F-18 vs F-16

That's interesting.

 

Again, I'm a civilian and I'm not familiar with the UPT process or how it prepares pilot's, so I'm approaching this with a different mindset I guess. Completely ignoring the whole flying with a WSO angle, the F-15E is a fantastic jet, it does air-to-air, air-to-ground, can employ a wide range of weapons and has a great avionics suite to play with. I would have thought that made it a highly sought after appointment. So does that mean after a pilot goes through UPT, despite the F-15E being an incredible jet, it would generally come lower down this list of planes to fly, than the Raptor, F-16, F-15C now the F-35 and perhaps even the A-10 (not sure if the A-10 fits in here though)?

Everyone picks differently. More often than not, you don't get your first choice but learn to love the one you're with. Even if you're at the top of your class, you might not get your first choice because needs of the air force come first. Most people will pick 5th gen first because it's all the hotness, after that it's a toss up. I think my choices at the time were F-22, F-35, F-16, F-15E, F-15C, A-10. Why the F-16 before F-15E? Because I was fully in the single-seat mentality and I also thought SEAD was cool. Why F-15C after E? Because every C model instructor I had was a d*** so I just assumed that's how the entire community is.

In the end, every fighter pilot is going to think the jet they fly is the best one out there, as you can tell from this thread.

For far too long this community has lacked meaningful interaction with real fighter pilots, relying instead on a few maintainers and herbivore drivers to give flight sim nerds perspective.

I for one welcome our new single-seat overlords!

Also, this thread now reads like 50% of BaseOps threads, and I love it. All we need now is a finance guy to represent the shoe clerks!

I was born at MacDill AFB in Tampa at a time when F-4's ruled the skies. Later they transitioned to F-16s. After the Cold War ended, fighters went away, it became a joint command so that Admirals and Generals could live/retired in Tampa/St. Pete and also is the home of tankers and special forces operations. I met many fighter pilots. Every pilot I ever met was an arrogant d**k when it came to comparing his plane to any other plane. F-16 pilots never lost to an F-15 and vice versa. I know F-15 pilots were called "Ego Drivers", but "Viper" pilots seemed to have just as big an ego. I never held it against any pilot. I only wished my eyesight had not prevented me from flying. I wanted to be an F-4 pilot, and when they were being replaced, I wanted to be an F-15 pilot. But at this point in my life, I would have been happy flying a C-130 out of Hong Kong hauling rubber dogshit just to fly for a living.

Phantoms phorever!

As for the F/A-18 vs F-16, I understand the F-16C with the GE engine is gods gift to the world better than anything that ever flew except maybe an F-22, but the Hornet looks like a baby F-15 and I always liked the F-15 more than the F-16, so the legacy Hornet rules! Northrop and McDonnell were always my two favorite fighter companies after North American lost their way.

My conclusions on this Thread

After reading all the wonderful comments on this thread I have come to these conclusions:

1. The technology in the Wright Brothers plane lead to the F-35.

2. Pilots are the biggest factor.

3. Pilots are dicks.

4. Hong Kong makes rubber dogshit. Who knew?

After reading all the wonderful comments on this thread I have come to these conclusions:

 

1. The technology in the Wright Brothers plane lead to the F-35.

 

2. Pilots are the biggest factor.

 

3. Pilots are dicks.

 

4. Hong Kong makes rubber dogshit. Who knew?

except when it comes to 5th gen. If Freshly minted JSF drivers can shoot down veteran adversary Viper Drivers, as if shooting fish in a barrel? id probably say that were at a point where technology has overcome raw pilot skill as the deciding factor : at least when facing aircraft of an earlier generation, which are probably going to be the most common encountered adversary aircraft for at least another decade. ( maybe longer depending on who you look at)

Everyone picks differently. More often than not, you don't get your first choice but learn to love the one you're with. Even if you're at the top of your class, you might not get your first choice because needs of the air force come first. Most people will pick 5th gen first because it's all the hotness, after that it's a toss up. I think my choices at the time were F-22, F-35, F-16, F-15E, F-15C, A-10. Why the F-16 before F-15E? Because I was fully in the single-seat mentality and I also thought SEAD was cool. Why F-15C after E? Because every C model instructor I had was a d*** so I just assumed that's how the entire community is.

 

In the end, every fighter pilot is going to think the jet they fly is the best one out there, as you can tell from this thread.

Thanks.

The A-10 is the odd one out from the bunch, but even so you really can't go wrong with any of the others, all fine selections.

