I recently discovered a little friendly rivalry between the Air Force and Navy on twitter over 3 years ago so let's have a friendly rivalry in DCS as well (F-16 vs F/A-18)

[Strider1_Trigger]

The friendly rivalry between the Air Force and Navy: 

In DCS, we have the F-16C, a multirole fighter for the USAF, and the F/A-18C, a multirole fighter for the USN. Which one of these plane do you prefer more? And why?

 

[schurem]

Viper. Watching a hornet try energy tactics is like watching old people fck.

[Flia]

Hornet always baby

[Svsmokey]

I find the Hornet's systems to be more intuitive . Carrier ops are fun too . 

No doubt the Viper is the better dogfighter (energy retention , acceleration)  , but i prefer moving mud .

[schurem]

If your idea of moving mud is to drive a truck around and wallow in it, get an A10. For proper weaseling, the hornet lacks power. For proper cas, the hornet lacks power. For proper low level interdiction or strike runs, the hornet lacks power. Do I detect a theme here?

 

Siempre Viper baby, the rest are left in the dust.

[Strider1_Trigger]

6 hours ago, schurem said:

If your idea of moving mud is to drive a truck around and wallow in it, get an A10. For proper weaseling, the hornet lacks power. For proper cas, the hornet lacks power. For proper low level interdiction or strike runs, the hornet lacks power. Do I detect a theme here?

 

Siempre Viper baby, the rest are left in the dust.

I found myself flying the Viper more often than the Hornet recently due to the extra performance. If I want to do carrier ops, I always fly the Tomcat. However, I feel that I might be flying the Hornet more often once the Marianas map is released due to its anti-ship capability.

[Raviar]

Ofcourse both, they cover different tactics,  mindset strategy and capabilities. 

 

But none of them matter to me but both

[falcon_120]

If your idea of moving mud is to drive a truck around and wallow in it, get an A10. For proper weaseling, the hornet lacks power. For proper cas, the hornet lacks power. For proper low level interdiction or strike runs, the hornet lacks power. Do I detect a theme here?
 
Siempre Viper baby, the rest are left in the dust.

Ok, now how does the hornet lack power for proper CAS? °_°

Also 4 harms are a nice addition for weasiling...

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[dawgie79]

Well, the Hornet of course because the Viper cannot swim. 

[Frag]

Both aircraft are awesome. So it all depend of what you feel to do.

 

I do prefer the F16 as it does not feel like a flying computer like the F18. I like its raw attitude and maneuverability. But do not get me wrong, the F18 has its strength also. If you feel to operate from an aircraft carrier, then it's not like to have the choice!

 

Pretty sure that many guys here fly both.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Frag

[b0bl00i]

The only two benefits with the Hornet as I see it is landing on the boat and being able to point the nose in a low speed regime which makes it deadly with AIM9Xs but except for that, I can't find anything else.

 

It doesn't matter if the Hornet carries more Amraams..it's to slow to use them effectively. While the Hornet struggles to climb to 25K feet, I'm already at 40K feet supersonic with my Amraam in the air..40 miles out. The Viper is so intuitive to fly, has easy systems to manage, descent range if you just manage your throttle and altitude. Some people try to claim the Hornet is better in AG role.. I fail to see how that's true.. both planes can deliver enough weapons to take out any target effectively. Viper is my choice hands down. Even in it's current non finished state with a faulty flight model.

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by b0bl00i

[Eugel]

I have no logical reasoning for this, but somehow I never liked the Hornet. Maybe it´s because the Hornet didn´t have an action movie during my childhood ?

 

So it´s definitely Team Viper for me

[VpR81]

Love both jets, but definately prefer the Hornet. Why? Because the viper is totally useless when it comes to anti-ship operations.

1 hour ago, b0bl00i said:

Some people try to claim the Hornet is better in AG role.. I fail to see how that's true.. both planes can deliver enough weapons to take out any target effectively.

I just successfully attacked an enemy command post with SLAM-ER from a 130nm distance. As long as the Viper cannot attack ground targets from 100+ miles away, it cannot compete with the Hornets AG capabilities. Not to talk about anti shipping capabilities, wich is literally non-existant in the DCS Viper. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by VpR81

[Qiou87]

Viper all the way. CBU-97 x10, ripple 500ft apart.  This thing brings the fear of the almighty to anything breathing on the ground. Well, anything that used to breathe anyway.

 

The Hornet is capable, but slow as hell. When you’re in burner for over 2min and still cannot push past Mach 1,0 at altitude (with A/A ordinance, I’m no demo pilot), I’m sorry but you’ve lost me. I suspect many prefer the Hornet simply because the module itself is in much better shape content-wise…

Edited June 21, 2021 by Qiou87

[VIKBELL]

   I am old Airforce Airman however I perfer the Hornet over the Viper.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

Viper all the way. CBU-97 x10, ripple 500ft apart.  This thing brings the fear of the almighty to anything breathing on the ground. Well, anything that used to breathe anyway.

Yeah, a death zone of about 5000ft, and the Viper augured in, out of gas, further 2000ft away.  It's a neat little bird, but it's nice to have some legs. You can, of course, take a pair of bags, but that kind of cuts into your payload. Or, you can take the centerline one, and pray that nobody tries to nail you with a SAM while you're slugging your CBUs around...

 

The Bug, meanwhile, has four hardpoints and a jammer available even with the centerline bag (which, unlike the Viper's, has decent capacity) and decent internal fuel. It flies from the boat, so it might well need less gas in first place. No -97s, but unless you're specifically targeting heavy armor columns, other CBUs work just fine.

