Can the avionics on the F/A-18C give it an advantage in air to air engagements?

[Hulkbust44]

They're both smaller radars, essentially in a similar class. The Hornet's is stronger but not by much as far as I'm aware. I think for the Hornet to really shine over the Viper DCS would need some better ECM modeling as the better radar would compound with an internal jammer.

The numbers I saw for the Hornet and Viper radar's output was 1,800 and 800 watts respectively. By raw numbers the Hornet radar is 44% more powerful. Now again that doesn't have a perfect linear relationship with detection range.

Mobius708

[deadpool]

On 5/23/2021 at 8:58 PM, Bunny Clark said:

The primary factor that determines the outcome of any air-to-air engagement is the pilot, not the aircraft. Yes, each aircraft has advantages and disadvantages, but a skilled pilot will know how to fight with the plane they are in to it's strengths while avoiding it's weaknesses. Both the Viper and the Hornet are capable BVR fighters, but each has strengths in slightly different areas. Neither is really better than the other, just different. Survival in BVR combat means playing to those strengths, and in DCS it makes some sense to fly the aircraft with strengths that most closely match the way you want to play. Others here have done a good job describing each aircraft's capabilities, pick the one you think sounds like the most fun.  

 

That's a common legend, but not entirely true. The YF-16 was indeed intended as a lightweight purebred dogfighter, but the role changed before the design was even finalized. The F-16 was a purpose-built multirole strike fighter before the first production aircraft came off the assembly line.  

 

To be pedantic, the Hornet replaced the F-4, A-4, and A-7. Hornets served along side F-14s for decades. The Tomcat was replaced by the Super Hornet. 

 

Also an interesting fact and maybe something to "unite" the Hornet and Viper enthusiasts in mind even more: They were born out of the same program. The Hornet has it's beginnings in the YF-17 for that very same program that the YF-16 competed in. And both planes were taken to more diverse directions afterwards!

 

  

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

PRF does not have the option be changed manually in the APG68 , Its automatic cycles based on radar mode.

 

IIRC HI PRF is only able to used on VS mode, but even then it interleaves with MPRF .  otherwise RWS/,TWS are M PRF only

 

While most Viper documents are so readily available, the -34-1-1 isn't. Would be cool to know for sure, though.

 

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

They're both smaller radars, essentially in a similar class. The Hornet's is stronger but not by much as far as I'm aware. I think for the Hornet to really shine over the Viper DCS would need some better ECM modeling as the better radar would compound with an internal jammer.

 

Not only ECM sadly, but also RCS.

I have no idea how it is in 2.7 but modelling RCS based on a fixed value per plane (that is grossly squashed into unrealistic values) and then *maybe* adding a modifier for aspect to it is nowhere near what should be done in the 2000s.

 

Option 1:

Take the plane, use simple radar equations (the russians should know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) to get RCS values automated for every 10° in AZ and EL.

Store that in a matrix and have that loaded together with the airframe (once per airframe-type on the server).

This gives you a quick-lookup option for a proper RCS from any angle.

 

Option 2:

Take the plane, use simple radar equations (the russians should know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) to get RCS values automated for every 10° in AZ and EL.

Do this on the fly during loadout changes!

Store that in a matrix and have that loaded together with the airframe (once per airframe(-loadout combo) on the server).

This gives you a quick-lookup option for a proper RCS from any angle including stuff like fueltanks added etc.

 

This would be a fantastic work to give out to a masters student in physics / computational sciences that wants to graduate in a company over topics like physics, rendering, radar and stuff while having a meaningful impact.

 

 

----

 

And to contribute some facts to the debate: The hornet has a bigger RCS, that will also play a factor in when someone is picked up.

But this is not a peeing contest on paper  

If you look at previous conflicts with airforces that didn't have the training standard of the USA (or comparable nations), you will see that BVR timelines and tactics were not that great and their pilots paid for that.

