Jump to content

F-18 vs F-16


Skyracer

Recommended Posts

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.

Its not much of an argument. They are both fine aircraft; its comparing oranges to oranges, but in this case, ones a navel orange and the other is a mandarin orange. They both run different software, and I hate to say it but most of the technology that came from the F-16 went into the F-35 (and is making its way into later -16 blocks). The Hornet still has its own niche, none of which is really compatible with the -35. Honestly, thats not even a fair comparison to even include the F-35. The -22 is a better choice because it was a joint effort between lockheed and boeing. I dont know much about either aircraft other than where they are at with block upgrades. Capabilities I have no clue about, other than what weapons they can use. But I know that the software for one aircraft isnt plug and play capable across any aircraft spectrum, especially -35C aircraft and any -18 flavor.

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not much of an argument. They are both fine aircraft; its comparing oranges to oranges, but in this case, ones a navel orange and the other is a mandarin orange. They both run different software, and I hate to say it but most of the technology that came from the F-16 went into the F-35 (and is making its way into later -16 blocks). The Hornet still has its own niche, none of which is really compatible with the -35. Honestly, thats not even a fair comparison to even include the F-35. The -22 is a better choice because it was a joint effort between lockheed and boeing. I dont know much about either aircraft other than where they are at with block upgrades. Capabilities I have no clue about, other than what weapons they can use. But I know that the software for one aircraft isnt plug and play capable across any aircraft spectrum, especially -35C aircraft and any -18 flavor.

 

??????. I never claimed the Hornet is outright better than the Viper, besides offering some examples in response to a prior post of yours proclaiming the of blk 50 Viper being a "magnitude" better than a Lot 20 Hornet.

 

and what technology?

 

the F35 is totally different from the F16 ( especially considering this is USAF block 50 thats actually being looked at) utilizing far newer technology Different hardware, processing power, software, displays, and sensor suites. And i don't see why you bring up software because that argument of running the same software was never claimed. BUt they do have in common is the same MIL standard BUS hence why the varying TGP types and certain weapons are interchangeable as easily as "plug and Play"

 

Software suite from F16 - F35 are also different, Software suite from Legacy Hornet to Super Hornet block 1-2 have very considerable similarities in layout and function despite the updates for the sake of keeping familiarity for Pilot - Machine interfacing . Even you can see from BLock 3 cockpit demonstrators core "pages" retain the same layout from the prior Hornets just on a touchscreen Display which means its easier for pilots to transition to these models and feel at home. Hell even cockpit panels retain considerable switchology familiarity going from Legacy t even up into Super Hornet Block 3. Besides the comparison was being made between F/A18C lot 20 and the F16C block 50. There is no point to muddy the waters and start comparing features from SH's or foreign more advanced Vipers which aren't in DCS or in development

 

Also to note the Hornet today , which would really be the Super Hornet since the legacies are now all retired from active duty, is not really filling a "Niche". I dont see how you reach such a conclusion. The Super Hornet is being retained because the Navy doesn't have the budget for a full Fleet of F-35C, and the similar situation is somewhat reflected in the USAF. the F35A isn't gong to replace every legacy aircraft as idealistically wished for. Life extension programs to keep F15C , F15E, as well as portion of F16 fleet up until 2040 are becoming a reality.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... rdlaugh.png

 

For those who don't know, these things were in the range of 233 - 450 MHz out of the box p7o9c8xs.png

 

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

 

You might check out the weekend newsletter so see what they're planning for the FF pinkie-approved.png

 

 

 

 

Lol, but don't know where you got your info from. I ran a stock Pentium III out of the box at 933mhz in 2001


Edited by Canada_Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

??????. I never claimed the Hornet is outright better than the Viper, besides offering some examples in response to a prior post of yours proclaiming the of blk 50 Viper being a "magnitude" better than a Lot 20 Hornet.

 

and what technology?

 

the F35 is totally different from the F16 ( especially considering this is USAF block 50 thats actually being looked at) utilizing far newer technology Different hardware, processing power, software, displays, and sensor suites. And i don't see why you bring up software because that argument of running the same software was never claimed. BUt they do have in common is the same MIL standard BUS hence why the varying TGP types and certain weapons are interchangeable as easily as "plug and Play"

 

