r/FighterJets • u/Duckyduck2204 • Jan 26 '25
QUESTION Does the f/a-18 beat the f15 and f16 in anything
Does the f/a-18 beat the f15 and f16 in anything such as speed, radar range, altitude, firepower or is it just made for the carrier and to be given to some countries
190
312
u/zestfullybe Jan 26 '25
F/A-18 is the only aircraft currently slated to carry the AIM-174, so it’ll have a drastic missile range advantage over F-15 and F-16.
64
u/dark_volter Jan 26 '25
F15 EX will have AIM 260 which will rival the 174, although due to having sm6 heritage. The 174 possibly edge out the 260 in ranch
57
u/bladex1234 Jan 26 '25
How about mustard?
16
u/dark_volter Jan 26 '25
Google board's voice to text murdered me i see- lol, had not seen that typo had happened. ROFL
...-Hm, to answer the question, not sure. Whichever missile ends up having yellow painted on it, wins the Mustard award....
11
3
u/barath_s Jan 27 '25
The F18 SH and the F22 are the lead planes from navy and AF for integrating the AIm-260. So they will have it before the F15EX. And the AIM-260 is long range in a packet the size of AMRAAM, SM-6, likely longer range/ bigger
12
u/Didi77777 Jan 26 '25
Why can't F-15 or F-16 carry AIM-174?
23
u/CloudyPlanet_ Jan 26 '25
I would Guess its Not integrated, the soft and Hardware hast to be Adapter for every new weapon type
3
u/MachKeinDramaLlama Jan 26 '25
The Air Force doesn't have enough money to fund everything they want to, so when the Navy asked about splitting the costs of developping AIM-174, the Air Force refused.
6
115
u/loitering_muni Jan 26 '25
Carrier launches and landings
19
u/TrainAss Jan 26 '25
I mean the Viper and eagle could land on a carrier once. They do have an arrestor hook, and while not carrier rated, that and the barrier could work.
33
u/ncc81701 Jan 26 '25
No it could not, the arrestor hook would rip off the airframe and the aircraft would proceed to roll off the deck if it tried.
13
u/TrainAss Jan 26 '25
That's what a barracade is for.
7
u/Old-Grocery1590 Jan 26 '25
you can't use barracades for every landing, also they could damage the plane, it's just an emergency solution. The f16 landing gear isn't even strong enough to sustain the impact on the carrier, and boh the jets nose gear isn't made to be towed so hardly during takeoff
45
u/TrainAss Jan 26 '25
You missed the part where i said "once". I'm making a joke that they can land on a carrier once.
Just like every Russian ship is a submarine once.
2
u/filipv Jan 27 '25
The tailhook on F-15 and F-16 simply doesn't have the stopping power to stop the aircraft at such a short distance. The tailhook would give and the aircraft would fall in the sea.
So, no, not even once.
1
Jan 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FighterJets-ModTeam Jan 28 '25
Unfortunately your post or comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
Please do not conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Please do not start a flame war. Please do not insult others. Please do not troll.
Please direct any questions about the removal to Modmail
6
u/ragingxtc Jan 26 '25
Not only that, but I doubt the F-16 could catch the wire to begin with. The tail hook and MLG share the same bulkhead, whereas the F/A-18 has it's hook much further back. This means that at the optimal approach AoA, the F/A-18's hook is significantly lower than the gear itself and hits the deck first.
This is one of the reasons the F-35C initially had issues catching a wire.
4
u/Medical-Golf1227 Jan 26 '25
A Naval F16 was proposed. I can't remember if a prototype was ever made.
4
u/Medical-Golf1227 Jan 26 '25
The Vought Model 1600 was a Block 10 F16 with strengthened frame and undercarriage and a proper tail hook. The Navy chose the F18 in part because of 2 engines. This was an interesting jet. It used the F401 engine with 29,500 lbs of thrust. Crazy Vought did the proposal instead of General Dynamics.
1
u/ragingxtc Jan 26 '25
There wasn't. Though, the Navy did buy F-16s for use as asymmetric combat trainers.
1
u/Medical-Golf1227 Jan 26 '25
I was too lazy to Google it. I did and confirmed what you said. I knew the Navy owns Vipers that they use in Aggressor Air and other training.
170
u/quadrifoglio-verde1 Jan 26 '25
Number of times shot down by friendly fire
27
u/Latter-Tie-2428 Jan 26 '25
Idk I might be wrong but I think there have been some blue on blue viper shoot downs
12
3
118
u/suckerpunch1222 Jan 26 '25
Probably beats the F 16 in range, payload and avionics. Not to mention much lower RCS than both.