Edited May 26, 2021 by deadpool

[Kev2go]

On 5/25/2021 at 11:35 PM, Hulkbust44 said:

The numbers I saw for the Hornet and Viper radar's output was 1,800 and 800 watts respectively. By raw numbers the Hornet radar is 44% more powerful. Now again that doesn't have a perfect linear relationship with detection range.

Mobius708
 

 

not to mention the radar antenna is larger in shape for the APG73. But also considering APg73 hardware components are newer than the APG 68 v5. 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/198745-f-18-vs-f-16/?do=findComment&comment=3785121

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Kev2go

[dundun92]

The APG-68(V)5 should detect a 5m^2 target at 40nm. For reference, the APG-65 can detect about 4m^2 at 45nm, and 5m^2 at ~47nm, which is about where our Hornet is. While there may have been some range improvement between the 65 and 73, I doubt it would be very significant. So while you could make the case for a bit more range on the 73, I think its very reasonable as is RN. Combine that with the fact that aircraft RCS (specifically large ones like the F-14/15/Flanker) are too low, I dont think the radar is going to be the determining factor between them, I definitely dont think one will "dominate" the other.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by dundun92

[jojo]

On 5/26/2021 at 4:37 AM, Exorcet said:

Fuel wise, a Hornet needs external tanks just to compete with the Viper's internal fuel. Absolute fuel load isn't what's important.

 

 

Are you kidding ?

Wing tanks are "welded" to F-16. It would go nowhere without it, especially with big engines when you light the burner.
They even ended up adding CFT on late F-16 variants.

 

So that's a draw. IRL both fly with external tanks...

[Hulkbust44]

 
Fuel wise, a Hornet needs external tanks just to compete with the Viper's internal fuel. Absolute fuel load isn't what's important.

I'm sorry that statement is idiotic at best.

I think you have the aircraft mixed up.

Mobius708

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

 

 

I'm sorry that statement is idiotic at best.

I think you have the aircraft mixed up.

Mobius708
 

 

Not at all. The Hornet's endurance is pretty poor, the only way this isn't the case if it has been updated recently as my test was a while ago.

 

But I guess I could also add some clarification, this is with a lighter load. Things get better for the Hornet with a heavy AG load out.

[Hulkbust44]

Not at all. The Hornet's endurance is pretty poor, the only way this isn't the case if it has been updated recently as my test was a while ago.
 
But I guess I could also add some clarification, this is with a lighter load. Things get better for the Hornet with a heavy AG load out.

The endurance is pretty good. I couldn't even consider taking a viper without tanks for anything, in the Hornet I can do a 100 mile strike on just internal fuel just fine. I had a sortie in the 16 where to be fair loaded it up, but I had to tank twice In a sortie to hit two targets and still landed at 1,500 lbs.

In my experience the 18 has better endurance than the 16. I am very confident a Hornet with one bag out ranges a Viper with two by a fair bit. Again this is just by experience, so it's anecdotal.

Mobius708

[dorianR666]

5 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Not at all. The Hornet's endurance is pretty poor

Full internal fuel hornet will beat full internal fuel viper in endurance, by far.

Like, you cant really fly viper without external fuel tanks, except maybe close range airfield defense

[Exorcet]

11 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

The endurance is pretty good. I couldn't even consider taking a viper without tanks for anything, in the Hornet I can do a 100 mile strike on just internal fuel just fine. I had a sortie in the 16 where to be fair loaded it up, but I had to tank twice In a sortie to hit two targets and still landed at 1,500 lbs.

In my experience the 18 has better endurance than the 16. I am very confident a Hornet with one bag out ranges a Viper with two by a fair bit. Again this is just by experience, so it's anecdotal.

Mobius708
 

 

6 hours ago, dorianR666 said:

Full internal fuel hornet will beat full internal fuel viper in endurance, by far.

Like, you cant really fly viper without external fuel tanks, except maybe close range airfield defense

 

Since I already did a full test a while ago, I did a simpler test this time. Each plane got 6 AAM's and I flew them from 100% fuel to 80% fuel, internal only. Result:

 

F-18 flies 134.4 miles on 20% internal, roughly 670 miles max internal range

F-16 flies 211.9 miles on 20% internal, roughly 1060 miles max internal range

 

 

Vipertfuel.trk Hornetfuel.trk

[Crptalk]

Starting to wonder if the people who think the F-18 has more range and endurance are just full senders or cringe fanboys.

[Hulkbust44]

Starting to wonder if the people who think the F-18 has more range and endurance are just full senders or cringe fanboys.

I'm hardly ever concerned about fuel in the 18, but in the 16 I'm watching it all the time. I would like to see the same test with the drag of an identical weapon load.

Mobius708

[Hulkbust44]

 
Since I already did a full test a while ago, I did a simpler test this time. Each plane got 6 AAM's and I flew them from 100% fuel to 80% fuel, internal only. Result:
 
F-18 flies 134.4 miles on 20% internal, roughly 670 miles max internal range
F-16 flies 211.9 miles on 20% internal, roughly 1060 miles max internal range
 
 
Vipertfuel.trk Hornetfuel.trk

Alright. I did my own tests, pretty interesting.

Caucases-airstart-15k feet MSL.

Identical combat load: 4x MK-84, 2xAIM-120C, 2xAIM-9X, 1xLitening TGP, full internal fuel

Time here is time to flameout...

Mil power:

Hornet:
Range: 373nm
Time: 38 min
Max mach: .94

Viper:
Range: 392
Time: 39 min
Max mach: .95

This was pretty much as expected with a relatively minor gap between aircraft.

Max AB:

Hornet:
Range: 136nm
Time: 11:35 min
Max mach: 1.13

Viper:
Range: 83nm
Time: 6 min
Max mach 1.2

The AB test was the real shocker.
Hornet has almost double the blower time, and covered an additional 53nm.

So for the debate with A2A/BVR the fuel advantage to the Hornet is significant. I did not expect this.

Oh, and I tested "combat clean" with the exact same setup but I immediately hit the emergency jettison.

Hornet was 153nm and Viper 88nm.

I was also curious about the Mirage.
M2K A/A combat load in blower was Identical to the Hornet's performance. Same AI loadout in mil gave me over 500nm. Nice to know.


Mobius708

[mobua]

16 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Alright. I did my own tests, pretty interesting.

Caucases-airstart-15k feet MSL.

Identical combat load: 4x MK-84, 2xAIM-120C, 2xAIM-9X, 1xLitening TGP, full internal fuel

Time here is time to flameout...

Mil power:

Hornet:
Range: 373nm
Time: 38 min
Max mach: .94

Viper:
Range: 392
Time: 39 min
Max mach: .95

This was pretty much as expected with a relatively minor gap between aircraft.

Max AB:

Hornet:
Range: 136nm
Time: 11:35 min
Max mach: 1.13

Viper:
Range: 83nm
Time: 6 min
Max mach 1.2

The AB test was the real shocker.
Hornet has almost double the blower time, and covered an additional 53nm.

So for the debate with A2A/BVR the fuel advantage to the Hornet is significant. I did not expect this.

Oh, and I tested "combat clean" with the exact same setup but I immediately hit the emergency jettison.

Hornet was 153nm and Viper 88nm.

I was also curious about the Mirage.
M2K A/A combat load in blower was Identical to the Hornet's performance. Same AI loadout in mil gave me over 500nm. Nice to know.


Mobius708
 

Might I suggest that you not set an identical altitude for both jets? 

 

What your test is showing is how these jets are performing at 15k ft. I think what the discussion has been about pertains to who can go furthest irrespective of altitude. 

 

Furthermore, identical loadouts should not be a priority concern of a test. Instead try representing a typical war load A/A and A/G respectively.

 

We could then have a follow on discussion about who brings more hurt to the AO but that will eventually fall on design principles of the two jets. 

 

Just my two cents,  do what you will with it.

 

Sincerely mobua

[Hulkbust44]

Might I suggest that you not set an identical altitude for both jets? 
 
What your test is showing is how these jets are performing at 15k ft. I think what the discussion has been about pertains to who can go furthest irrespective of altitude. 
 
Furthermore, identical loadouts should not be a priority concern of a test. Instead try representing a typical war load A/A and A/G respectively.
 
We could then have a follow on discussion about who brings more hurt to the AO but that will eventually fall on design principles of the two jets. 
 
Just my two cents,  do what you will with it.
 
Sincerely mobua

All good points. The idea of the Identical load out was so the aircraft would have stores and they would be of equal mass. Though drag might be modeled differently between the modules. (I also didn't want clean jets that would literally fly for hours...) Flying the optimal profile for the Hornet would be easy as I have FPAS, but I would have to guess for the Viper as it lacks even that atm.

Now for dissimilar loads, you would need to make practical decisions on what to carry. For the "who brings more boom" question it's actually the Viper with 6 CBUs and 6 MAVs...but an A-10 might pass you on the way to the AO, not to mention the fuel. Problem the 16 has is it's tiny and unstable. The Hornet is a rock-solid weapons platform where a click or two of trim after a drop is all that's necessary. In the 16, you're fighting to keep it level if you drop just one 2,000 pounder. There's more to be said about this but I need some sleep.



Mobius708

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Alright. I did my own tests, pretty interesting.

Caucases-airstart-15k feet MSL.

Identical combat load: 4x MK-84, 2xAIM-120C, 2xAIM-9X, 1xLitening TGP, full internal fuel

Time here is time to flameout...
 

Just to point out, mil/AB settings aren't really indicative of anything, especially when the aircraft end up flying at different speeds. The F-16 is the faster plane, so it's naturally going to have a higher rate of fuel burn because of that alone. This makes it look shorted legged but in reality the F-16 would be able to maneuver in mil power at speeds that would require the Hornet to use AB. That said your loadout included bombs which impact the F-16 more than the F-18 and would negate that advantage by some degree.

 

3 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

 

 

All good points. The idea of the Identical load out was so the aircraft would have stores and they would be of equal mass. Though drag might be modeled differently between the modules. (I also didn't want clean jets that would literally fly for hours...) Flying the optimal profile for the Hornet would be easy as I have FPAS, but I would have to guess for the Viper as it lacks even that atm.

Now for dissimilar loads, you would need to make practical decisions on what to carry. For the "who brings more boom" question it's actually the Viper with 6 CBUs and 6 MAVs...but an A-10 might pass you on the way to the AO, not to mention the fuel. Problem the 16 has is it's tiny and unstable. The Hornet is a rock-solid weapons platform where a click or two of trim after a drop is all that's necessary. In the 16, you're fighting to keep it level if you drop just one 2,000 pounder. There's more to be said about this but I need some sleep.



Mobius708
 

 

Equal mass favors the F-18 just because it's a heavier plane. One big reason for the F-16's range advantage in AA configuration is that it has much less draggy weapon pylons, but this is again equaled out somewhat with an AG load. And yes, like you pointed out a fully loaded F-16 struggles to reach optimum altitude. The F-18 can carry big loads up higher which helps with endurance.

 

While we don't have the F-16 cruise page to give us optimal flight profiles, it shouldn't be too far off the Hornet's. That is what I did for my test, I flew the planes according to the FPAS page giving the F-18's maximum range and a "minimum" max range for the F-16.

[dorianR666]

9 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Each plane got 6 AAM's

You forgot to mention that on Hornet you used half-empty double-racks for 2 AMRAAMS and then 2 another AMRAAMs you put on separate pylons. This increases drag for absolutely no reason, you can put 4 AMRAAMS on those two double-racks for roughly the same drag as those half empty double-racks alone. Nobody would fly a loadout like that, it makes no sense.

