WT Forums

Hi everyone!

Just bought the June edition of 'Flight Journal' magazine where Lt Commander John "Toonces" Tougas who is an active Navy test pilot who is current in the F/A-18, Super Hornet and the F-16.

As a Aussie, this comparison was extremely interesting indeed as 20 years ago, Australia decided to go with the Hornet over the Viper...something I've always been a little bit wary of.

Anyway, I'm not going to type out this 13 page article. I can however, type out the conclusion. (Or I'm happy to refer to the article if you have any questions in particular)






"I am often asked,"Which one do you like the best?" The answer is easy, and I reply with this analogy; the F-16 Viper is like the Dodge Viper, and the F/A-18 Hornet is like a Lexus. If I want to cruise around town and experience pure acceleration performance, I would drive the Viper. If I want to cruise in total luxury on a long trip with all the amenities and Gucci displays, I would drive a Lexus.

It's definitely more fun to fly the Viper, but the Hornet is the aircraft that I would want to take into combat. The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet's cockpit design, and its avonics controls and displays. The only jet that I've flown that is better is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Another major consideration is the Hornet's capability to take a surface-to-air missile (SAM) up one tailpipe and still make it home on the other engine, as was demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War.

Speed is nice to have, and I wish the Hornet had more, but my confidence in the jet that I grew up in is high. However, the more exposure I get to the various Viper upgrades and different blocks, the more I appreciate its capabilities.

The real bottom line is this: if I were a bad guy, I would hate to go up against either one."


"During the Iranian Embassy Siege, the only way the terrorists were going to leave the building, was either to prison or in a box!"

Soldier 'I' from British SAS (1980)

I read that same article..........very well written.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Well i'll be GodDamned....



"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Edited by - m21 sniper on May 28 2003 12:04 AM

I have never, ever been anti-hornet.........The jet is shit hot in certain missions........I just never felt that a bantam weight fighter could add weight and still retain its best qualities while adding new capabilities. I mean you guys think Oscar DelaHoya could add 60 lbs and slug it out with Lennox Lewis?

I again ask the airforce............would you guys be an advocate of the F/A-16 Super Falcon vice a F-15 upgraded, (eg) F-15 Agile Eagle, or F-22????

Best to use a Swing Role (F-35), and an air dominance fighter (F-22/F-22N) with a strike capability...........you get the best of both worlds, no compromises, and everyone is happy except the bad guys...............

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I again ask the airforce............would you guys be an advocate of the F/A-16 Super Falcon vice a F-15 upgraded, (eg) F-15 Agile Eagle, or F-22????
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would have to say no simply because, while I love the 16 airframe as an AA/AS fighter jet, it really has very little specific purpose now other than hot-rodding and plain looking cool.

I think if they took all the gold plating bullshit off the 15, gave it a better GPS, HUD, Took second seat out and redesigned the flight controls to be more like the 16s you would have the perfect AS fighter as well as a superior mid alt. ground pounder with huge payload.

I like the 22 but the payload is shit and it has one too many engines.

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

?????????????????

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Uhhhhhh.....Andrew, I do not really know how to reply to that except to suggest some reading and some talking to LOTS of people who know what they are talking about through years of experience about what makes a fighter good for different roles.

Your comments about the F16 are way off. They deserve no real comment other than pointing out how silly your remarks sound.

Your comments about the F15 (I assume you mean the F15E and not the F15C - two TOTALLY different airframes) are equally wrong...what gold plating do they have? The F15E has a digital flight control system. To go purely fly by wire would just be a waste of time and money on the strike eagle as the aerodynamics and handling are so different than that of the viper. Take out the WSO? You have no idea what is involved with a deep strike mission involving the most sophisticated ordinance ever fielded. I like single seat for many missions - not the one I just mentioned though. As for the F15E being the perfect air superiority fighter (I am assuming that is what you mean by AS fighter) you are also wrong. That plane is BIG. It does not turn well with other fighters - and YES, that is still extremely important. The strike eagle does CAPs and the like and has a monster radar and some other tools to help out but it is not the be all end all of fighting.

The F22 comments are also perplexing. It has a decent payload when using just internal bays. Fully fitted with externals as well it is a great payload. The F22 has "one to many engines"??? You are kidding right?? Let's take away one engine and see then what you think about payload.

Better yet, come on out here to Sheppard AFB (or any of the other pilot training bases) and you can talk at length with instructors with backgrounds ranging from F4s and F111s to F117s and F15s (both E and C models). See what the people who actually have real knowledge about such matters think about 2 engines being bad or a WSO being expendable or excess gold plating on F15s or the F16 having no other use than just to "hot rod" or look "cool" as you put it.