BTW what is it about the 'C' instructors you had or is it just a 'fighter pilot' thing as streakeagle suggested below?

But at this point in my life, I would have been happy flying a C-130 out of Hong Kong hauling rubber dogshit just to fly for a living.

 

Phantoms phorever!

Any jet that can carry such a large assortment of bombs, missiles and stores, that it becomes difficult to tell if the plane is flying the weapons or vice verse, gets a thumbs up.:thumbup:

4. Hong Kong makes rubber dogshit. Who knew?

As for the Topgun quotes from you both, Oh Jesus!:doh: But it gives me an idea for another thread.:)

Don't compare the real viper to that of the other sim. The real viper can not carry 8 mavericks.

It may not, but why dismiss the entire "other sim" that brought many of us here, and kept us glued to this hobby when there was nothing else in the market even close in terms of fidelity?

And the solution was always simple: don't use the triple mavs.

It may not, but why dismiss the entire "other sim" that brought many of us here, and kept us glued to this hobby when there was nothing else in the market even close in terms of fidelity?

 

And the solution was always simple: don't use the triple mavs.

I think you would need to look at the quoted post + hers. The original post was real vs real with the comment of the F-16 being capable of 8 mavs as a loadout, using the "other sim" as reference to the loadout capability. I didn't see a dismissal there, the post merely said that the loadout capabilities of the sim do not match real world.

I wouldn't read too much more into it than that. ;)

i hate the f-16

its the ar-15 of the airplane world

but nothing made me love the f-16 more than the fa-18 with its sorry excuse for a hotas control

please deliver me from having to push mfd buttons already

Thanks.

 

The A-10 is the odd one out from the bunch, but even so you really can't go wrong with any of the others, all fine selections.

 

BTW what is it about the 'C' instructors you had or is it just a 'fighter pilot' thing as streakeagle suggested below?

Just all of the previous C model guys were absolute d***heads that nobody ever wanted to fly with. Not really good instructors. The type of instructor that would tell you everything you did wrong, but no fixes for any of it. They would also give horrible gradesheets for you, no matter how you did in the flight, so that hurts morale for all the UPT students because the "chance" factor hurts the most. Would much rather get a bad gradesheets from a bad flight vs a bad gradesheet because you ended up on the schedule with the hammer instructor.

For far too long this community has lacked meaningful interaction with real fighter pilots, relying instead on a few maintainers and herbivore drivers to give flight sim nerds perspective.

 

I for one welcome our new single-seat overlords!

 

Also, this thread now reads like 50% of BaseOps threads, and I love it. All we need now is a finance guy to represent the shoe clerks!

Many many years ago, back in college, two friends at a party who were in ROTC in different branches (I think one was Army and one was Air Force) got into one of those usual "which service is better" arguments, and unfortunately this was seriously delaying a drinking game for all of the rest of us. So to end the argument, I pointed out to both of them that my poli sci degree would probably mean that I'd eventually be one of the people who would be deciding which worthless patch of desert or jungle they'd be deployed to. Apparently the one thing that trumps interservice rivalries is a disdain for civilian analysts (except Jack Ryan, I guess?).

(Probably to the benefit of world peace, I wound up choosing healthcare policy instead of defense policy or foreign policy, although if you think fighter jets are expensive...)

Don't compare the real viper to that of the other sim. The real viper can not carry 8 mavericks.

According to f-16.net it has the capability to carry 8 Mavericks. There is a difference between “can not” and “does not”.

Do you have any documentation that states that it is not possible?

According to f-16.net it has the capability to carry 8 Mavericks. There is a difference between “can not” and “does not”.

Do you have any documentation that states that it is not possible?

I do not have any documentation to prove the F-16 has not carry the LAU-88 for years. But I agree with Panther. Like I posted here

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3800674&postcount=395

In the years working the F-16, I never saw LAU-88 (any version) installed or on base. Not on demonstration loads, not in training. Not when deployed. Never saw weapons crews train to load it. Same goes for the BLU-107, 600g wing tanks. Not in Luke AFB, Osan AB, MCAS Iwakuni, Aviano AB, Zaragosa AB, AL Udeid AB, Decimomannu AB, Kunsan AB, Eielson AFB, nor Holloman AFB.

The Block 50s started out with the APG-68 V5 which would have been around circa 1992. I can't find a specific date on the V9 but given that there was a call to upgrade to the V10 in 2004, I'd imagine the V9s started around 2001/02. Here is a nice write-up and the APG-68 V9.

