82 replies to this topic

[LCPL Carrow]

Combat radius
F-16C Fighting Falcon: 740 nautical miles
F/A-18E Super Hornet: 1,275 nautical miles

source:
http://www.fas.org/m...sys/ac/f-16.htm
http://www.globalair...super_hornet.pl

The Falcon has a longer ferry range than the Super Hornet (the F-16 has to fly to its re-base destination, the Hornet rides a carrier), but the Hornet can stay on-station and on-mission longer than the Falcon.


Don't get me wrong, I love the Falcon too, it's a gorgeous aircraft, but it is not better than the One-Eight Echo. Sorry.

[Eddy01741]

Crazykenny, on 16 Apr 2007, 16:31, said:

1. F-22 Raptor
2. YF-23 Black Widow II
3. SU-47
4. SU-33 Flanker
5. SU-35 Superflanker
6. F-16 Fighting Falcon
7. F-2 Interceptor
8. MiG-29
9. F-14
10. F-35B/X35-C Joint Strike Fighter

2. not going into service
3. not going into service
4. Please, call it the naval flanker

Anyways, for the F/A-18 vs. F-16 arguement (third one now lol, first spitfire/mustang, then sabre/Mig-15 (was the codename faggot or something lol), now this). The F-16 is cheaper, and is a great asset for our economy because a lot of countries want them, it's a cheap multirole plane that's good enough for everyone. F/A-18s... well i don't think there are more than 5 countries in the world with aircraft carriers lol so why spend more money on it. Anyways, of all things, why are we comparing two fighters from the same country, they're in the same timeframe and they obviously serve different purposes, that's like going to Mustang vs. Corsair/Hellcat, they're both heroes of the two respective theaters of war in WWII, but they're they shouldn't be compared.

[LCPL Carrow]

The One-Eight Echo outperforms the F-16 regardless of whether or not it is stationed on an aircraft carrier or on land. Many nations that don't have aircraft carriers operate F/A-18s.

Had I mentioned that the F/A-18C was better than the F-16, maybe I would be wrong. But there is just no way that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is inferior to the F-16.

Comparing the F-16 and F/A-18 is perfectly viable. Nationality is irrelevant in determining which of two planes is superior, and for two aircraft to be fairly compared, I think it's been established that they need to be in the same time period. You obviously can't compare an F-9F Panther (1947) with an F-14 Tomcat (1970).

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 18 April 2007 - 13:15.

[Eddy01741]

LCPL Carrow, on 18 Apr 2007, 09:14, said:

The One-Eight Echo outperforms the F-16 regardless of whether or not it is stationed on an aircraft carrier or on land. Many nations that don't have aircraft carriers operate F/A-18s.

Had I mentioned that the F/A-18C was better than the F-16, maybe I would be wrong. But there is just no way that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is inferior to the F-16.

Comparing the F-16 and F/A-18 is perfectly viable. Nationality is irrelevant in determining which of two planes is superior, and for two aircraft to be fairly compared, I think it's been established that they need to be in the same time period. You obviously can't compare an F-9F Panther (1947) with an F-14 Tomcat (1970).

you also can't compare a hellcat and a mustang, nor a f-22 and a f-35. if the f/a-18 is so good, then why doesn't the airforce just adopt it as their primary multirole fighter?


btw, i'm posting from schol, and the keyboard is screwed up, so i can't press the shift button.

Edited by Eddy01741, 18 April 2007 - 16:26.

[LCPL Carrow]

Eddy01741, on 18 Apr 2007, 12:25, said:

you also can't compare a hellcat and a mustang, nor a f-22 and a f-35.

You can compare a Hellcat and a Mustang. Same role, same time period, why not? You can't compare the F-22 and the F-35 because one is a conventional-takeoff, dedicated fighter aircraft and one is a multirole VSTOL aircraft.

Quote

if the f/a-18 is so good, then why doesn't the airforce just adopt it as their primary multirole fighter

Why should they? They're already not buying any new F-16s, and they're gonna be replaced by the F-35 anyway. Besides, US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft have decidedly different needs than US Air Force planes do, and in the past, conversion attempts just ended up resulting in an entirely new aircraft. Finally, the F-16 may not be as good as the One-Eight Echo, but it's still good enough. Why waste money to replace a fine aircraft for a slightly better one when you already have the next-generation multirole aircraft lined up that will replace them both?

Quote

btw, i'm posting from schol, and the keyboard is screwed up, so i can't press the shift button.

Yeah, I'm at school too, and there's some pretty fucked up computers floating around here, dude...

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 18 April 2007 - 17:28.

[AllStarZ]

The F-16 is a very good aircraft, and possesses many superior capabilities over the F-18. It is cheaper (nearly or more than half as expensive, depending on model) , smaller, lighter, faster, and capable of carrying a fair payload. On smaller loads it has a larger combat range than an F-18, and it possesses a single engine. It also has a smaller wingspan too.

To elaborate on the importance of each I will explain. The F-16 is cheaper to purchase, and due to the smaller size, hangars could be smaller or can accommodate more aircraft. The light weight and smaller wingspan should (and probably does) allow for better maneuverability, and the very aircraft itself is better adapted for functioning at high speeds. The payload means that it could operate in different roles effectively, and the single engine (with high thrust) allows for higher fuel efficiency (reduces cost and increases range) than two engine aircraft.

However, the F-18 while not as good as the F-16 in most of these respects, can carry a higher payload (allowing for multiple roles), and on heavier comparable loads, can fly for longer times. It also has two engines, which means if one fails or is put out of action, the other one can enable the aircraft to fly on. The F-18 in terms of performance is sort of less speedy than many aircraft, but it ain't no granny's Oldsmobile.

So which is better? Simple, the F-16, if you look at it from pure performance qualities. It is faster and more maneuverable than the F-18 and it costs less too. It can operate in different roles as well. However, in the F-18's role as a carrier aircraft, that's where things change.

Carrier aircraft and land-based aircraft have different requirements. Carrier aircraft require a shorter take-off distance, and the straight out wings of the Hornet as well as the larger wing-span help in this respect. Carriers have limited room for aircraft, so the more capable the aircraft, the better. That means they can carry more of one type of aircraft, improving logistics, and also means that they have more of that type of aircraft available for any sort of operation. If something could do all things well rather than one thing well it would be more useful. The Hornet also can be equipped with two seats, allowing for someone to take over weapons or navigation while the pilot focuses on flying and this also allows for greater tactical versatility as well, in that the second pilot could operate weapons guidance equipment.

Edited by AllStarZ, 19 April 2007 - 06:08.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Can we talk about planes that never flew? or were really obscure?, It sounds like all the planes on your guys lists wer either mass manufactured or are planned to be.

[LCPL Carrow]

Well how are you gonna compare anything but opinions on aircraft that have no flight data?