar and targeting forward-looking infrared (FLIR) pod information is presented on the two monochrome multifunction displays (MFDs). They are smaller and are of older technology than the Hornet's, but the displays are easy to read in all lighting conditions. The F/A-18 has three color MFDs with the center one being a larger digital moving-map display. The moving map, or multipurpose color display (MPCD), is the key feature that distinguishes the two strike fighters. The sheer amount of situational awareness that the Hornet's MPCD provides the pilot of threats, friendly locations, geographic references and navigational data significantly enhances combat effectiveness. Without the moving-map display, the pilot's mental workload doubles, and some of the more senior pilots, including myself, will "down" the aircraft and not fly it if the map display fails. Some newer block Vipers have display upgrades that mirror the current capability of all Hornets, but those are exceptions. Avionics in the Hornet are far superior to those found in almost anything I have flown. The one exception is the Super Hornet; it has two additional displays that improve on the Hornet's design.

The F-16 consoles aren't as well organized as the Hornet's; some switches are hard to reach. For the most part, that doesn't affect normal operations but could delay pilot reaction time during an emergency. For example, the Viper's throttle obstructs access to the engine control switch with afterburner selected. This switch is used to back up the electronic engine control during certain failures; reaching around the throttle could delay completing the critical action procedures if the engine gets sick right after takeoff.

The Hornet's consoles are logically grouped by systems. The environmental control system control panel, electrical control panel and lighting control panel are separate units. Conversely, the Viper's left console has flight-control switches mixed with the electrical switches and fuel transfer switches; they're clustered together. After about a dozen simulations and flights, I was able to adapt to the F-16 normal and emergency procedures checklists, but the Viper's cockpit layout appears to be a product of evolution, whereas the Hornet's cockpit layout has changed little since day one.


SIDE STICK VERSUS CONVENTIONAL CENTER STICK

Both the Hornet and Viper use fly-by-wire flight-control systems, which means aircraft response is governed by a set of programmed flight-control laws that "live" in the flight-control computers, which I affectionately refer to as "George". In other words, the pilot isn't flying the airplane, George is. The pilot tells George he wants the airplane to do something, and George then zips through the math to figure out which flight-control surfaces should be moved to fulfill the pilot's request. The big difference (and it is a big one) is that the Hornet uses a conventional center stick, and the computer senses stick position to interpret what the pilot wants. The Viper uses a side stick, and the computer senses stick force from pilot input.

Flying a side-stick control takes a while to get used to, but once you do, it's a joy. The conformal stick's shape feels very natural (it fits in the hand like a melted candy bar), and it allows easy access to nine of the 16 HOTAS controls. Two fully adjustable forearm rests on the right cockpit bulkhead stabilize and isolate the pilot's arm and wrist, so when rattling around the cockpit during turbulence or going after the bad guy, the pilot's arm won't accidentally move and initiate unwanted control inputs. In its original design, the Viper's control stick didn't move at all; it just measured pressure from the pilot's hand. However, after initial F-16 flight tests, a ¼ inch of stick movement was incorporated to give a small dead band and a nominal breakout force to give better "feel" of a neutral stick because otherwise it was entirely too sensitive. The control harmony is quite good (the pressures required for pitch and roll mix well), but without the capability to physically position the stick, it's easy to contaminate roll inputs with unwanted pitch inputs, and vice versa.

My first Viper instructor predicted that I would over-rotate on takeoff and drop the right wing; he was right. The over-rotation occurs because a pilot is used to "moving the stick and then something happens" at rotation speed. When I reached 145 knots and pulled back, of course the stick didn't move but a scant ¼ inch, so I pulled more. The inexperienced have no way of knowing how hard to pull, so I pulled probably twice as hard as was necessary. After a half-second delay, the nose abruptly responded to my input and pitched up to about 10 degrees, while at the same time the right wing dipped to about 10-degrees wing down. I released back-stick pressure, and the aircraft held 10-degrees pitch as I gently leveled the wings. According to my instructor Lt. Col. Dan Levin, who has more than 3,000 Viper hours, pilot-induced-oscillations (PIO) are very common on takeoff for transition pilots.


TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE

In my opinion, the Viper's biggest strength is its brute force: it has lots of horsepower. The biggest kick in the pants-next to a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier-is the kick from stroking full afterburner in a General Electric-powered, bigmouth Viper on a cold winter morning. With a greater than 1.2:1 thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff gross weight, it takes all of 1,200 feet to get airborne at 160 knots, and the jet can be supersonic just two miles later, if it's left in burner. The acceleration is unbelievable! If there weren't a 7G restriction on a fueled centerline tank, I would easily have 9G available to pull straight into the vertical and accelerate on the way up. Of course, I've done the "quick climb" to 15,000 feet, and after level-off, I still have 350 knots. The Viper can out-accelerate most anything in the air, including the Hornet.

