Jump to content

F-16C vs F/A-18C for BVR & AA in general


Recommended Posts

On 3/13/2022 at 2:19 PM, Exorcet said:

image.png

Your numbers aren't matching up at all, maybe you took off from the ground or data is old? Although tests should be isolated; test climb, then test cruise separately, etc, otherwise there is more opportunity for user error to creep into data.

Just tested 35K, M0.8 air-start:

F/A-18C, Centerline Tank: 1508 NM (Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, Centerline Tank: 1380 NM (Cruise @ 35K, Not Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, Centerline Tank & 6/0/2 AA Load: 1180 NM (Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, Clean: 1308 NM (Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, 3 bags, 1708 NM (Optimum Range)


Edited by MARLAN_
add centerline opt range
  • Like 1

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

Your numbers aren't matching up at all, maybe you took off from the ground or data is old? Although tests should be isolated; test climb, then test cruise separately, etc, otherwise there is more opportunity for user error to creep into data.

Just tested 35K, M0.8 air-start:

F/A-18C, Centerline Tank: 1508 NM (Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, Centerline Tank: 1380 NM (Cruise @ 35K, Not Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, Centerline Tank & 6/0/2 AA Load: 1180 NM (Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, Clean: 1308 NM (Optimum Range)

F/A-18C, 3 bags, 1708 NM (Optimum Range)

 

The data is old yes, but I don't believe there have been significant Hornet FM changes since. The flights were also not all the way to 0 fuel if I recall, but to a set % of aircraft weight. In either case with the F-16 FM changes, the numbers need to be run again.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The data is old yes, but I don't believe there have been significant Hornet FM changes since. The flights were also not all the way to 0 fuel if I recall, but to a set % of aircraft weight. In either case with the F-16 FM changes, the numbers need to be run again.

Depending how old the data is, the F-18 FM has changed in the past year.


Edited by MARLAN_

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/13/2022 at 3:33 AM, TobiasA said:

That is true.
However, you also need to keep in mind that there has been a hardcore F-16 group out there for more than a decade, and whenever you meet those guys it means that he knows what he is doing. At least in BVR, in dogfights the Viper is no match until the FM is fixed (soon).
Plus, the F-16 is mostly flown without ECM in DCS, because the disadvantages of the ECM (drag, limited radar usage when using it) are not as present as its advantages for most pilots (because a lot of them don't make use of it in BVR). In addition, the ECM doesn't work against all radars as of now, it has a very limited effect against FC3 planes as of now.
So the F-16 flies without, while the F-18's fly with a double 120 rack- having 6 120's and 2 heaters. The pylon does have quite some drag. Plus, no one flies with only 6 missiles, so that makes two more than a Viper with all the drag that comes with it.
That leads to the Viper (as of a GS loadout) being considerably faster. However, this might even change with the FM update (I am pretty sure it does). If you fly realistic loadouts, the jets are quite comparable, but GS is the wrong place for that.
I am curious how the yeet factor will be after the update- but it is more or less theoretical since the 120s battery runs out after 80s which kinda limits it at altitude. And the poor look down makes it hard to maintain a lock at launch ranges.
As for the skill set- I think maintaining SA is on a similar level, and while Link 16 helps, it is a matter of the pilot. The JHMCS on the hornet is better, and the Viper has a better HSD than the SA page of the hornet. The jet doesn't build SA for you, it only helps you with it. The feature set of the Viper made a large step in the last year, and it become more and more complex, with only very few people mastering both the Viper and the Hornet. And I see many people struggling with the newer and advanced functions of the Viper.

