F-18 vs F-16

This might a be a bit off topic.

Weapon wise, is there any weapon that F-18 can deploy which F-16 can't or vice versa?

The Hornet will be able to carry and deploy the Harpoon. USAF/ANG F-16s (which ours is based on) do not have Harpoon capability..however non-US F-16's can be made Harpoon capable.

Yes, such as SLAM and SLAM-ER, AGM65E. Naval arsenals are different from air forces

Yes, such as SLAM and SLAM-ER, AGM65E. Naval arsenals are different from air forces

Even if not in USAF/ANG use SLAM and SLAM ER were operationally tested, and are integrated for export users of the F16C, but not to fret the capability for super long stand off capability will be met with the AGM158 which out ranges the SLAM's.

also to note The USAF does use the AGM65E laser guided mavericks ( specifically E2/L variant) including on the F16 and continues to to have contracts for additional orders of those variants.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/agm65

https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-upgrading-maverick-air-to-surface-missile-to-target-isis-2017-9

The F-16C can no longer use Sparrows (AIM-7) due to incompatibility with the wiring of the pylons.

MK.83, GBU-16, GBU-32? don't think USAF uses 1000 pounders. no idea about overseas opperators.

This might a be a bit off topic.

Yeah, that CPU in your sig is probably the most oc'ed one in practical service ever, you really must be proud of running that one...

For those who don't know, these things were in the range of 233 - 450 MHz out of the box

In the DCS community some guys literally do everything to have fps as high as possible

You might check out the weekend newsletter so see what they're planning for the FF

I’m particularly looking forward to the CBU-103 and CBU-105 as I find them extremely effective in the A-10 and being able to lob them from further away is going to be great fun. :D

Can our Hornet Lot20 Carry AGM-154B (anti-armor)?

It is very effective and long-range weapon.

Acceleration surely counts as a weapon? The Viper is going to be a slightly older plane, but the Harm targeting pod is definitely the "watershed feature".

Will we get the GBU-39 SDBs on the viper? Those really kick ass in Falcon BMS.

Massive range if dropped at high altitude and you can carry four of them on each wing.

Yeah, that CPU in your sig is probably the most oc'ed one in practical service ever, you really must be proud of running that one...

 

For those who don't know, these things were in the range of 233 - 450 MHz out of the box

 

In the DCS community some guys literally do everything to have fps as high as possible

 

You might check out the weekend newsletter so see what they're planning for the FF

My P2 was @166Mhz stock, OC'ed to 233. This was in '98.

Acceleration surely counts as a weapon? The Viper is going to be a slightly older plane, but the Harm targeting pod is definitely the "watershed feature".

Оlder? F-16CJ Blk.50? With CCIP upgrade? You must be joking... It is still in active service in USAF, and it will be in future too. Furthermore, F-16C is maybe the "working horse" of the Air Force. So I didnt see which is "old" of this plane.

This might a be a bit off topic.

 

Weapon wise, is there any weapon that F-18 can deploy which F-16 can't or vice versa?

Nope. The F-18 is the carrier based version of the F-16. The avionics and weapons systems for the most part, are the same.

Nope. The F-18 is the Carrier based version of the F-16. The avionics and weapons systems for the most part, are the same.

This is not true. Yes, they may have some similar systems and avionics, but F-18 definetly not a "carrier version" of F-16...They are two different planes, and have some different weapons.

This is not true. Yes, they may have some similar systems and avionics, but F-18 definetly not a "carrier version" of F-16...They are two different planes, and have some different weapons.

That's why I said "For the most part". No one said anything about the avionics and weapons systems being totally identical. This is my opinion as I've flown both Falcon 4.0 BMS and DCS F-18, MY opinion. Not saying it's yours, nor am I saying you're wrong.

Nope. The F-18 is the carrier based version of the F-16. The avionics and weapons systems for the most part, are the same.