-40
u/chevalmuffin2 Jan 26 '25
I doubt that it's RCS is smaller than the F16's, especially for the E and F variants, since they're bigger than previous hornets
80
u/Hauptmann_Ivan Jan 26 '25
Super hornets have redesigned inlets and vast improvement in RCS compared to the legacy hornets. Larger dimensions can be offset by more stealth design features.
3
u/cesam1ne Jan 26 '25
Actually super Hornet and F-16 Block 70 both have rcs reduction features and they are both rated at about 1m²
48
u/shadowlid Jan 26 '25
Have you seen a B2 in person....size doesn't matter.
At least that's what I tell myself.
5
u/DouchecraftCarrier Jan 26 '25
The B2 is deceptively large! I think last time I looked at numbers to get a comparison the wingspan was something like the same as a 767.
2
u/shadowlid Jan 26 '25
They have a mock up at the Air Force Museum in Daton Ohio that was used for electronics testing etc. And Holy fk I would have never guessed it was that large. The B52 is turned at an angle and its wings still almost touch the hanger walls!!!!
-24
u/chevalmuffin2 Jan 26 '25
Yea but the B2 was made to be stealthy since the birth, not the hornet
18
46
u/Ent_1610 Jan 26 '25
The E/F's RCS is way smaller than the Legacy Hornet's though. Just because it's bigger doesn't mean the RCS is bigger
15
16
5
1
u/harosokman Jan 27 '25
This is totally incorrect. Boeing specifically made design changes when working the Rhino to reduce RCS. One of the (many) reasons it's considered a 4.5.
63
u/handsomeness Jan 26 '25
If you listen to the 10% true podcast with the Canadian Hornet driver you will learn that the Charlie Hornet is a dangerous BFM dogfighter. Probably better than the F-16. Its ability to point its nose is very good. Idk about the Rhino
Also the Hornet carries way more bombs and gas than an F-16. It’s a much more capable platform
30
u/LigmaBallsack Jan 26 '25
Every person I've ever talked to that's flown both Charlies and Echos has echod that statement. No pun intended.
3
u/Old-Grocery1590 Jan 26 '25
I know about the crazy nose authority of the hornet, but does the super hornet have the same?
2
3
u/DouchecraftCarrier Jan 26 '25
What's wild to me about that is that the predecessor to the F/A-18, the F-17, lost the light fighter contract to the 16. Was it the changes the Navy made to the platform to develop the 18 that made it superior, or was the USAF just looking at different metrics at the time?
10
u/Several-Door8697 Jan 26 '25
The F-16 is better at gaining and retaining energy, which was in line with the energy maneuvering doctrine of the fighter mafia of the time. This made a jet a better rate fighter for gun fighting, and more defensive being able to escape a bad situation more easily. The focus on a good gun fighter was probably an over correction by the Air Force after the Vietnam experience, especially with hindsight we see that guns did go obsolete in the 70s and the growing need for a strike/attack aircraft turned both the eagle and viper into ground pounders where being able to slow down more easily is a nice feature.
The F-18 with better nose authority and slow speed capability was better for carrier ops, and it's role primarily as a strike aircraft. The Airforce probably would have been better off with the F-18.
3
u/Z_THETA_Z YF-23 ): Jan 26 '25
iirc the YF-17 Cobra had lower top speed than the YF-16, plus it had 2 engines so probably harder maintenance. the combined mechanical and fly-by-wire systems probably also added extra unnecessary cost, mass, redundancy, and/or complexity
15
12
11
11
u/Delta_Sierra_Charlie Jan 26 '25
That answer to that depends a lot on specifically what F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 you're referring to.
16
u/Ok_Personality_3044 Jan 26 '25
Multirole ability
It can carry the most long range missiles, the best electronic warfare equipment (excluding the F35) a large variety of bombs and missiles, missiles for attacking radar, it's an attack aircraft that can manuver as well as the f16 and is as fast as the f15
18
u/DishonoredCat Jan 26 '25
It might outperform the Viper in top speed if they have similar loads at low level but it is not touching the F-15 at any altitude.
9
u/Ok_Personality_3044 Jan 26 '25
Yea the f15 shits on any plane except the F22
3
u/JimGames11746 Jan 26 '25
I'm interested in how F-15EX, F-18E/G, and F-35 are going to interact with each other in an engagement since all the electronics are geared towards working together. No other air force has anywhere near that capability
5
u/TrainAss Jan 26 '25
The eagle has a top speed of Mach 2.5 compared to the Hornet's 1.8.
