Now explain how he came up with it exactly performing with two missiles on par with a “30 min F-16C.”
Please share the formula.
The Navy or Airforce does not calculate fuel by minutes like WT.
So how do you both come up with such conclusions. How many pounds of fuel is 30 mins in the F-16C?
I’m sorry but I’ve never said so.
My apologies for lumping you in with his beliefs.
I have no issue with your source and yes, they perform very similar and the F-18C to other Hornets.
But my point is my guy will go on some crazy expedition, grab numbers off the internet, compare them with in game performances. Use WTRTI, manipulate values to push an agenda.
He will use other people’s sources like yours to try and get you to invertedly cosign for his far-out conclusions.
That is why I asked you intentionally to show us the formula. Knowing you had nothing to do with it.
The turn rate data for the F-16C can be found in RideR2’s turn chart sheet, his testing is nigh-impeccable and can be re-tested by anyone to find the same results.
The data shows approximately 19-20 deg/s turn rate for the F-16C clean with 30 minutes fuel and that roughly matches the F-18C w/ -402 engines when loaded with 60% internal fuel and 4 missiles.
For comparison, that’s ~3,000kg of fuel for the F-18 and ~400kg of armament against a clean F-16C loaded with ~2,300kg of fuel. More than in favor of the F-16C.
@wasa850 just so you know how good the F-18 can be in sustained turns since you seem to not realize how well it performs.
Both lol.
The hornet has worse engines than the Gripen and is much heavier with much worse wing loading. Pretty sure he just invented those TWR numbers.
The “Cobra” on the Su 27 was a bit of a happy accident, tunnel measurements first showed it becoming unstable above about 30 AoA. Cobra was not the target.
The MiG 23 was dangerous in higher AoA, it can be said that like the F-4 Phantom, it had a very difficult flat spin in which many pilots died. It was not until the long evolution into the MLD version that it lost this dangerous feature.
I’m basing this on the opinions of F-18 pilots. They don’t consider their plane good at sustained maneuvering versus anything.
Maybe because of the Hornet’s g limit.
I quote:
How you rate the F/A-18 in the following categories?
Instantaneous turn
“The Hornet’s instantaneous turn was as good or better than any jet that I flew against.”
Sustained turn
“The Hornet had a good sustained turn, but it was outclassed by jets with better thrust to weight like the F-15C and F-16. This was especially true at higher altitudes or when the Hornet was loaded with drop tanks and pylons. A completely slick Hornet was a dog-fighting machine, but more on that later.”
High alpha
“The Hornet was excellent at high alpha flying. The Hornet was better than any jet I flew against in high alpha manoeuvring flight.”
Acceleration
Hornet was fair but outclassed by many other jets.”
Climb rate
“Once again the Hornet was OK, but outclassed by F-14Ds, F-15C, F-16. The F-16s out at Buckley ANGB in Denver would do an Immelmann at the end of the Runway on takeoff. They had to hit a certain altitude which I believe was above 11K MSL. I tried to do it in a Hornet once (F/A-18C with a centerline tank and two pylons)… nope, I did not make it. I was wallowing around at 10K ft and 100kts trying to comply with Departure’s new instructions. Good thing the Hornet was forgiving and was good at high alpha flight.”
About DACT :
They taught us how to fight the Hornet against the other 4th Generation fighters, the F-14s, F-15s, and F-16s. The game plan against other teen fighters was pretty much the same, we wanted to get our nose on the opposing fighter first to either get the first shot or to cause the opposing fighter to react by matching our turn thus getting into a slow speed fight where the Hornet excelled. Transitioning to a one circle fight, usually at the initial merge or the second merge was the game plan. Some of our older pilots really pushed fighting in the vertical also. As one of the Desert Storm vets put it, “Going over the top in a fight you will quickly find out if your opponent is part of the BFM (Basic Fighter Manoeuvring) club”. There was a lot of learning to go with this advice. How to judge the other fighter’s position, energy, separation, etc. all had to be taken into account. Experience is the best teacher and we got a lot of air to air experience in my first squadron.
What is the best way to fight an F-16? And the worst?
“Throughout my career I flew against F-16s many times and in my opinion, it was the hardest of the 4th generation fighters to beat. It was small, had a lot of thrust, and a very impressive 9G turn. The F-16 had a turn rate advantage and much better thrust to weight when compared to the F/A-18C. The F/A-18C had a better turn radius and could fly at a higher angle of attack (AOA) than the F-16. The best way to fight an F-16 is in a 1 circle fight, usually in the vertical. Getting the Hornet’s nose on first to try and get an early shot, whether with a missile or the gun. The key would be to get the F-16 reacting to the Hornet, bleeding energy, and getting slow. At slow airspeeds, the F/A-18’s AOA advantage meant I could point my nose easily and get a shot. The worst way to fight against an F-16 would be two circle fight on the Horizon. The F-16s 9G turn and superior thrust to weight would give him a better turn rate and the F-16 would out turn the Hornet. If an F/A-18 tried to match the F-16 turn rate, the Hornet would get bleed energy and its turn rate would continue to be less than the F-16.