No they arent. You can sit in an F-15 and F-18 and see a lot of similarities in the cockpit layout; yes they are different, but really they are the same. Thats because they are both Boeing. Sit in an F-16 and you can immediately tell the avionics are different because Lockheed and Boeing use different avionics suites. Different radars, different radar modes, different radar capabilities. And which block do you wish to compare? The Blk 50 is a magnitude higher than the lot 20 Hornet. On top of that, they both have different mission capabilities. Air based land/air attack vs sea based land/sea/air attack. Yes, there are some overlapping capabilities, but thats where similarities end.

only one word: APG-73

FA 18 WINS!!!

BONUS TRACK: 2 ENGINES, AND CARRIER OPS.

another bonus track: f14 cover mi atack.

No they arent. You can sit in an F-15 and F-18 and see a lot of similarities in the cockpit layout; yes they are different, but really they are the same. Thats because they are both Boeing. Sit in an F-16 and you can immediately tell the avionics are different because Lockheed and Boeing use different avionics suites. Different radars, different radar modes, different radar capabilities. And which block do you wish to compare? The Blk 50 is a magnitude higher than the lot 20 Hornet. On top of that, they both have different mission capabilities. Air based land/air attack vs sea based land/sea/air attack. Yes, there are some overlapping capabilities, but thats where similarities end.

Boeing and Lockheed never designed the F18 and F16, they merely bought out General dynamics and McDonall Douglas respectively well after These specific models were already produced. they merely own the rights and provide support for these legacy aircraft.

and Whilst no one is literally saying these are exact same aircraft, but their capabilities overlap whilst also share similar or the same weapons, not to mention they carry out the same mission sets but for different services.

The Hornet is( or rather at this time of writing "was" when looking at USN) meant to used by the USN/USMC for varying degree of roles ranging from Air to air, SEAD, DEAD, CAS, as well as Interdiction. The exact same mission sets that the Viper fills for USAF apart from the ability to power project from the sea via Carrier operation capability.

And a Block 50 viper a "magnitude" higher than the Lot 20 Hornet? You seem so sure of that, yet if you actually do a proper analysis 1 is not anywhere near a "magnitude" better than the other.. both have some minor advantages over the other., and iin some ways the Hornet is more sophisticated and digitally integrated Aircraft than the Viper.

Sure the Block 50 post CCIP has 2 CRT monochrome MFDs replaced with LCD based Multipurpose Colour Displays ( WOW Its so much Better becuase of that alone !!!!! NOT)..... in comparison its true the HOrnet only has 1 fully colour capable LCD display the AMPCD whilst the 2 CRT DDI's that only have tri colour capability, but the 2 extra colors are enough to get the job done, to help differentiate confirmed enemies (RED) , and Unverified targets ( Yelllow) on SA page. Any further range of colors is more of a Nice to have feature, vs absolute necessity, as you can still tell things apart with symbology. Now whilst the Hornets are 2 DDi's are older Display they nonetheless have a higher resolution ( 768 x 768 ) than Viper Displays ( 512x 512)

IT also an advantage that the Hornet has 3 multipurpose displays compared to the vipers 2 multipurpose displays which means Hornet pilots can always display more information, and have less need for switching between various MFD pages.

Whilst its personal preference, the UFC is more logical and intuitive to use than the Vipers ICP and DED system. (I am willing to write this bit off as Pilot preference)

What should also be noted that the Hornet is arguably a more digitally integrated plane. Digital Fuel and Engine Displays wheras these are still all analog gauges in F16C blk 50.

Hornets AN/ALR 67 V3 is more sophisticated RWR system than the Vipers An/ALR56, and its Countermeasures system is fully digitally integrated module since the Lot 18. Even in the block 50 post CCIP Viper CM and ECM programming is done via switches and this is a physical panel that takes up unnecessary physical space in an otherwise less roomy cockpit than the Hornet . IN the Hornet there is a single switch to enable CM, and the actual of programming/options are all done via EW page via DDI's or AMPCD.

Also RWR symbology from EW page can be displayed in any of the 3 displays ( including SA page) , or even VIA HUD or Radar Attack page if selected per pilots preference. in the Viper its limited to the actual physical RWR scope display.

The f16 has an awesome cockpit with a Much better HOTAS system. As a bonus the stick is identical(almost) to the warthog stick.

It can carry 8 Mavericks which is even more than the a10 and twice as many as the f18. But the f18 can carry twice as many missiles.