 

I would disagree. The hornet has the best SA page out of all the aircrafts in DCS. The fact that you are able to put a detailed and visible topographic map immediately gives the hornet the +1 to SA. It doesn't matter if the viper has more yeet factor and range than the hornet if its acm mode and ability to lock on a target is weaker and slower than the hornet. If you face a pilot with a very good understanding of MAR and 120c characteristics then they could trash all of your missiles until wvr. The hornet pilot can then use the terrain from the SA page to predict where the viper will pop up next and use the most effective ACM mode. I've splashed flankers, tomcats, and vipers all because I can tell exactly when I've lost AWACS/radar coverage on the bandit and where the next most likely spot said bandit will pop up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 6 Stunden schrieb deathcharge8:

I would disagree. The hornet has the best SA page out of all the aircrafts in DCS. The fact that you are able to put a detailed and visible topographic map immediately gives the hornet the +1 to SA. It doesn't matter if the viper has more yeet factor and range than the hornet if its acm mode and ability to lock on a target is weaker and slower than the hornet. If you face a pilot with a very good understanding of MAR and 120c characteristics then they could trash all of your missiles until wvr. The hornet pilot can then use the terrain from the SA page to predict where the viper will pop up next and use the most effective ACM mode. I've splashed flankers, tomcats, and vipers all because I can tell exactly when I've lost AWACS/radar coverage on the bandit and where the next most likely spot said bandit will pop up.

You assume that the Viper uses terrain.

I never do that unless flying AG missions and most of the time, I don't even have mountains. A map is nice, but not of much use in flat terrain like a desert. Speed is life, altitude is energy that you can convert into speed.

Our radar isn't great in look down either, so once you lose SA, break off and let your teammate have a shot. WVR should only happen if you lose SA (you get jumped) or you totally dictate the fight.

But yes, the movable map is really nice. 

And yes, AIM-120 can be trashed even on WVR range. By a MiG-19. At the open sea. I am surprised how weak they are in DCS, a kinematic defense works almost always.

I don't do a lot of PvP because it is like... Firing a ton of missiles, neither side will score hits and you fly home. On a typical mission, you got 12k lbs fuel and need 6k for the trip when you want to have 1.2k at touchdown. That leaves you with 3 to 6k for the loiter and engagement. Which is sufficient, but it ain't much, so I try to not spend it on the deck in a dogfight. You always need to be able to break off and make it to the tanker. So I scan low for intruders and see if I can pick up someone on my racetrack. At least my RWR is on the top of the cockpit and not hidden in a page somewhere which means that you can fly with both HSD and radar open while having the RWR right where I need it.

I guess it comes down to what fits your playstyle. On GS, the Hornet dominates the fights with ambush CAPs and dogfights, on buddy spike the Viper is really nice. 

My playstyle sucks on GS though, because I usually serve mostly as a link16 contributor. Whenever I pick up someone from altitude, some ambush CAP will snack it while the enemy is focusing on me. Quite efficient, but SEAD or the buddy spike server are more fun for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2022 at 9:23 AM, Exorcet said:

While this is a useful feature, I've found that it can make the HUD pretty cluttered. The Hornet gives you a ton of flexibility with regards to displaying information, but I feel like the actual layout of everything is in general poor and somewhat negates the advantages of having more and larger screens.

In the F-16 there are less options but everything is organized in such a way that I don't feel a need to move things around. The F-18 overall has the avionics edge, but it's not leaps and bounds ahead of the F-16 in my opinion. Just a slight advantage.

the Multi sensor integration even though its more limited in its implementation on the DCS hornet relative to IRL is still better than the Viper. You can display RWR information in the SA page as well as Radar page. Plus JHMCS shows much more RWR information than the viper which only shows the most critical threat . Moving map iis also nice for SA.

Hornet also more flexible in its multirole in what it can carry as long with its employment of its sensor like the TGP i find its more flexible for attacking targets of opportunity versus the Viper.

 

All in all F18 is a proper warhorse, F16 is a racehorse trying to be a warhorse.