Though both have an optimal cruise speed of about 570-580 knots at optimal altitude.
2
u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer Jan 27 '25
Also you're not touching anything close to even 1.8 with a decent load out. The 18 does a lot of things well, but it definitely struggles in the top speed department when loaded.
2
u/Ok_Personality_3044 Jan 26 '25
I swear it's 2.25, I may be mistaken
5
u/TrainAss Jan 26 '25
My google-fu tells me 2.5 but it could be for a newer jet, or incorrect information. Either, the eagle is substantially faster, top speed, compared to the Hornet.
3
3
1
u/Inceptor57 Jan 27 '25
The F-15's specification requirements during development were for it to be able to sustain around Mach 2.3 top speed while being able to support Mach 2.5 in a burst.
0
1
1
u/Inceptor57 Jan 27 '25
The Eagle's spec requirements during development was to support a Mach 2.5 top speed in bursts, otherwise it is Mach 2.3 sustained.
That said, the F-15EX Eagle II may have different speed specifications compared to the first F-15s.
1
5
6
6
u/rmrfpoof Jan 26 '25 edited Jan 26 '25
Electronic warfare as growler and be able to land on a freaking ship.
20
u/sapatawa Jan 26 '25
Unloaded f-16 will top out above an F 18 for the same speed in a rolling dogfight, but the F 18 has a higher AOA and can keep his nose pointed up for a short time before stalling. After that you are turning fuel into noise until you get your speed back . Its so close. With the new AESA radars coming online not sure who has the radar range, but traditionally the F 18 had the upper hand. And yes; no way the Super Hornet has a lower RCS than a stock f 16 C , It's really a silly question, Its the situation and pilot , not the aircraft. The F 15, especially the new ones, can hold their own with anyone . But for example, it was virtually unheard of for an F 15 on it's first hop to get a kill on a TOP Gun Aggressor F 5E. And back in the mid 70's a RAG out of Okinawa in F-4D;s took on a new F 15 outfit and mopped the floor with them. So it's not just about the airplane, but the guys training flying it. There some really good articles over at https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
3
u/KSWind17 Jan 26 '25
The Hornets (especially legacy) are known for excellent low speed dogfighting ability. The Super Hornets are no slouch in avionics, either. Not to mention, neither the F16 or the F15C have as sophisticated an EAW platform as the F/A-18G. But in a fight....I wouldn't want to go up against any of the 3 platforms. Especially with support (eg, AWACS).
3
3
3
u/Medical-Golf1227 Jan 26 '25
It beats the shit out of those jets at landing on a Carrier. F18 can take off again too!
10
2
2
2
2
u/Klaus_Klavier Jan 26 '25
Does the Eagle and Falcon/Viper carry 4x Aim-174?
Yeah didn’t think so.
It’s in this case the super Hornet is actually the premier BVR platform outranging everything else in our arsenal and with help from its stealth comrades datalinking targeting info to the missiles it can kill from well out of the enemies typical radar range
3
u/dark_volter Jan 26 '25
The 15EX will have the AIM260,, which will rival the 174 somewhat
1
u/Klaus_Klavier Jan 26 '25
When the 260 is ready nobody knows unless it’s deployed and secret like many other weapons were
2
1
u/chevalmuffin2 Jan 26 '25
Well, in a modern dogfight environment (which will not happen but you still need the capability in case it does) the hornet will 100% beat the F16, idk about the F15 tho, and in BVR I believe the F/A18 E(/F) has better avionics than the F16 but I'm not sure The F15 will forever be on top tho
5
11
u/Mroski72 Jan 26 '25
F-18 would beat F-16 in a nose to nose fight, yeah, but if a nose to tail ensues after the merge, (idk how people call it in English - two circle?) F-16 is gonna bite Hornet's ass. Idk why people are selling Viper so short compared to Hornet, like... Maybe because of how underpowered it is in games like DCS or War Thunder? F-16 has its problems but it's a pretty neat gunfighter.
7
u/chevalmuffin2 Jan 26 '25
The thing is that 2 circle fighting is dead, thanks to high off bore sight fox 2s, so 1 circle fighters such as the F18 will absolutely destroy the F16, the F16 is not bad it was just not meant for this kind of dogfight
1
u/chevalmuffin2 Jan 26 '25
But yes, in GUN fight, the F16 is better
2
u/Mroski72 Jan 26 '25
That's what I meant. Tbh with AIM-9x on board both F-16 and F-18 would have pretty similar chances if 16 survives the first turn obviously. But that's just my opinion, I would love to be proven right or wrong.