To accurately compare the Hornet's performance to the Viper's, I took off from the same runway. The Hornet needed 200 feet more than the Viper to get airborne at about the same speed, and at the end of the runway it had only 330 knots versus the Viper's 500-plus. The best climb angle that I could get out of the Hornet before airspeed started to decay was 45 degrees, and I leveled off with 200 knots; the Viper's climb took one minute less. The Hornet's lack of thrust seems to be where all the critics linger, and that's valid-to a point. When a pilot flies into battle, lots of thrust is nice to have and is definitely fun to have, but it isn't necessarily a must-have-depending on the aircraft's other attributes. Like the Viper, the Hornet has different engine versions in inventory, but even with two "big motors", the GE-404-402 has 18,000 pounds of maximum thrust each, and in a drag race, the Hornet would be no match for the Viper.

When the wheels are in the well, the Viper flight controls change from takeoff and landing gains (it automatically changes modes, as it requires different pressures for the same reaction) to cruise gains. This reduces the PIO tendency in pitch when the aircraft is slower and near the ground. The acceleration in after-burner seems to build with airspeed, and it's really a kick! The faster I go, the faster I go; this is primarily because of the fixed-geometry inlets that become more efficient as airspeed increases. Canceling afterburner (AB) at 300 knots and 2,000 feet AGL does not stop the amazing acceleration. Even in military power, the Viper easily slips above the 350-knot climb speed in a 15-degree climb. On the other hand, the Hornet has a smooth and steady acceleration and quickly reaches the standard climb profile of 300 knots in a 15-degree climb at military power. In the Hornet, the nose must be lowered to about 5 degrees at 10,000 feet for it to accelerate and maintain a 350-knot climb speed.

Once in the air, the Viper pilot can drill around all day at 350 to 400 knots and still have fuel to spare. If there's a concern about fuel conservation, the Hornet works best in the 300- to 350-knot speed regime. Roll performance in the Viper is slightly faster than the Hornet's. A full-deflection aileron roll is eye watering in a clean Viper (about 360 degrees per second) and very impressive in a slick Hornet (about two-thirds the speed of a Viper). One nice feature of the side-stick controller is the capability to rapidly capture a precise bank angle by simply releasing the stick. The jet's controls essentially freeze when the pilot lets go of the stick, even when whipping around at maximum rate roll. This is real handy in rolling in on a target (both air-to-air and air-to-ground). The Hornet's roll control is equally precise, but it requires a bit more finesse. Its flight-control system in cruise is a "G-command" flight-control system; it continuously trims to 1G flight regardless of aircraft attitude. If a pilot rolls inverted in a Hornet and let's go of the stick, the jet "pulls" 1G and enters a gradual dive to maintain 1G. Doing the same in the Viper causes the pilot to get light in the seat; the jet doesn't feel any pilot input, so it continues to head straight and inverted. The Hornet's G-command has bitten a few transition pilots during ACM when they were confronted with very nose-high, low-speed attitudes. Tomcat drivers learning the Hornet typically release the controls, as that is what they were used to doing in the F-14, which stops flying around 100 knots. In the Hornet, this just leads to a further nose-high attitude, as the Hornet reverts to pulling and placing 1G on the airplane.

The Viper rolls well, but it is easy to inadvertently add G during rolling maneuvers because it takes some concentration to prevent accidentally applying back stick pressure while exerting side pressure in for the roll. I encountered this early in my training. It was challenging, at first, to perform a pure, constant 1G maximum-rate aileron roll: nose up and then fly a gentle arc up and then down while rolling so the seat of my pants stays in the seat all the way through. My tendency was to load the roll to 2G halfway through by applying too much backpressure. The next time, I overcompensated and got light in the seat, as I saw about O.5G. Again, the learning curve is steep; eventually, I could max-perform in roll without inadvertently pulling or pushing G.

In the beginning of the training, it's difficult to yank the nose around in a minimum-radius, maximum-G level turn without accidentally introducing aileron in it that isn't wanted. On my first few attempts at a 9G level turn, I tended to ratchet the wings back and forth from one bank angle to another. The side stick feels only the first 25 pounds of pilot input in the longitudinal axis, at which time it gives all 9G (or whatever's available at that speed). Apparently, I must have also inadvertently applied a small amount of lateral-stick force, and that caused unintended bank-angle changes and the subsequent ratcheting. After a few more tries at a 9G level turn, I learned that by using a smooth, gradual G buildup and by toning down the amount of pull, I could nail a 9G, 360-degree turn while maintaining constant altitude within 100 feet.