Like all fighters, most of the ability of a fighter plane to fight is dependent on the skill of the pilot. The F-16’s performance, much like the Hornet’s, would suffer if it was carrying external stores. A slick Viper (F-16) flown by an experienced pilot was a beast and was always a tough fight. There was a Air Force reserve squadron out of Luke that was full of experienced pilots, all of them had at least a thousand hours in the Viper. They always flew slick Vipers and they were a tough fight for an F/A-18C which always had at least one external tank and two pylons. This reserve squadron also went on that Key West Det. From what I saw and experienced, in a pure visual fight a slick Hornet was better in the visual arena than a slick Viper. I rate the F-16 pilots from that reserve squadron in Luke as the best I ever fought and in the visual arena the Hornet more than held it’s own on that Key West det.”
I can tell you by experience the worst way to fight against an F-15 in to attempt a turning engagement up at 40,000ft. The Eagle, with its big wings and big engines has no problem turning up at 40,000ft, but the F/A-18C, with its little wings and smaller engines has trouble turning up at that altitude. On one fight out of Kadena AFB in Okinawa, Japan, when I was a junior pilot, I merged with a couple of Eagles above 40,000ft. I turned across the outside fighter’s tail and quickly found my turn rate was not very good at that altitude and I was bleeding energy quickly. The F-15s were able to keep a fair rate of turn and I quickly found myself defensive heading downhill.
I did fly many 1 v 1s against Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) F-15Js. The one circle, vertical manoeuvre game plan was very effective against the JASDF pilots. Often, I was able to get a shot on the F-15Js as I came over the top and then I could transition to offensive BFM on the Eagle.”
DACT
“Of the aircraft you have flown DACT with, which was the most challenging?
The F-16. It was small so it was difficult to see. Its 9G turn was eye watering and if you did not keep the pressure on a Viper it would out accelerate you and either out turn you or out climb you. If the F-16 pilot was experienced at dogfighting, it was always going to be a tough fight.”
Would you have felt confident going against in Flankers in a real-world situation?
“Yes, especially 15 to 20 years ago. We had a better missile with the AMRAAM, and the Su-27 was inferior as far as a weapon system, except for maybe the electronic warfare systems at the time. The big reason I would have felt confident was because of training. We felt that our training would have given us the advantage against any potential adversaries at the time. We felt we had much more experience in realistic situations than potential foes. The current Flankers and their weapons from both Russia and China are different aircraft the original versions of the Su-27. They are much more deadly. It still depends on the pilot and his training though. Some famous dead guy once said, ‘The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it’.
Yeah sure, I am sure his game testing was signed off by the Secretary of the Airforce too.
I really wish you would simply and clearly explain the step-by-step process how you came to determine that the F-18C with two sidewinders and 2x Aim-120 should perform on par with a “30 min” clean F-16C.
If the F-18 is so aerodynamic how come it’s so slow? How come it’s not Mach 2 capable like the Gripen?
Why is the F8E Crusader faster? With a weaker thrust to weight than the F-18C too.
F8E
Mach 1.8
1,227 mph at 36,000 ft
Thrust-to-weight: 0.62
F-18C
Mach 1.8
1,190 mph at 40,000 ft
Thrust-to-weight:0.96
How will it keep up with the F-16C as it is heavier and has far weaker thrust to weight and less aerodynamic than a F8E Crusader?
What is the magic sauce? How is it “on par” with a 30 min clean F-16C?
Refer us to RideR2’s Turn Chart Sheet that is “nigh-impeccable”?
is there anything closer to the Hornet configuration? What is the name of the article ?
I believe you are correct iirc.
He absolutely made everything up lol.
It’s much heavier than it should be because of carrier operations.
It has reinforced landing gears, large chunky naval tailhook which requires a reinforced heavier airframe. The Navy did not bother in upgrading its engines as it was not the preferred air to air fighter anyway. The F-14 was.
It was and still is a pickup truck for the Navy. A very cool jet and very technologically capable, but still just a pickup truck.
It does not even get a full fighter designation but F/A-18.
As it was the work horse that replaced the ground attack aircraft bettet have a plane that can do it all when you can only have a limited amount of planes on a carrier
The F/A designation itself is simply a vestige of the days when the F-18 and A-18 were separated.
F/A-18 is not an aircraft that sacrificed A2A performance for A2G mission. It was built as a very capable fighter with strike capability.
While it’s true It did not sacrifice A2A performance in terms of weapon delivery capability.
it absolutely sacrificed flight performance to become carrier capable. It is much heavier than the YF-17. Has reinforced airframe (more weight) and stronger chunkier landing gears and a naval tail hook (more weight) too.
The Airforce YF-17 definitely sacrificed flight performance to become carrier capable and multirole focused.
If its primary role was air to air supremacy the Navy would have invested in upgrading the engines. But they did not, because the premier and preferred air to air platform of the Navy was the F-14 Tomcat.
It was only the super hornet that finally replaced the F14 in air superiority role but that has now changed now to the F35C
It contradicts what’s stated in performance data from navair
It replaced the Tomcat out of necessity. But yeah, the Super Hornet has a better case of being more in tune for air to air absolutely.
They even returned to the Cobra Hood LERX (now updated) that the Navy removed from the YF-17 for better high alpha flight and better handling in carrier operation so it can carry more weapons too.
Also, they gave the Super Hornet leading edge extensions (Dog tooth) for additional alpha flight performance and broadened wing surface.
But these upgrades are still nothing special over the purebred air superiority fighters which have these technologies and more.
It’s still left with a weak thrust to weight and is a heavy because it’s a carrier-borne fighter.
I’ll not say anything about that, since it was from 2006 manual which is currently in Distribution Statement C.
Not all carrier aircraft had poor thrust to weight
True. But in regard to the F-18, yes