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 2

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, deathcharge8 said:

I would disagree. The hornet has the best SA page out of all the aircrafts in DCS. The fact that you are able to put a detailed and visible topographic map immediately gives the hornet the +1 to SA. It doesn't matter if the viper has more yeet factor and range than the hornet if its acm mode and ability to lock on a target is weaker and slower than the hornet. If you face a pilot with a very good understanding of MAR and 120c characteristics then they could trash all of your missiles until wvr. The hornet pilot can then use the terrain from the SA page to predict where the viper will pop up next and use the most effective ACM mode. I've splashed flankers, tomcats, and vipers all because I can tell exactly when I've lost AWACS/radar coverage on the bandit and where the next most likely spot said bandit will pop up.

That may be all, but the difference is that the contacts in the Viper all have an altitude indication, in the f18 you can display a maximum of one contact, which you have to click on beforehand. As many nice things the f18sa has, this fact makes it almost useless.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am honest... The only time I use a moving map is when I fly helicopters.

For AA, the map is not relevant at all. And in many cases, the map makes anything drawn on top of it hard to read. It is nice for CAS, which is not the main purpose of the F-16. 

The one thing the Viper is missing is the data cartridge for setting pre planned threats and draw lines, but I hope that this will come one day. There is no real mission planning currently. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 3:52 PM, Kev2go said:

the Multi sensor integration even though its more limited in its implementation on the DCS hornet relative to IRL is still better than the Viper. You can display RWR information in the SA page as well as Radar page. Plus JHMCS shows much more RWR information than the viper which only shows the most critical threat . Moving map iis also nice for SA.

Hornet also more flexible in its multirole in what it can carry as long with its employment of its sensor like the TGP i find its more flexible for attacking targets of opportunity versus the Viper.

Like I said I won't argue against the Hornet have better avionics. That's a plain fact. The cockpit layout might be a bit messier in my opinion but the actual features found in the Hornet would be nice to have in the F-16.

On 4/1/2022 at 3:52 PM, Kev2go said:

 

All in all F18 is a proper warhorse, F16 is a racehorse trying to be a warhorse.

 

This I can't agree with. The F-16 outperforms the 18 in a few areas and where it's behind it's not necessarily by a huge margin. They are similar fighters with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Like I said I won't argue against the Hornet have better avionics. That's a plain fact. The cockpit layout might be a bit messier in my opinion but the actual features found in the Hornet would be nice to have in the F-16.

This I can't agree with. The F-16 outperforms the 18 in a few areas and where it's behind it's not necessarily by a huge margin.

 

And i wont argue against F16 having better raw performance

Hence my comment the F16 is a racehorse put into role of a warhorse. The only real advantage i feel the F16 has over  the F18 is in raw performance,  being able to produce better acceleration and reach a higher top speed. its a better joyride. But given the meta shift in aviation design ,   Avionics/ sensor supremacy has been proving more and more of higher importance than focus on raw power and how good an aircraft can do in 1 v 1 guns only.  The epitome of this philosophy in present day is an aircraft like the F35. 

 

48 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

They are similar fighters with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Thats the thing. When i Fly the F16 i wish i had stuff the Hornet ( including its high alpha ability) and when i fly the Hornet Im mostly content  but certainly would like to have had the extra ompf of the Viper.

 Alas that performance impact of the F18 has to do with the nature with its carrier based needs.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 1

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Avionics/ sensor supremacy has been proving more and more of higher importance than focus on raw power and how good an aircraft can do in 1 v 1 guns only.  The epitome of this philosophy in present day is an aircraft like the F35.

 

 

 

 

 

There has been a shift in philosophy, but I think it's a bit more complicated than saying that avionics/SA/etc has replaced performance. You really need the LO qualities of a 5th gen fighter to really tip the balance in favor of sensors. 4th gens, even moderately advanced ones like the DCS F-16/18 are still easy to spot long before missile range, and when you're visible, performance and maneuvering are very important.