This jet can hurt you because it has absolutely no problem holding 9G, especially down low. The Hornet is limited to 7.5G by the flight-control software, even though the airframe can handle 9G; in fact, some foreign versions were going to be sold as 9G jets. The tradeoff is fatigue life. When dogfighting in a Hornet, I rarely see 7.5G, and if so, it's momentary because I'm usually closing to guns after the second merge and am trading airspeed for nose position.


SLOW-SPEED CHARACTERISTICS

There's no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet. But that's another story. The Hornet flies very comfortably at AoAs of up to 50 degrees and has great pitch, roll and yaw authority between 25 degrees of AoA and the lift limit of 35 degrees of AoA. Most crowds are amazed when the Blue Angels perform the Hornet low-speed pass, which is around 120 knots and only 25 degrees of AoA. There are no nasty departures to worry about, and if the pilot happens to lose control, the best recovery procedure is to grab the towel racks (two handgrips on the canopy bow used during cat shots). On the other hand, a Viper has a 25-degree AoA limiter built into its software, and even fewer degrees of AoA are available if it's carrying air-to-ground goodies on the hard points. Up against the limiter, the nose stops tracking; in that case, it's time to drop the hammer and use the big motor to get the knots back, which by the way, happens in a hurry.

The Hornet, however, will stand on its tail, hold 100 knots and 35-degrees AoA and swap ends in a maneuver called "the Pirouette", which looks like a jet fighter doing a hammerhead with a quarter roll. To the spectator and the participant, it looks and feels impossible. The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown. In a Hornet, it's difficult not to get the first shot in a close-in dog-fight that starts from a perfectly neutral merge (going opposite directions at the same altitude). My Viper buddies tell me there is very little room for error when they fight the Hornet. The best way to handle the situation is to get the Hornet to slow down, while they maintain energy so the Viper's superior thrust-to-weight will out-zoom the Hornet and then they can shoot at it from above. As a Hornet driver, I have never lost to a Viper guy that I saw, but I have run into Viper drivers that said the same thing about their jet.


LANDING

As I dirty up for landing (lowering the gear handle is the only pilot action, all other configuration changes are automatic), the Viper becomes a blended-rate command, AoA-command flight-control system. I can trim the aircraft hands-off to the approach AoA of 11 degrees, and the flight-control system should maintain that AoA. In my experience, the Viper is very pitch-sensitive-especially in the flare.

Landing the Viper is easy, but landing the Viper while making it look good is far from easy. The airspeed is controlled with the throttle, and the glideslope is controlled with the stick (at least on the front side of the power curve). The pilot must use the throttle very judiciously on final; with the huge General Electric motor, it's easy to gain excess airspeed rapidly and then float a quarter mile down the runway. If the pilot misjudges and gets slow, he can scrape the tailpipe or prang the landing gear, with a bounce back into the air below flying speed (very bad).

The Hornet, by contrast, is very easy to land. The aircraft is trimmed for on-speed, and the glideslope is flown with the throttles until touchdown at 650 to 700fpm. Both aircraft have a HUD flight-path marker (FPM) to tell the pilot where the jet is going. The pilot places the FPM on the piece of runway he wants to touch down on, and that's where he'll land. In the Hornet, the throttle is the primary control for the FPM; in the Viper, it's the stick. The vertical-G load on an average trap at the boat is about 2.7G. The longitudinal deceleration from grabbing an arresting cable is about 4G. That landing is actually a precisely controlled crash. It's easy to nail the glideslope in the twin-engine Hornet by adjusting one throttle at a time by "walking the throttles". Precise glide-slope control is really handy when landing on the boat. As a Navy carrier pilot, I'm not the best at flaring the Viper; I usually bounce once or twice, which I'm told isn't bad.


CONCLUSION

I am often asked, "Which one do you like the best?" The answer is easy, and I reply with this analogy: the F-16 Viper is like the Dodge Viper, and the F/A-18 Hornet is like a Lexus. If I want to cruise around town and experience pure acceleration performance, I would drive the Viper. If I want to cruise in total luxury on a long road trip with all the amenities and Gucci displays, I would drive a Lexus.

It's definitely more fun to fly the Viper, but the Hornet is the aircraft that I would want to take into combat. The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet's cockpit design, and its avionics controls and displays. The only jet that I've flown that is better is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Another major consideration is the Hornet's capability to take a surface-to-air missile (SAM) up one tailpipe and still make it home on the other engine, as was demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War.