Software suite from F16 - F35 are also different, Software suite from Legacy Hornet to Super Hornet block 1-2 have very considerable similarities in layout and function despite the updates to keep familiarity for Pilot - Machine interfacing . Even you can see from BLock 3 cockpit demonstrators core "pages" retain the same layout from the prior Hornets just on a touchscreen Display which means its easier for pilots to transition to these models and feel at home. Hell even cockpit panels retain considerable switchology familiarity going from Legacy t even up into Super Hornet Block 3. Besides the comparison was being made between F/A18C lot 20 and the F16C block 50. There is no point to muddy the waters and start comparing features from SH's or foreign more advanced Vipers which aren't in DCS or in development

 

Also to note the Hornet today , which would really be the Super Hornet since the legacies are now all retired from active duty, is not really filling a "Niche". I dont see how you reach such a conclusion. The Super Hornet is being retained because the Navy doesn't have the budget for a full Fleet of F-35C, and the similar situation is somewhat reflected in the USAF. the F35A isn't gong to replace every legacy aircraft as idealistically wished for. Life extension programs to keep F15C , F15E, as well as portion of F16 fleet up until 2040 are becoming a reality.

First off, I never said you did. If I implied it like that, my bad.

 

 

 

The technology I refer to is a lot of the new software implemented with the F-35 are being ported over into newer F-16 blocks. One Ive heard of recently is something akin to AOS in russian aircraft. AESA AN/APG-81 for the F-35 and the AESA AN/APG-80 for the F-16, alongside several other items. The Blk 60 is actually closer to the F-35 than it is an F-16....the Blk 70 will have the AN/APG-83 radar system. The price tag is....about the same as a -35B. As far as the Hornet goes, between the one we have now Vs the E/F models -you're right. Not much has changed in the way the cockpit is laid out. Its basically the same; the flight characteristics, the cockpit layout, avionics. I dont know much about the new version of the SH that Boeing put on the table for the Navy.

 

 

 

My point is that the F-18 is nowhere near close to being the F-16 that was suggested early on in this thread. Thats where the similarities end -just the roles they play. They both serve vastly different purposes--- How the hell did we stray this far from the original statement??

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Super Hornet got the AN/APG-79 AESA radar way before the Air Force thought of putting one in the F-16.

Also I don't think any of that matters since we won't be getting it. From what I can see both the F-16 and the F-18 we will be getting will be really close in terms of systems capability and types of weapons employed.


Edited by Lieuie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flew Falcon 4.0 and it's modified version for a few years and then tried Janes F-18 and the avionics were quite similar. The UFC is not all that different and the weapons systems are very similar so the transition in terms of learning the weapons systems and avionics won't be that bad. You just have to process it all with an open mind. Who cares which one is better. REALLY? are you guys gonna get into a pissing contest over that?


Edited by Akula
  • MB: MPG Z790 EDGE WIFI
  • Memory: WD Black SN850X 2TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2
  • CPU: Intel Core i9-14900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache
  • EVGA 1200W Gold PSU
  • MSI RTX 3090
  • TrackIR on Samsung 49 inch Odyssey Widescreen
  • No money in my pocket lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lot 20 Hornet has much more to offer in terms of avionics..

 

-Integrated RWR/ECM

-3rd display

-Unique display formats (Az/El and EW page)

 

-APG-73 phase 2 is superior to the APG-68(v)5

---APG-73 has a larger antenna (increased Gain), likely indicating greater detection range.

---APG-73 has a wider azimuth scan (140° vs 120°), and a wider TWS scan (80° vs 60°)

---APG-68 likely has greater side-lobes due to antenna shape and size. This would indicate worse look-down performance.

---APG-73 has SAR mapping (EXP 3 = SAR; the 68(v)5 does not have SAR mapping)

---APG-73 has better signal processing and greater computational throughput

---I believe the APG-68(v)5 only support HPRF waveforms in Velocity search, not in RWS or TWS. Reducing its max detection range in those modes. One of the references below indicates this.

 

Note: The APG-68(v)9 replaced MPRF in RWS/TWS with a special HPRF waveform called "ERS". Since they say its replacing MPRF and provides all aspect detection, its likely a form of Range gated HPRF (RGHPRF). See George Stimson's "Introduction to Airborne Radar" to learn more about RGHPRF waveforms.

 

---Raytheon/Hughes > Northrop Grumman/Westinghouse (obvious fanboy-ism. But historically speaking, perhaps not as subjective as one might think)

 

Overall the APG-68(v)9 is much closer to the APG-73 is than the APG-68(v)5 is. Though I still think the APG-73 would fair slightly better than the 68(v)9.

 

 

Resources:

 

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=328

 

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3802&context=utk_gradthes

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110526024024/http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/apg68/assets/APG68.pdf


Edited by Beamscanner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best person to ask is C.W.Lemoine AKA Mover, he's flown both in real life, trying to dick measure within a flight sim and making comparisons to other "sims" you've flown is pretty pointless.

AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX with Radeon Graphics           3.00 GHz

32 GB RAM

2 TB SSD

RTX 4070 8GB

Windows 11 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is SAR mapping ground mapping?

 

 

Yes, basically. It is a radar processing technique combining reflection data received at different receiver locations as the radar platform moves, effectively to synthesize an apparently larger antenna, hence the name. It is not the easiest task to decades old electronics, but when realized, it greatly increases the resolution at which a given region can be mapped. A simple beam scanning ground mapping suffers from comparatively poor spatial resolution of fighter radars, and also shows a loss of resolution at increased distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best person to ask is C.W.Lemoine AKA Mover, he's flown both in real life, trying to dick measure within a flight sim and making comparisons to other "sims" you've flown is pretty pointless.

 

It may be the same guy I read about. But one pilot who flew both stated "The F/A-18 was like flying a Cadillac, while the F-16 was like flying a Porsche."

 

This isnt a word for word quote, but he roughly stated: 'If I just wanted to go fly for the fun of it I'd fly the F-16. But I'd rather take the Hornet into a combat zone'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be the same guy I read about. But one pilot who flew both stated "The F/A-18 was like flying a Cadillac, while the F-16 was like flying a Porsche."

 

This isnt a word for word quote, but he roughly stated: 'If I just wanted to go fly for the fun of it I'd fly the F-16. But I'd rather take the Hornet into a combat zone'

 

I'm pretty sure that quote is from a Navy guy who flew NSAWC (NAWDC?) Vipers.

 

I've flown Vipers in combat and A-D Hornets in training doing both blue and red air. The switchology in the Viper is MUCH more user friendly (and yes, the F-35 gets its PVI from the Viper because, well, Lockheed).

 

There are a few similarities between the jets, but it's not significant. It's kind of like a new Shelby GT500 vs a Camaro ZL1. They're close, but very different.

 

I wrote a four part article about this on Fightersweep a few years ago.

 

https://fightersweep.com/1494/hornet-vs-viper-part-one/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that quote is from a Navy guy who flew NSAWC (NAWDC?) Vipers.

 

I've flown Vipers in combat and A-D Hornets in training doing both blue and red air. The switchology in the Viper is MUCH more user friendly (and yes, the F-35 gets its PVI from the Viper because, well, Lockheed).

 

There are a few similarities between the jets, but it's not significant. It's kind of like a new Shelby GT500 vs a Camaro ZL1. They're close, but very different.

 

I wrote a four part article about this on Fightersweep a few years ago.

 

https://fightersweep.com/1494/hornet-vs-viper-part-one/

A little OT, but if I can ask, whats PVI for future references? Im just curious, Ive heard that acronym a few times.

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little OT, but if I can ask, whats PVI for future references? Im just curious, Ive heard that acronym a few times.

 

 

PVI is similar in the Viper and F-35 because of Lockheed as Mover said. For example, the "TDC" is on the thumb instead of index finger, they both have sidesticks, and a number of other parallels. Again, because Lockheed.

 

 

Hornet and Eagle are both MD products. Hence their similar PVI. Both have canopy bows, center sticks, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best person to ask is C.W.Lemoine AKA Mover, he's flown both in real life, trying to dick measure within a flight sim and making comparisons to other "sims" you've flown is pretty pointless.

 

 

Yea i read that bit on his experience on fighter sweep way back when. NOt in any way to to take away from input of a pilot that had flown both, it should be worth noting that he would have flown an older F16C ( mentioned monochrome displays, indicating pre CCIP) and the Hornet he flew when he went into USN reserve IRRC was mentioned as F/A18A+, which means its not an ideal comparison F16C blk 50 post CCIP that ED is working on vs F/A18C lot 20 with post production upgrades that we have in DCS, since they are approximating additional features that those aircraft he flew wouldn't have had.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Off topic... but the F-15E is really one of the true multi-role aircraft that even qualifies for swing-role. F-15E can takeoff with an a2a and a2g configured aircraft and float between close air support and defensive counter air in the same sortie. Most other "multi-role" aircraft can only really do one role at a time. Gets aggravating when you do a large force exercise with vipers (and a viper mission commander) who consider you "just a striker" that they need to protect when you're the jet with an APG-82 AESA radar and multiple AMRAAMs available. The jet that absolutely needs to survive because we have the bombs to kill the priority targets, but at least incorporate us into the air to air gameplan, because we can do BVR way better even with an air to ground mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off topic... but the F-15E is really one of the true multi-role aircraft that even qualifies for swing-role. F-15E can takeoff with an a2a and a2g configured aircraft and float between close air support and defensive counter air in the same sortie. Most other "multi-role" aircraft can only really do one role at a time. Gets aggravating when you do a large force exercise with vipers (and a viper mission commander) who consider you "just a striker" that they need to protect when you're the jet with an APG-82 AESA radar and multiple AMRAAMs available. The jet that absolutely needs to survive because we have the bombs to kill the priority targets, but at least incorporate us into the air to air gameplan, because we can do BVR way better even with an air to ground mindset.