Even in the realm of stealth, being faster means you have a better chance of breaking in and out of the detection ranges of various sensors. The F-22 with supercruise is going to get to a given place faster than the F-35 and it's going to be able to get out and away from enemies defenses faster as well. Performance may not be as important as it was, but it's very necessary for any military aircraft built now or in the forseeable future in my opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a typical DCS server where everyone just charges head first into a fight, yes, getting a missile off at 40K & M1.6 will normally beat someone trying to do the same at 30K & M1.0.

But in the real world, self preservation is the priority, so defensive manoeuvring after launch/pitbull is the norm. This will almost always lead to trashed initial shots, and reattacks at progressively shorter ranges. This is where the superior SA provided by the Hornet avionics gives it a substantial advantage.

For example, with correctly functioning MSI, in a Hornet you can designate the datalink return 20nm at you 6 o’clock as the L&S target. TWS AUTO will center the scan volume on this target, or attempt to if outside the radar coverage. Once designated, a break into the target to get it just into the radar scan (which TWS AUTO will have set perfectly), one sweep to get a radar track, immediate FOX 3, and another break to turn cold again.  All this can happen to quickly for the bandit to respond, and without any button pressing from the turn in. When both aircraft are down at 20K and below M1.0 on the first or second reattack, (which is where BVR fights are likely to end up if both sides fly realistically), this ability gives the Hornet a huge advantage. It enables valid hi Pk shots whilst keeping the aircraft safe and out of the bandits WEZ.

Of course if we never get a complete MSI simulation, this won’t be possible, but🤞.

The Viper avionics simply don’t have this level of integration with other onboard and off board sensors so in BVR, it’s a bit of a one trick pony. Granted, for typical DCS servers, this trick is usually sufficient.

 


Edited by norman99
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, norman99 said:

For example, with correctly functioning MSI, in a Hornet you can designate the datalink return 20nm at you 6 o’clock as the L&S target. TWS AUTO will center the scan volume on this target, or attempt to if outside the radar coverage. Once designated, a break into the target to get it just into the radar scan (which TWS AUTO will have set perfectly), one sweep to get a radar track, immediate FOX 3, and another break to turn cold again.

 

This has been spoken about by a few others over in the Hornet forums. It sounds very Batmobile-y to me. 🙂 Don't get me wrong... I'd LOVE IT if the real APG-73 with properly integrated MSI had this capability and it was simulated in DCS (it seems simple enough, in theory, for the radar, datalink, MC, etc. to 'talk' to each other in this way), but is this actually documented anywhere that's accessible to the team that is intentionally avoiding any use of classified resources?

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

This has been spoken about by a few others over in the Hornet forums. It sounds very Batmobile-y to me. 🙂 Don't get me wrong... I'd LOVE IT if the real APG-73 with properly integrated MSI had this capability and it was simulated in DCS (it seems simple enough, in theory, for the radar, datalink, MC, etc. to 'talk' to each other in this way), but is this actually documented anywhere that's accessible to the team that is intentionally avoiding any use of classified resources?

We don't know what documentation is available to ED, and it is certainly more than just Distribution A (Public Release) otherwise nearly none of DCS would be able to be modeled, so it's hard to say. How MSI works can be found online, just depends if it is included in ED's library of special access or not. It would be really handy if ED was able to let us know what resources they do have available so the community would know what can or cannot be referenced (not posted) for use in DCS.


Edited by MARLAN_
clarify referenced

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

We don't know what documentation is available to ED, and it is certainly more than just Distribution A (Public Release) otherwise nearly none of DCS would be able to be modeled, so it's hard to say. How MSI works can be found online, just depends if it is included in ED's library of special access or not. It would be really handy if ED was able to let us know what resources they do have available so the community would know what can or cannot be referenced for use in DCS.

Fair enough... good thoughts. 👍

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, norman99 said:

In a typical DCS server where everyone just charges head first into a fight, yes, getting a missile off at 40K & M1.6 will normally beat someone trying to do the same at 30K & M1.0.

