Yeah, gimme 42/52
The digital FbW is very important, neither the F-16 nor the Su 27 had that and it’s the thing that made the Hornet very safe and maneuverable compared to analog FbW systems.
1 Like
Safer because it has two engines, better avionics, better maneuverability at lower speeds, better structural durability - tolerates more damage, this is pretty much the parameter in which the Hornet is better. It has an onboard fire suppression system, the F-16 does not. The F-16 has hydrazine, which is a very dangerous thing.
F-18 have better ability to operate from alternate bases or road sections, stronger landing gear, doesn’t need as much space for takeoff and landing.
1 Like
The FBW wiring is there to assist the pilot from over-inputs, ease of use and keep the aircraft from stalling while allowing a pilot focus more on task at hand and perform optimally in accordance with naval combat doctrine. Specifically in landing and taking off from a boat.
If the engines are weaker, it’s far more regulated. If the aircraft lands and takes off from a boat with a tiny runway, it’s even more intensely regulated. Yup two engines is safer for taking off and landing on a boat and why it was requirement at the time for the Navy.
Extreme angles of attack and Low energy states is not US air doctrine. That is Soviet/Russian. Why would they allow full range of alpha at all speeds for an aircraft that gets no faster than the F8 crusader or F4 Phantom II?
But not the F16?
Two significant points I see.
1 The Hornet uses high alpha not only for landing but mainly for manoeuvring - it doesn’t have much else :D
2. Everyone’s doctrine is not to slow down.
The Soviet doctrine is not to slow down, it never was. I should know because I come from the former Warsaw Bloc.
2 Likes
Yes the Soviet combat doctrine was immediate high nose authority. Immediate nose authority has its cost: Low energy state
That is why they designed their fighters to have insane thrust weight to back up a recovery. The F18 does not have this.
Yes the soviets invented supermaneuverability as a combat doctrine. They call it dynamic attainment and many of their maneuvers are forms called “Dynamic deceleration”. Which have combat benifits such as rapidly change of direction. Which helps assist in notching western radar missiles at range.
Immediate nose authority was such soviet combat doctrine for the 4th generation that they implemented technology to further assist them in low energy states such as high off boresight missiles
and the helmet mounted sight.
Immediate nose authority to achieve a first shot fire solution at the cost of low energy state is classic Soviet air combat doctrine of the 4th generation.
That is contrary to US doctrine which both the F16 and F18 were strictly developed under the Energy Maneuverability Theory which is to avoid low energy states at all cost. The F18 is worse than the F16 with its low thrust, therefore it’s further regulated.
US fighter pilots are trained to avoid low energy states, maintain distance and avoid the dogfight all together that will result in low energy or zero energy state eventually anyway.
They are specifically trained to avoid close quarter dogfights altogether against the Flanker and Mig29.
The US sees dogfighting as a quantifiable science while the Russians see dogfighting as an art.
Then it can be said that the first aircraft under Soviet doctrine was the F-15.
No, not really, it’s not that separate, both sides did similar things the differences are rather elsewhere than in this.
EM torie does not apply to the Hornet. It was not designed for transonic manoeuvring or high subsonic speeds.
It may be interesting to learn that dogfighting was practiced more in the USA than in the Soviet Union. Regardless, Soviet aircraft were well prepared for dogfighting.
1 Like
The F-15 was not designed under the Energy Maneuverability Theory.
Only the F16 and F-18 were.
The F15 has the best of both world and why some regard it as the best most successful fighter ever.
The F-22 is designed likewise as well, and even supermaneuverable capable.
This was taught to the other side in exactly the same way, because if you don’t have speed, you don’t have many options.
1 Like
Right but even the US had a change of heart and learned from the Russians and implemented supermaneuverability & immediate nose authority at the cost of energy in their premier 5th generation air superiority fighter the F22.
There is value to both doctrines. That’s why it’s frustrating to see when people say supermanueravilty is useless in combat. That is western pop culture.
Even right now as we speak the F22 is being upgraded to HMD capability and of course high off boresight capability.
Boyd came into the FX program precisely because he came up with the EM theory, trust me, the F-15 is built to the same theories as the F-16. The Eagle is the first aircraft built to that theory, the F-18 is not, nor is the YF-17. Not like the YF-16.
Boyd and the Fighter mafia often talked to Hilaker,the head designer at GD and together they created the YF-16, based on EM theory. Northrop pursued other courses of maneuverability.
The F-22 is the next step up. A combination of the F-15 and F-16 because the USAF wanted it that way.
1 Like
Yes. He helped with the Eagle. But it was not his project, director. He believed the eagle was good but suffered in high cost and he wanted to implement his theory totally in another fighter. The LFX program and he did.
The F15 has no fbw. Completely unregulated. Amazing balanced aircraft.
I do not think there is a single F-15 currently in service that has FBW either. Only the EX will. I could be wrong it’s been a while.
1 Like
Supermaneuverability is more of an F-22 and younger aircraft thing. In visual combat it has its drawbacks, in supersonic you have to have an advanced aircraft control system, it puts a lot of strain on the airframe.
Nose authority and its importance was noticed in the US at least in 1969. I know it was very desirable for the F-15 and it came up practically in F-4 vs, I can’t remember now, probably F-5 exercises. It was found that the F-5 could beat the F-4 despite the Phantom being more powerful, the reason being the better and higher AoA of the F-5. The Soviet Union at that time did not make aircraft that had any high alpha. The F-15 was the first (from the USAF’s perspective since the F-14)
1 Like
Also, you are right, I am only talking in regards to dogfighting/ flight performance.
It’s definitely more of a technology focused fighter imo. Great sensors etc. it also has its own Navy upgraded datalink to increase proficiency with the aim-120.
The first FbW was the F-15E, more accurately it has digital CAS, but it’s an FbW. EX has the latest generation FbW, it’s way ahead of the one in the F-15E. Also QA and hopefully SA have advanced FbW.
The program is LWF - Light Weight Fighter
1 Like
The F-35 was created as a sort of combination of the F-18 and the F-16. Thus, it has high alpha and maneuverability at low speeds, and also has good energy retention
1 Like
Well think of it this way.
It only appears to be a younger aircraft thing looking at it from a Western & US perspective, but it was a longtime Russian technology & doctrine since the late 70s in designing the Flanker and to a lesser degree MiG29.
The US also examined the feasibility but went with energy maneuverability theory instead. Now, coming to appreciate supermaneuverability in their 5th generation F-22.
Same can be said about low observability/stealth. It’s a new technology/doctrine for the Russia & China but was already longtime a US technology/doctrine in the 80s in the F117 Nighthawk. Now they are just appreciating low observable/stealth technology in their 5th generation Su57 and J-20.
Anyway good convo I got to hit the gym.
imo I do not think the F-18 is as good of a kinetic fighter as people are hoping.
I think its greatest strength is in its sensor suite, aim-120 proficiency and multirole capability.
No!..MiG-23 characteristics were calculated for an angle of attack of 24-26 degrees…It’s just that the creation program was 3-4 years late in relation to the planned deadlines…The MiG-23 had several control systems, for example, on the MiG-23M with the SUOA after the restrictions were lifted in 1980…8G/ 30 degree angle of attack
1 Like
where is this info from?
1 Like