 

 

Its not that other "multirole" aircraft in Strike configuration cant perform multiple roles ( at least in the sense of defending themselves via self escort)

 

See the example from the gulf war where 2 Hornet pilots shot down 2 migs whilst loaded up fuel tanks and bombs, and then went on complete their Strike sortie, or 1982 Lebanon war where Israeli Piloted BVR-less F16A's got more aerial kills ( 45 kills) than the dedicated AS F15 eagles. ( 35 kills) despite being predominantly used for A/G.

 

Sure the Mudhen now has the AESA radar, but thats a more recent addition well after a Mid 2000s lot 20 hornet or a 2007 circa blk 50 viper, and to be fair F16's as well as USMC Hornets are going to be getting AESA radars within the next couple years. I think the Mudhens aren't really used as Air to air is because there are AS eagles and Raptors are available in USAF disposal for dedicated AS role which in most circumstances you want escorting F15E and/or F16's on a important strike mission anyways.

'

I was never disputing the F15E doesn't qualify as Multi-role ( USAF E's don't have SEAD capability though) , but its A2A performance is not as good as can be because CFT's impact its aerial maneuvering potential, especially greater extent if its laden with External tanks and a full bombload, and as large aircraft its RCS is going be much greater than smaller lighter weight fighters.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that other "multirole" aircraft in Strike configuration cant perform multiple roles ( at least ion the sense of defending themselves via self escort)

 

See the example from the gulf war where 2 Hornet pilots shot down 2 migs whilst loaded up fuel tanks and bombs, and then went on complete their Strike sortie, or 1982 lebanon war where Isreali Piloted BVR less F16A's got more aerial kills ( 45 kills) than the dedicated AS F15 eagles. ( 35 kills) despite being predominantly used for A/G.

 

Sure the Mudhen now has the AESA radar, but thats a more recent addition well after a Mid 2000s lot 20 hornet or a 2007 circa blk 50 viper,, and to be fair F16's as well as USMC Hornets are going to be getting AESA radars within the next couple years.i think the Mudhens arent really used as Air to air is because there are AS eagles and Raptors are available in USAF disposabe for dedicated AS role which in most circumstances you want escorting F15E and/or F16's on a important strike mission anyways.

'

I was never disputign the F15E doesnt qualify as Multirole ( USAF E's don't have SEAD capability though) , but its A2A performance is not as good as can be because CFT's impact its aerial maneuvering potential, especially greater extent if its laden with External tanks and a full bombload, and as large aircraft its RCS is going be much greater than smaller lighter weight fighters.

 

I tried reading that post. Ultimately couldn't. F-15Es are the best

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that other "multirole" aircraft in Strike configuration cant perform multiple roles ( at least ion the sense of defending themselves via self escort)

 

See the example from the gulf war where 2 Hornet pilots shot down 2 migs whilst loaded up fuel tanks and bombs, and then went on complete their Strike sortie, or 1982 lebanon war where Isreali Piloted BVR less F16A's got more aerial kills ( 45 kills) than the dedicated AS F15 eagles. ( 35 kills) despite being predominantly used for A/G.

 

Sure the Mudhen now has the AESA radar, but thats a more recent addition well after a Mid 2000s lot 20 hornet or a 2007 circa blk 50 viper,, and to be fair F16's as well as USMC Hornets are going to be getting AESA radars within the next couple years.i think the Mudhens arent really used as Air to air is because there are AS eagles and Raptors are available in USAF disposabe for dedicated AS role which in most circumstances you want escorting F15E and/or F16's on a important strike mission anyways.

'

I was never disputign the F15E doesnt qualify as Multirole ( USAF E's don't have SEAD capability though) , but its A2A performance is not as good as can be because CFT's impact its aerial maneuvering potential, especially greater extent if its laden with External tanks and a full bombload, and as large aircraft its RCS is going be much greater than smaller lighter weight fighters.

E capability has a lot to offer against other air to air. And air to ground

 

We'r going to F up everything you think of surface to air

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...