AV-8b or F-16C

Flew F/A-18 and F-16 during free trial and not much difference flying them though I noticed F/A-18 doesn't have ILS.

Flew F/A-18 and F-16 during free trial and not much difference flying them though I noticed F/A-18 doesn't have ILS.

Nope, only ICLS. You can use the TACAN for the airport you are trying to land at and select a radial bearing from the TACAN with the bearing/heading cue and get an approximate location and direction of the runway though. Its fairly accurate, but you better be on your A game when going IFR.

AV8B or F-16? Hornet for sure. :thumbup:

AV8B or F-16? Hornet for sure. :thumbup:

Well, as they are now on sale and if he was thinking about buying one or waiting for sale that in before had been around 20% for the F-1? - now with 50% he can have 2 of them.

If he wish to do so, on Steam it is even cut by additional 5€ - at least Hornet.

If it was for me, I'd take A-10 and probably Hornet (as it is out and under the testing of the community for the longer time). F-18+16 combo IMHO makes little sense, I'd prefer Hummer+Mercedes than Mercedes+BMW. :D

I'd love to go for Tom Cruise, but most likely I am going (if) end up with Mig-19 and Hornet (or F-5; another Map; etc.)

What do you want to do? Pound dirt, punish flyers, or both? Harrier is good at CAS, strike, armed recon, and helicopter interdiction. F-16 is a pure fighter with decent strike capability (a bit of both).

What do you want to do? Pound dirt, punish flyers, or both? Harrier is good at CAS, strike, armed recon, and helicopter interdiction. F-16 is a pure fighter with decent strike capability (a bit of both).

Pound dirt primarily.

The F-16 and F-18 are pretty close, the F-18 has more development complete at this time, though progress should be ramping up again soon. If you don't have strong feelings either the 18 or the 16 should be about equal. The F-16 is slightly more A2A oriented, though you get access to the CBU-97, and sensor fused CBUs are nasty. I don't know if the AGM-84 is available for the 16 and obviously the 18 can land on carriers. While the AV-8 is cool, I have not come across many situations where the STOVL has been a game changer. The harrier has most of the same capability as the F-18 now that the TGPs are maturing in development, and the Harrier has been plagued with development in fits and starts for a while now. But that Harrier can carry more bombs if you have the runway for it.

Pound dirt primarily.

Harrier mission type might be of interest since it shorter range, interdictions, CAS, beach-head support of Marines or "anywhere in the world" carrier based force projection. STOL means you can have a broader set of simulated missions. Unfortunately the FARP is not well done in DCS but with a light load is broad enough to take off from if the wind is going right and you haven't overloaded it. The stopgap conversion of the old sidewinder stock to the AGM-122 ARM is interesting for short range radar based SAM and radar guided AAA. And a 9M makes any interceptors have to think twice about a head on shot if they haven't picked you up BVR. The Night aspect is fun and interesting. It's got a good view from the pit and it has unique features with some development still to go, but mostly done. It's good in DCS for simulating a small group to play with since there wouldnt be more than half a dozen, maybe 7 on a ship, so it can make for some cozy gameplay, in mostly permissive environments.

The Viper has to operate for fixed bases, but it's massively popular in forces across the world, so ubiquitous, if you fancy simulating perhaps Oman block 50's for example. Vipers are everywhere. Makes a good opfor jet, adversary, and has a broad role. Over the Harrier, especially of interest are DataLink, Harm Targetting system, JSOW for air to ground, with a lot of speed. The ground radar will eventually have moving target pickups, SEA mode for sea recce and of course air to air, and the BVR AIM-120, which is a big thing if you ever want to fight in a non permissive environment. It will eventually have a lot more so it gives people time to learn the jet as it's developed, but this has disadvantages too, like having to relearn. It will have a dedicated SEAD role with the HTS available, but can handle CAP and Interception, strike and even a deep interdiction with some planning. I can't really comment on the air to ground before ED finish the module, it does have a slightly thinner armament available than the Hornet, like lack of sea mines, Harpoons, but if you ever want to pick up air to air, you would want this over the Harrier, at least to fight your way in somewhere.

I find the MFD far easier to read in VR on the Harrier, but the canopy for the Viper is something else, having no bow frame which is an oddly significant thing in simulations. However, the Harrier has the second best visibility of all modules with a very high seat and good look down abaility. Also the developer of the Viper is ED, that might factor in a choice. As a personal aside, I've always never decided to choose what to have, only what to fly, they are both great, with more to come, but I am partial to the Harrier role, being carrier and farp capable gives the longevity of scenarios you can try out a lot more variety.

Considering the F16 is on sale dirt cheap so quick and probably wont be for a long time, id get the F16 cheap while you can

I'd love to go for Tom Cruise, but most likely I am going (if) end up with Mig-19 and Hornet (or F-5; another Map; etc.)

You can try Tomcat for free today and tomorrow :thumbup:

You can try Tomcat for free today and tomorrow :thumbup:

I know, downloading.

I read this thread - still thinking, whether Harrier or F-18 or F-16. Question about A-10 is already answered for me, it was probably my first full module.

- Harrier and F-18 looks somehow similar to me in some strike capabilities, although I am not deep into details as people around.

- F-16 is too new, but for long it will probably not be on 50% sale. And it is future combat aircraft of the our air force, although in much more modern version.

More I read, more I am confused.

Is the only way to land an F/A-18 at a land-based airport/airfield via VFR?

Is the only way to land an F/A-18 at a land-based airport/airfield via VFR?