Speed is nice to have, and I wish the Hornet had more, but my confidence in the jet that I grew up in is high. However, the more exposure I get to the various Viper upgrades and different blocks, the more I appreciate its capabilities. The real bottom line is this: if I were a bad guy, I would hate to go up against either one.


BY LCDR JOHN "TOONCES" TOUGAS
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Fri May 16, 2008 1:36 pm

The Navy chose the F-18 over the F-16 because they did not want to fly single engined fixed wing aircraft anymore. Its not the only reason, but it is one of the major contributing factors. Also, I think the design of the F-16 just simply could not take the stresses of carrier life without a major modifications, thus reducing payload, range (not that the F-18 is much better) and far more maintenance checks.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sat May 17, 2008 3:08 am



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 28):
The Navy chose the F-18 over the F-16 because they did not want to fly single engined fixed wing aircraft anymore. Its not the only reason, but it is one of the major contributing factors. Also, I think the design of the F-16 just simply could not take the stresses of carrier life without a major modifications, thus reducing payload, range (not that the F-18 is much better) and far more maintenance checks.

Thank the stars they won't be getting the F-35 as it has only one engine. The Navy used that excuse to get the F-18 because they did not want to get the same a/c as the Air Force, this while they were flying single engine a/c off the deck, just as Mr. McCain which a/c he flew, just because the Navy blew smoke does not mean that we have to keep repeating it, as for the engine reliablilty issue, well, thats another story.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 18, 2008 1:00 am



Quoting Jawed (Thread starter):
Does anyone know how an F-16 vs. an F/A-18 would match up in a combat situation? In other words, who would win?



Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 23):
You can argue about which one is the better aircraft all you want but I would say the odds are with whoever is the best better Pilot.

Thank you Wingnut for stating what should be the obvious.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 18, 2008 4:14 am



Quoting ZuluLima (Reply 14):
The Navy took the F-18 over the F-16, so it must have been superior to them.

General Dynamics studied a carrier based variant of the F-16 and the added weight so diminished its performance they dropped the idea. You build a carrier based airplane from the ground up. You can make it a land based airplane by cleaning up the stuff (removing it) that makes it carrier capable but making an airplane designed for land operations a carrier based bird is a lot harder and more likely to be an unsuccessful proposition.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 18, 2008 9:55 am

right, I have dug op those doghouse plots we used at university, here are the results:

up until to a certain lower Machnumber the F/A-18 can achieve higher instantanious turn rates, but has smaller excess power; above that Mach number the F-16 can always outmaneuver the F/A-18.

In terms of torsional agility the hornet marginally wins up to that lower machnumber, but above that the Viper is the more agile fighter.

So the Hornet driver will try to slow down the fight when countering a Viper where they could outturn them, while the Viper will try to maintain higher speeds.

And that's all folks..

[Edited 2008-05-18 02:58:44]

[Edited 2008-05-18 03:04:29]
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Sun May 18, 2008 7:46 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 31):
General Dynamics studied a carrier based variant of the F-16 and the added weight so diminished its performance they dropped the idea. You build a carrier based airplane from the ground up.

Of course, the F-18 was not a ground-up design, it was a reworking (albeit major reworking) of the Air Force's YF-17 with McDonnell-Douglas taking over as Prime Contractor because of its naval aircraft experience. The General Dynamics/Vought Navalized F-16 would have been much the same. But it was it was widely accepted at the time that the Navy preferred two engines, revisionist "the Navy didn't want the Air Force's plane" history notwithstanding. They were eyeing the YF-17 from nearly the moment Congress pushed them into the ACF program, even before the Air Force chose the YF-16.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Mon May 19, 2008 12:03 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 29):
Thank the stars they won't be getting the F-35 as it has only one engine. The Navy used that excuse to get the F-18 because they did not want to get the same a/c as the Air Force, this while they were flying single engine a/c off the deck, just as Mr. McCain which a/c he flew, just because the Navy blew smoke does not mean that we have to keep repeating it, as for the engine reliablilty issue, well, thats another story.

I completely forgot about the F-35, thanks for setting me straight. So it was more of a pride issue.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins?

Tue May 20, 2008 11:10 pm

the issue of an F16 vs F18 in air-air situations has been answered several hundred times in training missions in the last decade. Block 20 F16s flying with the 21st FS, 56th TFW with only Aim7/9s have consistently had higher kill ratios than MC or Navy F18s with Aim120/9s.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests