Make it go Faster!

Seriously! Is the Bug really this slow? It looks pretty clean with 4 slammers, 2 heaters and no tank. Yet those two motors only manage to push her along at a leisurely M1.02.

What altitude were you at?

On the deck. I’m not making any claim that the DCS model is wrong. It’s probably nuts on. But if so then the USN needs to drop the F-18 (yesterday if not sooner) and get something that can outrun its own shadow. Or maybe speed isn’t an issue in the real world. But in the world of DCS and Blue Flag, I’ve switched to the Tomcat. The Hornet gets run down by F-16s and Jeffs like it’s an old wounded dog among a pack of cheetahs.

On the deck, where the air is thick, you will not go fast with ease. Especially with a load-out. As far as I can tell, and from what others have tested, she is pretty damn close to the performance charts.

The F-14 was made for speed and has TWO F110's, you cannot compare the two. The F-16 is much faster than the Hornet. I believe the JF-17 is as well, but I don't know much about that airframe.

The aircrafts optimal altitude is not on the deck.

And the last USN squadron retired the F/A-18C in 2018

Mach 1+ on the deck with 6 missiles hanging on it is actually pretty damn fast for a Hornet. Keep in mind that higher mach numbers are only possible at high altitude (where the air is thin) and the max. airspeed for the Hornet at optimal altitude (~30.000ft) and a clean loadout is M1.8, while the F-16 and F-14 are capable to go well beyond M2.

Did you try painting it red? :p

The hornet is as fast as it need to be. In fact it is the faster plane that I usually fly. I spend most of the time in the A10C and the Harrier, both subsonic.

Using AB and going over 1.0 M is always nice but aside from supersonic interceptions it is not really needed.

But sure, if you want to go faster, the hornet is not your plane.

The Super Hornet which replaces it (and the F-35C) is no faster. Put simply the Hornet is not designed for high Mach. It’s engines are plenty powerful enough (it has a higher thrust to weight than the Tomcat, the Tomcat is one big mutha) but it’s inlets are of a more simple design which limits its top end performance and has comparatively high drag. The JF-17 should be slower overall as well (but might depend where in the flight envelope).

Simple fact is that most aerial engagements are not at supersonic speeds and planes designed to go fast at low level make other compromises (or employ relatively expensive things such as variable geometry wings). While going very fast has a role, for the most part the compromises are not worth it (as evidenced by the fact the F-16 and F-18 are being replaced by a slower airframe which lends additional capabilities).

There was a thread reported unrealistic drag caused by slammers and aim-9x IIRC. No idea if the problem fixed or not.

Make it go faster... GO HIGHER! ;)

If you bring 4 Slammers, at least two of them come with extra racks which are WAY too draggy still and you hardly even can surpass M 1 at alt. Just don't do that. Just too bad you can't counter that off anymore with BRU-33s...

Yeah, none of the jets are really all that fast with any loadout on the deck. I'd say the Jeff and F16 might be wee bit faster configured similarly, and the F14 probably is a good bit faster due to huge engines and variable geometry (haven't flown the cat that low in a while so I don't recall).

Rumors say that we've got too much drag from somewhere, perhaps pylons. But there's been no hard data to prove that yet.

Mover said in one of his Youtube videos that DCS Viper is too draggy. Imagine how fast it should be lol.

Fighters used to be designed faster and faster... over Mach 2 was typical at one point... yet fighters since the late 60's have had much slower top speeds.

Keep in mind, to accelerate to those speeds, you are in burner longer. And stay in burner to stay at those speeds. Now your fuel state is bingo and you have to RTB and you haven't even done anything yet... is that a win? Or is that a mission-kill due to poor fuel management, poor tactic?

I love speed as much as the next guy, as much as pilots do, but the reality is if Mach 2 performance was really that important to fighter jets, we'd be flying Lockheeds' A-12's interceptors and Avro Arrows! Yet Hornets Vipers and Lightenings dominate the market, none can get to Mach 2 even when clean.

Fighters used to be designed faster and faster... over Mach 2 was typical at one point... yet fighters since the late 60's have had much slower top speeds.

 

Keep in mind, to accelerate to those speeds, you are in burner longer. And stay in burner to stay at those speeds. Now your fuel state is bingo and you have to RTB and you haven't even done anything yet... is that a win? Or is that a mission-kill due to poor fuel management, poor tactic?

 

I love speed as much as the next guy, as much as pilots do, but the reality is if Mach 2 performance was really that important to fighter jets, we'd be flying Lockheeds' A-12's interceptors and Avro Arrows! Yet Hornets Vipers and Lightenings dominate the market, none can get to Mach 2 even when clean.

There isn't much truth to this. The F15 was designed after that and can reach Mach 2.5. Mirage 2k came out in early 80s and is capable of Mach 2+ as well as many others. The fact is those speeds in every fast jet ever are only at high altitude with minimal load. They are the absolute top speed in the best possible condition, not the speed that you will be going in normal use 99% of the time. The fastest speeds anyone will ever be going in this game with any combat ability is about Mach 1.5 at high altitude.