I base this on our current f18, which could improve, and the f16 in falcon bms.

The f16 has an awesome cockpit with a Much better HOTAS system. As a bonus the stick is identical(almost) to the warthog stick.

It can carry 8 Mavericks which is even more than the a10 and twice as many as the f18. But the f18 can carry twice as many missiles.

I base this on our current f18, which could improve, and the f16 in falcon bms.

We may not get that many Mavericks, as MSvegas a former F16C maintainers says in F16 thread his entire career never saw the triple maverick setup being used via LAU88 Rack. Since this is a circa 2007 Viper, given that years its even more likely It wont be included as the USAF scrapped the LAU88 many years earlier. Apparently 3 mavericks caused extra strain on the airframe and the exhaust of the Missile motor put pressure on the horizontal tail as it launched off. But then again So did the triple Maverick stop being used as a setup on A10s but its there as an loadout option within DCS for the A10A and A10C, so who knows?

F-16 has the BLU-107 DURANDAL

F/A-18 doesn't carry the (lighter) D model Maverick and thus cannot carry 3 on a TER (even though as I understand it in most situations and F-16 will only carry 2 on a TER)

Boeing and Lockheed never designed the F18 and F16, they merely bought out General dynamics and McDonall Douglas respectively well after These specific models were already produced. they merely own the rights and provide support for these legacy aircraft.

 

and Whilst no one is literally saying these are exact same aircraft, but their capabilities overlap whilst also share similar or the same weapons, not to mention they carry out the same mission sets but for different services.

 

 

 

The Hornet is( or rather at this time of writing "was" when looking at USN) meant to used by the USN/USMC for varying degree of roles ranging from Air to air, SEAD, DEAD, CAS, as well as Interdiction. The exact same mission sets that the Viper fills for USAF apart from the ability to power project from the sea via Carrier operation capability.

 

 

And a Block 50 viper a "magnitude" higher than the Lot 20 Hornet? You seem so sure of that, yet if you actually do a proper analysis 1 is not anywhere near a "magnitude" better than the other.. both have some minor advantages over the other., and iin some ways the Hornet is more sophisticated and digitally integrated Aircraft than the Viper.

 

Sure the Block 50 post CCIP has 2 CRT monochrome MFDs replaced with LCD based Multipurpose Colour Displays ( WOW Its so much Better becuase of that alone !!!!! NOT)..... in comparison its true the HOrnet only has 1 fully colour capable LCD display the AMPCD whilst the 2 CRT DDI's that only have tri colour capability, but the 2 extra colors are enough to get the job done, to help differentiate confirmed enemies (RED) , and Unverified targets ( Yelllow) on SA page. Any further range of colors is more of a Nice to have feature, vs absolute necessity, as you can still tell things apart with symbology. Now whilst the Hornets are 2 DDi's are older Display they nonetheless have a higher resolution ( 768 x 768 ) than Viper Displays ( 512x 512)

 

IT also an advantage that the Hornet has 3 multipurpose displays compared to the vipers 2 multipurpose displays which means Hornet pilots can always display more information, and have less need for switching between various MFD pages.

Whilst its personal preference, the UFC is more logical and intuitive to use than the Vipers ICP and DED system. (I am willing to write this bit off as Pilot preference)

 

What should also be noted that the Hornet is arguably a more digitally integrated plane. Digital Fuel and Engine Displays wheras these are still all analog gauges in F16C blk 50.

 

Hornets AN/ALR 67 V3 is more sophisticated RWR system than the Vipers An/ALR56, and its Countermeasures system is fully digitally integrated module since the Lot 18. Even in the block 50 post CCIP Viper CM and ECM programming is done via switches and this is a physical panel that takes up unnecessary physical space in an otherwise less roomy cockpit than the Hornet . IN the Hornet there is a single switch to enable CM, and the actual of programming/options are all done via EW page via DDI's or AMPCD.

 

Also RWR symbology from EW page can be displayed in any of the 3 displays ( including SA page) , or even VIA HUD or Radar Attack page if selected per pilots preference. in the Viper its limited to the actual physical RWR scope display.