[Tank50us]

Neither! Tomcats for the win!

[Dragon1-1]

Tomcat's a Navy bird, though. I was, of course, talking about Marine Hornets.  Semper fi, devil dogs, and all the other moto stuff!  

[Brass2-1]

Hornet for me. The Viper’s BVR abilities are nice to have and it has some A-G party tricks for sure; but the HOTAS commands, symbologies and pilot-machine interface I really dislike. 
 

Note that I don’t think it’s bad necessarily, but not my flavor. 

[despinoza]

in dcs the hornet (at least for now)

IRL the viper is my all time favorite

[Furiz]

I cant say I like one over the other,

 

Hornet - Carrier ops, extremly long range AG capabilities, has anti ship capability, 3 Displays

 

Viper - Superb SEAD platform specially with upcoming HTS, TGP cheek mount position so it is very hard to mask that one even with wing tanks. Imo it better CAS platform than Hornet.

 

But I cant rly vote on that pool, I love to fly both of these planes.

[DAZnBLAST]

I love them both, because they can both strike ground targets very well. However, should enemy CAP show up, I'm more confident in the Viper, therefore Viper has the edge.

[schurem]

Kids y'all ain't getting it. The "friendly rivalry" is not about having a polite, rational exchange of pros and cons. It's about style. Identity. Esprit de corps.

 

So you don't weakly say the hornet is a very good aircraft, but the viper has a slight edge in p/w. Naw man.

 

Hornet's a plastic toy, only meant for the sort of effeminate mother's boy who loves living cooped up in a tin can with a thousand men smelling of old socks and whose idea of mud moving is fearfully lobbing cruise missiles from a thousand miles out.

 

Now a viper, that'll put hair on your balls. The viper is so gucci, it has a recliner ejection seat. It's so perfect it outflies the eagle even though it has only one of the eagle's engines. Moving mud in a viper means flying down the gullet of a SAM's engagement zone, baiting it to take its best shot the dropping a brace of CBU right down at where the smoke trail originates. 

 

See?

 

P.s. that I haven't seen any hornet driver put up any defence of their toy worth a damn proves my point. Hoo-ah.

Edited June 24, 2021 by schurem

[Exorcet]

F-16 for me. Better performance, cockpit layout, and HOTAS controls.

 

The Hornet only really has an advantage with really heavy AG loadouts, but two Mavericks, two bombs, and a fuel tank on the F-16 is already a good amount of fire power.

On 6/21/2021 at 10:06 AM, b0bl00i said:

Some people try to claim the Hornet is better in AG role.. I fail to see how that's true.. both planes can deliver enough weapons to take out any target effectively. Viper is my choice hands down. Even in it's current non finished state with a faulty flight model.

 

 

 

 

The Hornet does have a couple more options than the F-16 for AG, and being a bigger heavier plane allows it to carry more while being comfortable to fly. The F-16 is definitely strong for AG though.

On 6/21/2021 at 6:27 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Yeah, a death zone of about 5000ft, and the Viper augured in, out of gas, further 2000ft away.  It's a neat little bird, but it's nice to have some legs. You can, of course, take a pair of bags, but that kind of cuts into your payload. Or, you can take the centerline one, and pray that nobody tries to nail you with a SAM while you're slugging your CBUs around...

 

The Bug, meanwhile, has four hardpoints and a jammer available even with the centerline bag (which, unlike the Viper's, has decent capacity) and decent internal fuel. It flies from the boat, so it might well need less gas in first place. No -97s, but unless you're specifically targeting heavy armor columns, other CBUs work just fine.

The F-16 has longer legs than the F-18 in most cases and being carrier based doesn't always help with that. I guess in DCS you can place the carrier anywhere, but in reality it's too valuable to be close to the front lines. In a realistic mission it should be quite far off. In fact a US carrier is impossible to place realistically on the Black Sea map for example. In a real world war in that location, you would be flying from carriers in the Syria map. The F-16's center tank is also much more valueable than the F-18's. It's worth over 150 miles of range while the Hornet is only worth about 100. The sweet spot for range is 2 tanks for the Hornet while the F-16 is fine with the center tank unless it needs ECM.

[SCPanda]

7 hours ago, schurem said:

Kids y'all ain't getting it. The "friendly rivalry" is not about having a polite, rational exchange of pros and cons. It's about style. Identity. Esprit de corps.

 

So you don't weakly say the hornet is a very good aircraft, but the viper has a slight edge in p/w. Naw man.

 

Hornet's a plastic toy, only meant for the sort of effeminate mother's boy who loves living cooped up in a tin can with a thousand men smelling of old socks and whose idea of mud moving is fearfully lobbing cruise missiles from a thousand miles out.

 

Now a viper, that'll put hair on your balls. The viper is so gucci, it has a recliner ejection seat. It's so perfect it outflies the eagle even though it has only one of the eagle's engines. Moving mud in a viper means flying down the gullet of a SAM's engagement zone, baiting it to take its best shot the dropping a brace of CBU right down at where the smoke trail originates. 

 

See?

 

P.s. that I haven't seen any hornet driver put up any defence of their toy worth a damn proves my point. Hoo-ah.

 

Yep. I agree. Hornet is trash. Sitting in that ugly bug feels like sitting in my grandma's car. 

 

Sitting in a Viper feels like a sitting in a sports car.