 

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-68.htm

One of the reasons I ask is because not even the aircraft manual I seen define the radar versions. For example

1.9 RADAR SYSTEM 50 .

1.9.1 General. The aircraft fire control radar (FCR) is a coherent, multimode, digital sensor designed to provide all weather air-to-air and air-to-ground modes with superior dogfight and weapons delivery capabilities. The air-to-air modes detect and track targets at forward aspects of maximum ±60 degrees off boresight in elevation and ±60 degrees off boresight in azimuth and at all altitudes, either in the clear or with ground clutter. Target data in the air-to-air modes is presented as synthetic video on a clean scope display. Air-to-ground modes provide mapping and navigation as well as target detection, location, and tracking.

 

1.9.1.1 The radar consists of an antenna, a modular low power radio frequency unit, a dual mode transmitter, a programmable signal processor, and a rack assembly along with the associated cabling, waveguide, and cooling plenum.

 

1.9.1.2 The primary interface between the pilot and the radar is the MFDS. Hands-on controls and MFD menus control and display radar modes, range scale, azimuth scan width, target history, RF channel, number of elevation bars, marker intensities, map freeze function, alternate velocity thresholds for ground moving target rejection, cursor placement, antenna elevation, and the altitude line tracker/blanker.

so I'm curious where you guys get the info.

This is a direct PDF link

https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2009/AirForce/0207133F.pdf

Here form 2008, they mention the V10 being terminated, but no mention which version is in service.

https://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockheed_Martin_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Here they mention that the V5 was for US while V7 and V8 where for different export versions but does not define which.

It also mention V9 where for 50/52+ versions (i.e. F-16I)

So which is right, reliable and/or accurate? :dunno:

You are arguing that it does not.

I am not arguing, I'm telling you. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. That picture you found is of an old block 32 or below. It has the small intake form a PW engine and the landing /taxi light on the main landing gear. Find me a USAF 2007 block 50 after CCIP photo and prove me wrong.

I am not arguing, I'm telling you. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. That picture you found is of an old block 32 or below. It has the small intake form a PW engine and the landing /taxi light on the main landing gear. Find me a USAF 2007 block 50 after CCIP photo and prove me wrong.

I didn't say you were wrong. I'm just not interested. I only care about what the plane is capable of and if ED decides to include that capability or not. Find me documentation that states the block 50 is incapable of carrying the lau-88 and prove me wrong.

i hate the f-16

its the ar-15 of the airplane world

 

but nothing made me love the f-16 more than the fa-18 with its sorry excuse for a hotas control

please deliver me from having to push mfd buttons already

You only really use mfd pushbuttons for ag which use will be reduced when we get to setup Hornets weapon profiles( among other things) in the menu simualting settings from a data cartridge. Mastermode a2a ( auto pops up store and a2a radar page) and the rest you can do with hotas like switching between targeting modes and air to air weaponry select.

As someone who has saitek x55 the horent is a blessing. If f16 hotas is as complicated as the a10cs then there's going to be too many functions to map everything anyways.

With the hornet x55 works great.

Besides why have mfd pushbuttons of you arent going to use them? That's part of the fun.

And any strike eagle fans are going to be flying with same hornet stick

i hate the f-16

its the ar-15 of the airplane world

 

but nothing made me love the f-16 more than the fa-18 with its sorry excuse for a hotas control

please deliver me from having to push mfd buttons already

The lovely F-86 module has no MFD's and may suit you very well. ;)

I didn't say you were wrong. I'm just not interested. I only care about what the plane is capable of and if ED decides to include that capability or not. Find me documentation that states the block 50 is incapable of carrying the lau-88 and prove me wrong.

I have zero influence on what ED does or does not do with the F-16C module. I am curious, what trigger you about the LAU-88? I mention the BLU-107 and 600g tank but you did not seem to have an issue with them. Also, do you have similar view about the GBU-12 and CBU? Meaning do you also think the F-16C block 50 circa 2007 after CCIP can carry 6 or 12 of those?

Edit

Since we are on a comparison thread, can the F/A-18 carry LAU-88?

So glad I don't use F-16.net reference for what I can and can not do in my line of work on the aircraft. :megalol:

Regarding the "other sim" reference, I'm pretty sure rule 1.15 could be used. Didn't want to get hit with a forum ban. I came from falcon, been with both titles since roughly 2006. So no I'm not a DCS fanboi, I'm an aviation fanboi. :joystick::pilotfly: