Yes, you’re certainly right, there are a lot of things in the game that are different than in reality, I think the Hornet will be a pretty good dogfight machine in the game. King of AoA and with bingo fuel it will be an absolute carnage, yes I think so.
1 Like
No, it’s not the King of AoA, the Flanker is, and will always be better than any version of the F-18 to ever enter service. It has stronger engines, more lift, aerodynamic integral design and vortex generators for its elevators.
The F-18C has none of these technologies except a leading-edge root extension that the Navy had to increase in the super hornet to offset its previous versions poor carrier operation performance and increase payload.
It’s the Navy’s pickup truck. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not the premier air to air platform the Navy preferred. The F-14 was but cost too much.
The F-18 is known for its high nose authority not alpha. It’s not supermaneuverable. It is probably going to be just like the Crusader with a very tight turn radius at slow speed but will die out in any long-sustained turn fights.
1 Like
If we’re talking about slow speeds. In pure handling and maneuverability terms, the F-18 Hornet is better. It can roll well above 35 AoA and the pilot doesn’t have to worry about falling into a spin. It’s full under pilot control. The Su 27 can’t do that. It can’t fly like that. The Su 27 has a thrust advantage, very properly, and a good pilot can beat the Hornet, surely. But he has to watch out for the Hornet’s better maneuverabillity in this speeds
1 Like
How slow though? 200 knots is landing. The Flanker can turn better and do it at higher speeds and go vertical.
I agree the F-18 is probably better at landing on a boat. But it’s not going to matter much in anything else because its weak thrust to weight. Then when the naval Flanker comes then what? That insanely slow speed handling that may have been an advantage is no more.
The F-18 is not a dogfighter (like the F-16) or air superiority fighter (like the Flanker/Tomcat). It’s a pickup truck for the Navy that is sole reason why they brought it in service. To cut cost and fill a multirole assignment while the F-14D was the preferred designated air superiority platform. The Navy did not want to keep the F-18 as its main air to air platform but was forced.
It has no top speed; 3rd generation fighters are faster. The acceleration is slightly better than a Crusader. It definitely cannot catch or outclimb the F-104S ASA. It cannot outrun the Mig23ML/MLD. The Harriers and Yak-141 will blow it out of the water in acceleration.
Its 12.0-12.3 aircraft at best.
It’s going to sit with the J8F, Yak-141 & F-14A early. Especially when active missiles come. Along with the Aim-120 Harriers, F.3 Tornados and F-16As like the MLU.
1 Like
The F-18 is a very good dogfighter, in a clean configuration, absolutely. The F-15 has more thrust and good handling at low speed and high AoA, and the Hornet can play with the Eagle ( shhh, I’m a big Eagle fan).
1 Like
The F-14 was excellent, but a political decision favored the F-18E/F, which to me is a shame about a good aircraft.
1 Like
Its good, I do not doubt that my brother, It even has one of the best placed cannons on a fighter. On top of the nose.
it also needs a high placed gun because it will get dusted in sustained dogfights and to take advantage of the high nose authority when it cashes all its energy for a shot.
It’s the lack of power that makes it suffer and poorer fuselage lift compared to the F-15,16 and Su27.
I just do not see it having anymore nose authority over a Yak-141 (insanely good) and less top speed over the F-18 Crusader. Probably similar turn radius though.
Ok think of it this way. That slow speed performance is good. We can agree, but keep in mind what’s coming to WT.
The J10 is surely on the way, more delta canards like the Typhoon, Rafale etc. Another Gripen. The Mig29K? Su33? Barak I & Mitsubishi F-2? F-15C, I, E & F-14D? J-15, Su30 etc.
The F-18C has no business at top tier. Even the Super hornet will have issues being top tier imo. Unless it gets aim9X and able to carry all the Aim-120s it could irl.
Yeah money. Its the Navy’s first love for sure.
Additionally, the Cold War had ended and shifted the US’s focus to the War on Terror and counter insurgency. The pentagon felt that there was no longer a need for high performance, costly to maintain air superiority fighters like the F-14 designed solely to deter the might of the once Soviet Union.
There was no longer a need for high performing air to air platforms for the Navy. The F-18 can deliver all the US needed for the War on Terror with zero peer to peer opponents. That is why they retired the Tomcat.
Now that there is a new principal threat, China. The doctrine and need have arisen once again and why 6th generation will have a return to high flight performance platforms as well.
There is an important point in the story of the F-14 retirement. McDonnell Douglas was running into problems and desperately needed the F-18E/F to keep the company alive. And he did, convincing Congress and the Navy through lobbying, bribes, just about everything that goes with expensive government contracts.
2 Likes
I do not know about that one it seems possible, but the YF-17 was the fighter that lost the Airforce’s LFX program to the YF-16.
All I remember is that the Navy needed cheap multirole capability as the Cold War was coming to an end. There were no funds to start up whole new program so the Navy picked the losing aircraft in the LFX program only because it had dual engines. A Navy requirement. That is the only reason they settled for the YF-17 instead of going with the F-16.
What’s worse is that fitting the YF-17 with carrier capability degraded the YF-17s flight performance and why its further inferior to the F-16. Not just because its weaker engines.
Anyway, I can see how politics like that definitely played a part.
But the fact remains, the Navy was forced to pick up the loser of the LFX program because it was dual engine. That was a requirement for Navy fighter doctrine at the time.
They had no choice and could not go with the F-16 which is the superior fighter.
The F-16 is one of the only aircraft in the world that can pull 9Gs with a full combat load, it has far better speed retention and thrust to weight. Many nations model their indigenous fighters with technology taken from the F-16.
The F-18 is a degraded carrier version of the losing aircraft (YF-17) in the LFX program. The F-16 was the winner and I think it would be fake if it performed any better than it other than around the 200-300 knot range.
The F-18C is a worse performing version of the prototype YF-17 that lost directly to the YF-16 (F-16A) in the Airforce’s LFX program…
So how do you figure??
The Navy further degraded its flight performance to fit it with carrier capability…
The Navy even removed its Cobra Hood leading edge root extensions which generated extra vortices for better high alpha flight…
Why? Because it is not US Naval Air doctrine. All they cared is that it was cheap, had two engines and can takeoff & land on a boat.
How do you figure if the YF-17 still lost to the YF-16 (F-16A) and the Navy made their version even heavier without upgrading its engines & called it the F-18…
What makes you think the F-18 will perform better than the F-16A, especially the F-16C???
Pure fantasy
2 Likes
The YF-17 was better at low speeds than the YF-16, it also had more problems than the YF-16. The USAF chose the YF-16 and then the Navy, not wanting the YF-16 chose the YF-17 for future F-18s. This is where we need to slow down and put politics in. The Navy is a competitor to the USAF, the two branches are fighting each other for money and power. In the past the USAF was forced to use aircraft from the US Navy and there were benefits to the Navy - the USAF was losing its position to make its own aircraft with its supply chain - the money was more under the Navy’s control. The FX project was actually a rebellion by the USAF against the domination of the USN, and the Navy tried to sabotage its F-15 future with the F-14. The tool was the common F-100 engine, and if the Navy had succeeded in adapting that engine early on for the F-14, the F-15 would have been in big, big trouble in development and with Congress. I went back a long way, but it was necessary to understand the competition and animosity between the USAF and USN. Now to the YF-16. the USAF chose the YF-16, that in itself meant the USN would not take it even if it had two engines and super carrier landing qualities. They took the YF-17, which was very good, and made it a naval F/A-18 ( that letter A is a joke, it’s just an advertisement for congress, emphasizing the dual purpose nature of the Hornet, since both the F-15 and F-16 had multirole capabilities from the start and got by without the letter A, there is no F/A-16, etc).