There isn't much truth to this. The F15 was designed after that and can reach Mach 2.5. Mirage 2k came out in early 80s and is capable of Mach 2+ as well as many others. The fact is those speeds in every fast jet ever are only at high altitude with minimal load. They are the absolute top speed in the best possible condition, not the speed that you will be going in normal use 99% of the time. The fastest speeds anyone will ever be going in this game with any combat ability is about Mach 1.5 at high altitude.

True though the F-15 has its design origins in the 1960’s as a response to the supposed wonderweapon that was the Mig-25 and the original specification requested for the Mirage 2000 for the AdA was a Mach 3 interceptor in the early 70’s as a couple of examples. Now it is not to say that speed is never important - the Mig-31 makes good use of speed to allow itself to protect a large volume of airspace, however like all things it comes with sacrifices.

As it was stated in the begin by ex pilot, many will get let down by the hornet speed, as it ain't fast interceptor and not going to fly it fast unless you fly it clean.

It is multirole fighter, not a interceptor.

And speed comes always with penalty, that is your time up in the air. Faster you want to go, less time you are up in the air. If you want range and time, fly slow....

Wait until we get SR-71 or MiG-31 and you can be fast, cover long distances and/or long flights.

Rumors say that we've got too much drag from somewhere, perhaps pylons. But there's been no hard data to prove that yet.

Well, we have this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245521

As you can see, racks (especially double racks) are very draggy.

Well, we have this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245521

 

As you can see, racks (especially double racks) are very draggy.

Thanks QuiGon.

I am aware that the Hornet is a multirole mount. As a jet-powered-bus-driver I am also aware that planes go faster higher. My question was more one of relativity. On the deck with a middling loadout, the Hornet gets chased down like a wounded wildebeest by other multirole fighters on the deck. All of that may well be as it is (or rather as it was, I honestly did not know that the F-18C was a museum piece...) as it was in real life. But as this is the "wishlist" thread, I "wish" that the hornet was faster. Thanks for the education all. o7

Hornets/Superhornets of any variety will not be winning the run away game vs any of the russian/soviet threats, especially on the deck. Straight wing, too small engines, fixed intakes (in the superhornets case, draggy pylons) Most jets below 5000 feet MSL really start to top out at mach 1.0-1.1 cause your limit down that low is usually your CAS, not mach number. Unsure of the hornets Vne, but 750-850 is pretty normal for just about any fighter, on the deck thats at most mach 1.2ish.

(keep in mind that limit is usually a structural heating limit, not an instant fail limit, so some jets may very well be able to accelerate past their redline speeds up at altitude, the designers have just deemed its not safe to do so because you will start damaging things, usually melting the windshield or radome)

There isn't much truth to this. The F15 was designed after that and can reach Mach 2.5. Mirage 2k came out in early 80s and is capable of Mach 2+ as well as many others. The fact is those speeds in every fast jet ever are only at high altitude with minimal load. They are the absolute top speed in the best possible condition, not the speed that you will be going in normal use 99% of the time. The fastest speeds anyone will ever be going in this game with any combat ability is about Mach 1.5 at high altitude.

Isn't much truth to what?

So yea, you found two exceptions to the timeline. Big deal, doesn't change the fact that top speeds of clean fighters at high alt is not seen as super important anymore, for most fighter jet employment. I've heard rumors that a clean F-35 can't even go supersonic in straight and level flight... I've no idea if that's true or not, but no one seems to care much one way or the other. Instead, stealth, ELINT, datalinks, ability to accelerate hard, SA all seem to be the things they want. In the same way that there is debate about whether to even bother with a cannon, as more and more fighters are bought without one.

The fact is, the trend WAS to make fighters faster and faster top speeds. Then the trend was to make fighters more maneuverable at subsonic speeds, better power to weight ratios than some rarely useful top speed, more multirole, more fuel efficient, higher angle of attack, better outward visibility and improved SA, longer lasting airframes, easier to maintain by quick-change components to keep an airframe operational.

Exceeding M2.5 in fighters is just not seen as important as most of the other factors, like ELINT datalinks, stealth, operating costs, spare parts availability, fuel "legs"...and so many other factors.

Yes, the Raptor has a high top speed, and it's newer than the trend I'm talking about. But you'll notice that no one talks about Raptor top speed, because it's just not that relevant anymore. Sure there might be one day that this top speed will be super important... but generally it's not.

I'm reminded of how such speeds above Mach 2 mean that even gentle easy turns mean sustained G forces on the pilot and airframe.

Look, the Hornet was designed early on to have a slow landing speed, to better suit for carrier operations. Longer airframe service, fewer pilots lost to accidents, ability to bring back unused ordnance. The USN seems to value that more than super fast top speeds, I mean the Hornet is still being evolved , while the Tomcat got retired.