If you do not get a bunch of replies explaining these things to you then it is only because people are so speechless after reading your analysis of modern fighters....

Anyone who's interested:

Luke/Mudd/Warthog 30, would you do me the honors?

http://anthonyjhicks.com/ajh/media.nsf/ ... 2003movies

Here you will find a DL for a weapons/fuel loaded SH demonstration at an Australian Air Show(I WAS VERY IMPRESSED). Anyone who has had fighter experience-I'd love to read your opinions.
You may also compare it to the Dl's of the Eagle and the Viper.

*Anyone using a dial-up with these is pretty much SOL.
IMO







Edited by - tritonal on Jun 03 2003 12:48 AM

Well it seems I obviously over generalized...for that I apologize.

Also My brain doesnt seem to be working today so I will post my real reply tomorrow.

I think my main point was that a fighter should be just that a fighter, not a bomber. I understand deep strikes and all but I think it is inefficient making planes that try to be both.

I might be wrong, sue me, thats just my opinion with no research to back it up.<img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

Edited by - AndrewK on Jun 02 2003 12:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think my main point was that a fighter should be just that a fighter, not a bomber. I understand deep strikes and all but I think it is inefficient making planes that try to be both.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah, but you were talking about the F15. If you meant the F15C which is nothing more than an air superiority machine then you should not talk about losing the second seat. There is none (except in training models). The F15C is a single seat, 9G, air to air bad ass. The F15E is the one with the second seat. That plane also has some air to air skills but mostly as a CAP and BVR monster. That plane is really a bomber with the ability to fight pretty well air to air as well.

I would love to hear a less generalized argument on why you think the F22 has crappy payload capability and why you think that 2 engines are 1 too many.

By the way...the F22 has since the beginning had bombing and strike capabilities in mind. The stupid renaming thing to the FA22 is a publicity stunt that involves no real changes to the project.

Luke is exactly right. Every air superiority aircraft since the F-106 has had a strike element incorperated within its design. The F/A designation is absurd. The idea is to give a fighter that capability, without a compromise to its air superiority mission.


I mean a P-3 Orion can carry to AIM-9.......Does that mean its a fighter?

I still believe the second seat, and flight officer gives a air superiority aircraft an advantage, and am glad to see that the USN is including this team effort into its F-18F. It still is nice to have the human element controlling the high speed weapon system and radar information processing.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Not meaning to dirty up the subject (so to speak) but the F-15A/C had/has a air to ground capability as well all along. The saying "not a pound for air to ground" had to do more with the mission than capability.

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

Well I was refering to the F-15E...and you proved my point. Hypothetically, IF and that is a big if, it was to come upon say a Flanker or Rafale after CAP or recon it would be up against some heavy competition and a huge risk for loss.

This is the payload for the F-22:
2 JDAM
2 AIM-9
6 AMRAAM
20mm gun

Thats IT. Not much if you ask me. Not much versatility for what they want it to be. My point about the engines is that if it is going to be a fighter/AS plane then it needs to be really light and really quick, the 16 proves this with its single engine. Less moving parts, less to break. I understand that if you lose the one engine then thats it but if your taking one in AA your pretty much out anyway. Dont get me wrong, I think it would rock in an AA but again, how often do we come upon AA situations? And why would we need something new anyway? The F-16 is (almost) perfect for AA/AS and I dont think we need something new that costs almost 5x more when we could do small upgrades and make the F-16 the best...

I know, It looks like Im contradicting myself with the AA argument but Im really not. Do I want AA aircraft or not? Well of course, but I only think we need two (USN, USAF), and we need NO multirole all in one F-A-B-CAS aircraft like they are trying to make...

I think if we could make two (USN, USAF) medium sized (F-117 size), fast, high payload bombers that have no purpose other than bombing, and escort it with pure fighters on its deep strike missions, that, in my opinion, would be perfect. NO compromises, two planes, both doing their exact job, I think in the long run it would be cheaper. It seems whenever they try to compromise with an airframe it ends up having problems in one or more areas.

Just my ideas.

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

The A-6 Intruder could carry an 18,000 lb bombload in an impressive deep strike profile, only the B-1/B-2/B-52 could carry more.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

'Saw one at the <i>Intrepid</i>. It was beautiful

I love going to the Intrepid. Every single time I come to the States I go there. Best museum in all of New York

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

Back to air superiority...

Air Superiority/Air Dominance ecompases alot more than just agility, speed, and ordance loadout.

The F-16 is great for an ACM engagement at 40,000 ft over the airfield it is defending.