The biggest difference between the Hornet and the Falcon avionics suites is the simple fact that the F-16 still holds true to its original close in dogfighting radar modes. In this case, its exceptionally well versed, and as such not quite as versatile as the Hornets. You can see the legacy of the Falcon in both the F-35 and the F-22. The Hornet isnt much different than the F-15E.

The biggest difference between the Hornet and the Falcon avionics suites is the simple fact that the F-16 still holds true to its original close in dogfighting radar modes. In this case, its exceptionally well versed, and as such not quite as versatile as the Hornets. You can see the legacy of the Falcon in both the F-35 and the F-22. The Hornet isnt much different than the F-15E.

Okay There is no need for you to argue for the sake of being right or to revise history. Its pointless in this thread.

Hornet has some avionics shared because both are MD (now boeing) products. That doesn't make them vastly different in Roles and mission types they tackle. The Hornet is otherwise not comparable to the F15E strike eagle as its design philpshy was still resultant of the Lightweight fighter competition Vs F15E being a 2 seater Strike aircraft dervived from the F15D Air superiority Trainer intended for long range Interdiction even though technically it qualify "multirole" buzzword category . F18 the result as direct flyoff competitor between the YF16 and YF17 in LWF program.

YF17 could have potential been an air-force plane but for multiple reasons, but most important reason The AF chose the Yf16 to what became the F16 since it was cheaper and more logistical engine commonality with the Air superiority eagle at the time.

Navy only chose YF17 to be developed into what would become F/A18 because of requirement for 2 engines, and deemed it better suited for carrier landing configuration. Only the FM forced the pure dogfighting concept down the AF throats, but by the time of the First F16A production model they already installed search radar, and could be used as a bomber with Unguided munitions using CCIP/CCRP delivery. By the F16C it already has the multipurpose displays and quickly evolved into full on mulitmission aircraft. It was honestly politics and timing that F16 did not have BVR capability until the F16A ADF and the F16C into the 1990s. AMRAAM was expected to debut in the 1980s kept being delayed until 1990s. It was convenient to not equip as an interim solution Aim7 on the F16 as the Air force could then defend to Congress having the F15 as dedicated AS, and keep the F16 without BVR capability and thus not compete with the F15 for funds in its early years before the AMRAAM project was in full swing.

Otherwise both F16 and Legacy Hornet are efficient cost per hour Lightweight fighter designs that are multi-mission workhorses of respective services to the Larger more expensive role specific aircraft of the time ( F15A/C and F14 respectfully) and could be procured in larger #'s due to less cost AT the same time its total Baloney to proclaim the F16 is capable of "pure" dogifghting adn the Hornet isn't. The Hornet is capable of Higher AOA turns at lower speeds capable to the F16, and the Hornet hasvarious close combat AIr to air modes. It is still a very dangerious in WVR fight and can still content contemporary fighters like the F16 in WVR fight. The pilot matters here not the plane.

Also to put you cant really see the "Legacy" of thefalcon in the F35 and F22... If anything thing the F22 was designed as next generation AS successor to the F15 . F35 only shares with the Viper fact that its intended to be cheaper of the two single engine Multi mission aircraft. F35 isnt meant to be a close in dogfighter, in fact statistical speaking close in dogfights have been becoming a greater and greater rarity. Its built around stealth and highly advanced data networked, sensor fused avionics suite, and if it needs to dogfight with guns and Heatseekers its done something wrong. Its its pure stealth configuration with no external stores its only holding in its internal weapons bay its typical loadout are x2 AMRAAMS and a pair of 2000 lbs GPS or Laser guided bombs or multiple 250lb SBD.

IF looking at the Advanced super hornet aka SH block 3, its avionics setup is very much comparable to F35 with a singel Large touchscreen display and its air-frame is attempted to been modified to reduce RCS, to make it more stealthy( reality it doesn't compare to same levels the F35 of true stealth capability) , and part of that attempt is to introduce option fire weapons from an enclosed weapons pod, but this has made it more draggy. Other aircraft desingers are also introducing similar cockpit layouts with new avionics in other designs, ( See E model Gripen) irregardless if the aircraft is intedned to be totally next gen stealth airframe or a advanced 4th gen design.