 

This makes your result a bit flawed.

 

Here is my results. Both planes at 100% internal fuel, with 4x AMRAAM + 2x Sidewinder + full gun load. Same starting altitude (depending on test) and speed (roughly 0.5M). Time and range measured until engine shutdown.

 

Mil power

=======

at 5k:

Hornet: 31 min 41 sec for 310 nm

Viper: 32 min 25 sec for 336 nm

at 15k:

Hornet: 37 min 50 sec for 369 nm

Viper: 38 min 51 sec for 398 nm

at 30k:

Hornet: 58 min 33 sec for 545 nm

Viper: 70 min 40 sec for 684 nm

 

Afterburner

========

at 5k:

Hornet: 9 min 59 sec

Viper: 4 min 45 sec

at 15k:

Hornet: 11 min 53 sec

Viper: 5 min 46 sec

at 30k:

Hornet: 15 min 45 sec

Viper: 8 min 41 sec

 

Conclusion:

In mil power, both planes have roughly the same endurance and range except at 30k and higher where Viper has +25% advantage over Hornet. In afterburner however, Viper has only half the endurance of Hornet. Which perhaps explains why I so often run out of fuel in Viper in dogfights but rarely in Hornet.

 

 

Edit:

6 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

This makes it look shorted legged but in reality the F-16 would be able to maneuver in mil power at speeds that would require the Hornet to use AB.

Good point. That would make it more difficult to test, hm...

Edited May 28, 2021 by dorianR666

[Spectre1-1]

the viper likes the M0.9 range
the hornet likes the M0.8 range
at that point I don't think the ability to go M1 is a major issue for either
I would say based on avionics the hornet would have a slight advantage
the line gets real blurry when you introduce AWACS

so the end of the day, while you would have more SA on the hornet since its a 1v1 it wouldn't be that different.

[deadpool]

There is so much wrongness here in the last few posts. I can't even. Please continue.

 

[dorianR666]

2 minutes ago, deadpool said:

There is so much wrongness here in the last few posts. I can't even. Please continue.

 

>youre all wrong but im not gonna say how

thats epic, man.

[jojo]

On 5/28/2021 at 3:17 PM, Spectre1-1 said:

the viper likes the M0.9 range
the hornet likes the M0.8 range
at that point I don't think the ability to go M1 is a major issue for either
I would say based on avionics the hornet would have a slight advantage
the line gets real blurry when you introduce AWACS

so the end of the day, while you would have more SA on the hornet since its a 1v1 it wouldn't be that different.

Oh god, thank you !

 

It doesn't makes sense to compare range at MIL power or AB power.

You shouldn't cruise at MIL power, you should throttle down and you will see a huge gain in fuel efficiency for maybe losing 0.1 point of Mach.

 

Different planes have different cruise profile. FPAS page is great on the Hornet. Maybe F-16 have something similar through the DED menu, I'm not sure and if yes I don't know if it's available in DCS.

But that's one of Hornet avionics' advantage: it's very well thought for navigation and fuel management.

 

Indeed, the Hornet would cruise slower than the Falcon.

 

So if you want to compare, compare with optimum cruise profile, maybe add 1mn of burner and that's it.

 

Strike payload:

I would suggest 2*tanks, 2*GBU-31, 2*GBU-31, 2*AIM-9, 2*AIM-120.

So for the Hornet it would mean AMRAAM on cheek stations and for F-16 on wing tip rails.

It would be the optimal for both.

For drag you should also add jammer pod to F-16 (internal jammer on Hornet). If the jammer pod isn't available yet, put a targeting pod on F-16.

 

I'm not so sure the Hornet would have a massive advantage if any.

But it isn't that bad even if not enough to US Navy's taste

[Cytarabine]

The Viper should have a CRUS page in the DED which has functionality similar to the FPAS system in the Hornet, just not modelled yet. 
 