Air Dominace is the ability to meet any threat, in any condition, at any time, no compromises. To do this the aircraft must not only have first shot capability, it must have the diverse weapons load-out to meet different threat criteria, have the ability to take the fight to them, or have the fuel persistance to stay in the fight. Two aircraft in the our inventory meet that today. The F-15C, and F-14D. The F-22 promises to merge the best qualities of both, into one airframe without compromises. It will have the sustained high "G" turn agility of the F-15C, with the BVR, loiter/persitance, mulit/first shot ability of the F-14D.

If the USAF and USN could have had a complete inventory of F-15's and F-14's, they would...The F-16 and F-18 were low cost augmentations. They are not air superiority systems.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 03 2003 04:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[quote]The F15E is the one with the second seat.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

what about F15B & D models? they have two seats <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Sorry...couldn't resist..I know u were talking about the "D" model when you refered to the F15C trainer (or I hope so anyways <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>)

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator...

If you can't go fast...go Ugly

_________________

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
My point about the engines is that if it is going to be a fighter/AS plane then it needs to be really light and really quick, the 16 proves this with its single engine. Less moving parts, less to break. I understand that if you lose the one engine then thats it but if your taking one in AA your pretty much out anyway. Dont get me wrong, I think it would rock in an AA but again, how often do we come upon AA situations? And why would we need something new anyway? The F-16 is (almost) perfect for AA/AS and I dont think we need something new that costs almost 5x more when we could do small upgrades and make the F-16 the best...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ok...my first question would be do you have any kind of maintenance experience? Because we lose more F-16s to FOD (foreign object damage) than to any hostile fire. When I was at Moody working A-10s, my jet arrived and took a bird down the #2 engine, all the "brass" of the base came and had to look, because any aircraft that took a bird strike before that (keep in mind, Moody was almost a 100% F-16 base then) didn't make it home. Any little thing goes down the intake of an F-16 and it is gone. The F-15E is a great plane, yes, more suited for Air to ground, but believe me, it can hold it's own in Air to Air, especially with the new V2 radar we are currently upgrading to. The F-15E wouldn't be half as capable without the weapons officer in the rear seat. Have you ever seen the amount of information available to the weapons officer? Way to much for a pilot to manage, and fly through/around anti-ACFT weapons of any type. I guess you hit a nerve...bad mouth an F-15 is a close second to badmouthing an A-10 to me...

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator...

If you can't go fast...go Ugly

_________________

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Ok...my first question would be do you have any kind of maintenance experience?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Absolutely none. Im just an enthusiastic guy who has alot of books and a good background in Physics and Aeroeng.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> This is the payload for the F-22:
2 JDAM
2 AIM-9
6 AMRAAM
20mm gun

Thats IT.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Andrew, you ARE aware the Raptor has positions for four hardpoints under the wings, correct? Granted, it does compromise its stealthiness, but you're still going to be better off than the current fighters. In fact, in A-to-A mode, full load-out, the F-22 can carry 14 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9Xs, if they wanted to. With the SDBs and LOCASS coming out soon, the strike capability is even more increased.

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

The Raptor can also carry 6 SDB's internally, along with 2 AIM-9X.

Seems fine to me.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Horrido brings up a topic that is near to me;
I believe alot of the credit will go to the exceptional development in ordnance technology which enhances the strike capabilities of the Raptor greatly.

Some examples:

SDB is 1/8 the weight of the BLU-109, but it has about the same penetrating power.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is the Miniaturized Munitions Technology Demonstrator. It is a specialized weapon, similar to the JDAM but optimized for internal bays of stealth planes. It will be 250lb, penetrate 6 feet of concrete and detonate 50lbs of explosives. The explosives are being developed right now to provide 5 times the power of current bombs. Between 6 to 8could be carried inside the F-22’s bays. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


<img src="http://www.combatsim.com/archive/images/img_arc-21/wep_6.jpg" border=0>

In addition, the F-22 cannot retain 2000lb bombs inside the bays. An enhanced Mk-83 was developed to equal the power of a Mk-84.
I've showed this pic before once or twice:
<img src="http://www.combatsim.com/archive/images/img_arc-21/wep_3b.jpg" border=0>





Edited by - tritonal on Jun 03 2003 1:53 PM

I know Raptor has a lot of fuel but it seems SO stupid to me that they dont just add 6 inches to the in board pylons depth so it could carry 2 AMRAAMs AND a fuel tank at the same time <shakes head>

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

There is a ferry config that mounts 4x 600 gal tanks and 8x AMRAAMs externally.

Of course, the AMRAAMS can't be fired, but that's just a small detail, right? LOL

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"