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Sure the F/A-18 can take off and land from land-based airports/air bases but not at night or in inclement weather (easily).

Not necessarily, just because you dont have an ILS system doesnt mean you cant practice this method. It works in IMC and low light level, or any airfield that has an ICLS system installed. The radial isnt going to be too far off from the runway, so unless visibility is less than 1/4 of a mile you arent going to miss the runway.

Ill reference this video, even though its a GR vid...fairly explanatory in nature.

Trying the AV-8b during the free two-day trial and love how it flies and the engine sound (F3 button for flyby) is amazing. I flew from Kobuleti to Tbilisi-Lochini which took ~17 minutes and about 120 NM) and went from 7,200 lbs of fuel to 3,700 lbs. That's with no ordinance and without any bombing or monkeying around in the air en route. I guess learning air refueling is mandatory with the AV-8b but I still may go with F-16C...tough call.

it is VERY difficult to do a2a refueling in the Harrier...easy after you get the hang of it, but you'll want to find videos on how to do it first. And yes it is a very fun aircraft to fly.

Just finished flying Av-8b around fully loaded with max weight in ordinance, tpod and gun and made it 120nm with 5200 lbs fuel remaining. More than enough to blow some stuff up and go back. Big difference was I flew Hi-Lo-Hi as recommended.

AV-8b is awesome but it's different enough from what I'm used to that I'm going to go with F-16c. Great plane though.

Just finished flying Av-8b around fully loaded with max weight in ordinance, tpod and gun and made it 120nm with 5200 lbs fuel remaining. More than enough to blow some stuff up and go back. Big difference was I flew Hi-Lo-Hi as recommended.

With such configuration you wouldn't be flying much CAS really as 120 nmi for Harrier is very long flight range and closer to what it is for Hornet from the carrier. So you would be flying closer to 20-50 nmi (40-100 km) if even that. As just like example with the original design with the Gripen, the Harrier was designed to perform very close range attacks on the troops. Why example original Gripen (A/B) didn't have Air-to-Air refueling capabilities as doctrine was to fly from various different roads between strikes, just few tens of kilometers from the enemy. Constantly having ground grews moving to other road between landings etc and not to land to same position twice in row.

And looking the real weapons loadouts from even first Gulf War, Harrier was not carrying less than Hornet or Viper, but it was closer to friendlies and delivering support faster. But incapable to fight against enemies fighters why F-16C and F/A-18C are far better suited for tasking.

AV-8b is awesome but it's different enough from what I'm used to that I'm going to go with F-16c. Great plane though.

Harrier downside really is that it is strictly to ground pounding in N/A variance. While those two opens up far nicer mission options and so on better choice. For me when I want to do the ground pounding, I take Harrier over Viper as the Viper seems to burn fuel much faster than Harrier with similar flight patterns and speeds and loadouts, requiring far more often to get refueling.

With such configuration you wouldn't be flying much CAS really as 120 nmi for Harrier is very long flight range and closer to what it is for Hornet from the carrier. So you would be flying closer to 20-50 nmi (40-100 km) if even that. As just like example with the original design with the Gripen, the Harrier was designed to perform very close range attacks on the troops. Why example original Gripen (A/B) didn't have Air-to-Air refueling capabilities as doctrine was to fly from various different roads between strikes, just few tens of kilometers from the enemy. Constantly having ground grews moving to other road between landings etc and not to land to same position twice in row.

 

And looking the real weapons loadouts from even first Gulf War, Harrier was not carrying less than Hornet or Viper, but it was closer to friendlies and delivering support faster. But incapable to fight against enemies fighters why F-16C and F/A-18C are far better suited for tasking.

 

 

 

Harrier downside really is that it is strictly to ground pounding in N/A variance. While those two opens up far nicer mission options and so on better choice. For me when I want to do the ground pounding, I take Harrier over Viper as the Viper seems to burn fuel much faster than Harrier with similar flight patterns and speeds and loadouts, requiring far more often to get refueling.

Thanks for the input. I've now flown quite a few missions with F-16C and enjoy flying it quite a bit. While I'd like to also fly Harrier, I don't want to bounce back and forth between aircraft so will just focus on F-16C for now. Regarding fuel, the F-16C seems to be very fuel efficient so long as you don't use afterburner but it's good to know it's there if needed.

Razbam had said they were going to relook at the Harrier fuel burn rate as it seems to not be very fuel-efficient.

Just tell your wife you love her and get both. Worth a try...:lol:

Trying the AV-8b during the free two-day trial and love how it flies and the engine sound (F3 button for flyby) is amazing. I flew from Kobuleti to Tbilisi-Lochini which took ~17 minutes and about 120 NM) and went from 7,200 lbs of fuel to 3,700 lbs. That's with no ordinance and without any bombing or monkeying around in the air en route. I guess learning air refueling is mandatory with the AV-8b but I still may go with F-16C...tough call.

I've flown the Harrier 3 times that distance, with a bomb load, attacked the target and landed back at base, with no tanks and no re fuelling.

The Harrier has higher than realistic fuel consumption, but especially high at full throttle, so keep out of that area if you want range.

..

Just tell your wife you love her and get both. Worth a try...:lol:

Hopefully, the Harrier will be part of the next month of free trials that starts tomorrow. I'll fly it a little more.

I really enjoy flying the AV-8B but it doesn't offer anything over the F-16C to justify.

Try both for a month! I loved Harrier with its AWESOME training missions. F-16C is very early in its development, I could not justify buying it yet.