I really don’t see the substantial avionics advantage the Hornet has, things work differently but they still work. The AZ/EL page is nice, but it’s not a game changer, the HSD page is at least as good as the SA page (and is not

fully modelled as yet), and the advantage in the Hornet JHMCS is a feature of development state. The only avionics advantage that might change things is the ASPJ as most air to air Vipers are probably not lugging an ECM pod. 

[jojo]

6 minutes ago, Cytarabine said:

The Viper should have a CRUS page in the DED which has functionality similar to the FPAS system in the Hornet, just not modelled yet. 
 

I really don’t see the substantial avionics advantage the Hornet has, things work differently but they still work. The AZ/EL page is nice, but it’s not a game changer, the HSD page is at least as good as the SA page (and is not

fully modelled as yet), and the advantage in the Hornet JHMCS is a feature of development state. The only avionics advantage that might change things is the ASPJ as most air to air Vipers are probably not lugging an ECM pod. 

 

I find the F-16 DED too clunky and painful to use.

But I'm just a desktop virtual warrior.

You can probably get the hang of it with enough training

 

Having 3 MFD is certainly a good thing compared to 2 MFD on most F-16...you have more options to manage your system.

 

Yet the HOTAS system maybe is easier on F-16.

 

[Hulkbust44]

 
I find the F-16 DED too clunky and painful to use.
But I'm just a desktop virtual warrior.
You can probably get the hang of it with enough training
 
Having 3 MFD is certainly a good thing compared to 2 MFD on most F-16...you have more options to manage your system.
 
Yet the HOTAS system maybe is easier on F-16.
 

By comparison I hate the Viper HOTAS. It's not really that context sensitive and just does less. I agree with the ICP-DED combo being clunky. Those radios are a *pain*. I do like some ICP keypad functions like pulling up the steerpoint page and easily accessible Mk point. I still question why they put stuff like stores data entry on the MFD OSBs.. especially with how far back they are, keypad is just better.

The problem with the 16 is that it's a tiny airframe so they must have a lot of the avionics consolidated. For example they didn't have room for a select Jett selector in the cockpit so it had to be digital. But with that I question why SMS INV and WPN are all separate when the Hornet puts all three into the stores page...

Overall I see the Viper as wasted potential with a lot of questionable design/avionics philosophy decisions.

Mobius708

[Harlikwin]

On 5/25/2021 at 9:35 PM, Hulkbust44 said:

The numbers I saw for the Hornet and Viper radar's output was 1,800 and 800 watts respectively. By raw numbers the Hornet radar is 44% more powerful. Now again that doesn't have a perfect linear relationship with detection range.

Mobius708
 

Power scales with the fourth root as it relates to range. So 44% more means very little, it does not scale linearly at all. 

 

Here is the "textbook" quote on that.

 

"Average Power: The equation tells us, for example, that increasing the power of the transmitter by a given factor increases the detection range by only about the fourth root of that factor. If we were to increase the power by, say, three times (Fig. 13-9), the detection range would increase by only about 30 percent."

 

That being said the hornet does have somewhat a larger dish, which is more aprops to the discussion which should give it a bit more range as well, at the cost of some beam width. 

 

Both radars seem to have HPRF/MPRF modes, though on the APG68v5 its not really pilot selectable. 

That being said what the hornet should have is somewhat better SA overall compared to the F16 as well as sensor integration with MSI. I.e. you can use your ATFLIR to build/supplement track files for example as well as other sensors, not to mention better DL integration. There are limitations to that of course, but the viper to my knowledge doesn't have anything similar. For example in the hornet if you have a Radar+TGP track, and all of a sudden the target notches the radar, the TGP will still have it and maintain the track file, and the radar will know pretty well where to look to reestablish its own track once the target comes out of the notch. Also handy if say the target is jamming and so forth. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Harlikwin