McAir split with Northrop and the naval version was developed by McAir and the land version by Northrop, the resulting land F-18L was offered to countries but McAir’s aggressive marketing killed the aircraft. Northrop stepped up and there was a big out of court settlement where McAir gave Northrop a big chunk of money. The ground-based F-18L was lighter and would have been very powerful.
Still a good question why McAir got the Hornet development contract, num again politics…But back to the planes.
The YF-16 despite the appearance similarities is not an F-16, it would have had a lower payload, would not have had proper radar, and was a far better dogfighter than the F-16. It was a simple day fighter for good weather. The F-16 went through changes and turned into a multirole aircraft. It lost some of its dogfight capability, but it gained… basically longevity. The changes made it a versatile aircraft, and that’s what the USAF wanted. There’s a slight misunderstanding here, the F-15 could do over 9G before the F-16. The F-15 airframe was indeed made to 7.33g, but it doesn’t have a limit, so if the pilot had to, he put over 10g and the G onset is very similar with the F-16.
1 Like
But if we start talking about the Hornet’s avionic capabilities, they were way ahead of the F-16. The cockpit was one of the best of its time, even the F-15 didn’t have a better cockpit. The level of situational awareness was far better in the Hornet (compared to the F-16) and the APG-65 radar was better than the APG-66, plus the Hornet had the AIM-7, so it absolutely outclassed the F-16 in avionics systems at the time and that is also very important, it is not just about the dogfight, that is one piece, and the other pieces are perhaps more important.
3 Likes
I think you’re reading way much into the wording used there
The F18 is a worse, more heavier version of the YF-17. It has a poor thrust to weight. The navy reduced its dogfight capability to make it carrier capable and to cut cost on serial production and removed the original Cobra Hood LERX.
The F18 is worse version of the aircraft that lost the LFX program. It’s the losing fighter period
Nothing more. Nothing less. The Navy did nothing to make it better. But actually intentionally made it worse.
So, with that said, how is it better than the F16 block 50. Which actually had its elevators improved for low speed handling and even its thrust to weight enhanced?
How is the legacy hornet better than the YF17 that lost to the F16A? Being heavier with removed technology for high alpha flight and heavily regulated by the fbw as well. It’s a simple question.
It’s just not. The Navy did not care to degrade its alpha performance or dogfight capability. It was not their premier air to air platform. the F14 was. It’s the Navy’s pick up truck. You have a better argument for the super hornet as they did return to original concept in effort to offer is clear shortcomings.
The guy who said the Gripen should suck because it “only has a weak hornet engine”, is also claiming the hornet will dominate every 1v1? I’m shocked 🤣
4 Likes
Dude you remember that too!?
4 Likes
The Block 50 is less maneuverable than the F-16A Block 15, it is simply heavier and although it has a more powerful engine, pilots say the most maneuverable were the Block 15 and 30, the 30 has a GE engine naturally.
How is a contemporary Hornet better than a contemporary Block 50 ? Tough question, I don’t know the details, below about 350 knots the advantage slowly starts to be on the F-18 side, the slower the better, the faster the better for the F-16, at the point where aircraft are equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS sustained maneuvering is not so much important in a dogfight, more instantaneous maneuvering takes precedence. EM theory is from the 60’s, some things are different today. But it depends, I’m not saying sustained maneuvering is unimportant, just that things are changing.
Also, dogfighting is an extremely complex and complicated thing.
1 Like
Gimme F100, not F110.
50 have F-110
I didn’t ask that. I asked how an F-18C hornet being a heavier YF-17 with removed high alpha technologies better than the F-16C Block 50?
It can land on a boat and carry slight more payload. Should be the answer. It’s a pick up truck fighter. A worse version of the losing aircraft in the Light Fighter Program.
The Navy did not want it. It’s all that was left. It has two engines. Not a lot of work to get it carrier capable.
Again, it was not even a Navy program fighter. It’s all the navy could afford. Adding carrier capabilities made it much much worse. That is why it is heavily regulated by the fbw.
1 Like