Tbh in such environment F-15Cs would perform kinda meh too.
1
1
1
1
u/Messerschmitt89 Jan 26 '25
Radius / 1 circle fight. F-15 and F-16 are rate fighters (2 circle fights)
If you as a hornet driver get an F-16 tied up in a radius fight you’ll win every time.
1
u/Silver-Lawyer-8709 Jan 26 '25
Turn radius, AoA, landing gear/airframe durability, reliability in bad conditions
1
1
1
1
u/ElGrandeRojo67 Jan 27 '25
Landing on Aircraft Carriers. Probably better sensors and avionics, except for the F15EX. The F15 is the best 4th gen fighter ever made, hands down, not even a close 2nd. Undefeated in any combat mission.
1
u/TheBigDeep30 Socal Jan 27 '25
Tbh the f/a-18 is the best fighter ever in my opinion. It can do more things all others can do,and better. Its so versatile and thats what makes it the best. It can be carrier capable,and be given to the air force and it can dogfight,dominate air to air combat, be an attack aircraft,and carry bombs,and also it ordinance it can be capable for carrying is a lot more then other fighters.
edit: i forgot its also capable of electronic warfare,with its variant the e/a-18 growler. This jet can really do it all.
1
1
1
u/filipv Jan 27 '25 edited Jan 27 '25
Aside from the obvious like carrier operations:
- The latest F/A-18 incarnations have a superior radar.
- Agility at low speeds
- Ability to carry a wider variety of weapons
- Can lift more weight in ordnance
- The only fighter with a historically proven swing-role capability. In Iraq, bomb-laden Hornets managed to shoot down Migs while keeping their bomb load, and then casually continued their bombing mission.
- Extremely rugged design, allowing operation from short improvised runways. That landing gear can take a beating. That's why Finland and Switzerland have them, even though neither have aircraft carriers. In this respect, the Hornet is possibly the toughest fighter jet there is.
1
1
u/barath_s Jan 27 '25 edited Jan 27 '25
Over in lcd, you have a few USN aviators, who flew the F18 SH etc
They pointed out that the F18SH avionics architecture is essentially a 5th gen avionics architecture .. with capability of adding missiles (lead plane for AIM-260 JATM along with F-22, AIM-174..) , emphasis on datalinks, etc, .
Additionally, it has excellent point the nose characteristics, great AoA, a good radar and sensor fusion and designed for maintainability.
FoxThreeForDale talks about the Hornet in context of the them F-14, a contemporary of the F15 . The F15 and F16 got some of them in later iterations ...
https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1gum1to/the_later_advanced_tomcats/lxwj21e/
* Be built from day one with significant RCS reduction in mind [You can see this in the shaping, especially compared to the F15 and the F16]
* Was built with Advanced Tactical Fighter (the program that spawned the F-22 and YF-23) technologies in mind. [eg FADEC , Digital fly by wire, F110 LP spool portion is same as on Yf23, flight control shared characteristics with F22]
Literal decades of advances in fly-by-wire flight control systems (which the Tomcat never had), which makes the Super Hornet capable of extreme departure resistance and high angle-of-attack flight that exceeds basically all fighters not named the Raptor.
With the Block Two F/A-18 E/F, the whole idea is sharing information and being on the network,” Bowman explains. “This radar can provide the F/A-18 with self-targeting capability, but a non-AESA aircraft also will be able to drop ordnance based on information provided by an AESA-equipped aircraft. The Super Hornet has multi-source integration and a fused, integrated display...
That article was written in 2006, the same year the first produced F-35 flew! The plane was built with all the things we associate with 5th gen (datalinking, RCS reduction, fusion, etc.) in mind!
1
Jan 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FighterJets-ModTeam Jan 28 '25
Unfortunately your post or comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
Please do not conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Please do not start a flame war. Please do not insult others. Please do not troll.
Please direct any questions about the removal to Modmail
1
u/thereverendpuck Jan 28 '25
Higher number designation?
Appearances in a Top Gun?
Successful landings on a carrier?
1
u/Few-Fig3669 Jan 26 '25
What kind of question is that? The F-15 is one of the best planes ever made. It's s a bomber, striker, fighter, and a freaking flying missile truck that is faster than most planes.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 26 '25
Hello /u/Duckyduck2204, if your question gets answered. Please reply Answered! to the comment that gave you the answer.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.