But in the real world, self preservation is the priority, so defensive manoeuvring after launch/pitbull is the norm. This will almost always lead to trashed initial shots, and reattacks at progressively shorter ranges. This is where the superior SA provided by the Hornet avionics gives it a substantial advantage.

 

 

I think it's more than a DCS thing. Every air superiority focused aircraft since the teen series has tried to surpass their kinematic performance (ie supercruise and supersonic maneuverability). Speed also isn't only an offensive tool, it's defensive as well. Being able to turn and run at Mach 2 after you launch your datalink guided missile is very good self preservation. Or you could have high speed aircraft waiting a few tens of miles away from the fight that rush in at targets of opportunity. Going head on is never the best bet, it's a last resort that you take when you don't have other options.

Hornet DL targeting would be a huge advantage over the F-16, but it's not present in DCS so there isn't much to say about it in the context of the sim.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is a 1v1 BVR fight then I think I'd rather have the Viper. It can defend against an MRM more efficiently. And after defeating an MRM shot the F-16 is going to have an easier time getting back to an offensive position to take another shot.

But if this is anything other than 1v1 then I would surly take the Hornet as it carries about twice as many AA missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 14 Stunden schrieb norman99:

In a typical DCS server where everyone just charges head first into a fight, yes, getting a missile off at 40K & M1.6 will normally beat someone trying to do the same at 30K & M1.0.

But in the real world, self preservation is the priority, so defensive manoeuvring after launch/pitbull is the norm. This will almost always lead to trashed initial shots, and reattacks at progressively shorter ranges. This is where the superior SA provided by the Hornet avionics gives it a substantial advantage.

For example, with correctly functioning MSI, in a Hornet you can designate the datalink return 20nm at you 6 o’clock as the L&S target. TWS AUTO will center the scan volume on this target, or attempt to if outside the radar coverage. Once designated, a break into the target to get it just into the radar scan (which TWS AUTO will have set perfectly), one sweep to get a radar track, immediate FOX 3, and another break to turn cold again.  All this can happen to quickly for the bandit to respond, and without any button pressing from the turn in. When both aircraft are down at 20K and below M1.0 on the first or second reattack, (which is where BVR fights are likely to end up if both sides fly realistically), this ability gives the Hornet a huge advantage. It enables valid hi Pk shots whilst keeping the aircraft safe and out of the bandits WEZ.

Of course if we never get a complete MSI simulation, this won’t be possible, but🤞.

The Viper avionics simply don’t have this level of integration with other onboard and off board sensors so in BVR, it’s a bit of a one trick pony. Granted, for typical DCS servers, this trick is usually sufficient.

 

 

It is simply too new, and with the newer 120s that can be launched via datalink, this is probably not really depending on MSI.

The Vipers HSD and Link 16 enable you to do the same just manually, but... In DCS, you are a lone wolf and in real life it is more important how you play as a team.

However, if it works and how it works is most probably classified. Even public documents might be wrong on that, nobody really knows and those who know are not allowed to tell.

There are only nuances between the 16 and the 18 in terms of SA, nothing that would be an instant game changer. The Hornet has a lot of tools, that's true. But it doesn't have a tool to completely rule the Viper. And when it comes to SEAD, nothing beats the HTS. Different fighters, different roles. Both were build to fight MiGs and Sukhois, and the fact that there is the discussion of how they perform against each other is directly related to the lack of adversaries on the red side with a similar fidelity. The Jeff is the only exception, even the MiG-29S and the J-11 are not really a match against the 16 or 18, let alone the Tomcat that would be a more suitable adversary in the time frame.

The Viper came a long way from its light weight fighter program, but those are its roots. It was never meant for BVR since the USAF has the F-15 for that role. It can fill that role but is more needed in the SEAD role, supporting ground troops and support in the CAP role- for about half the cost of other airframes.

The F/A-18 however had to be a jack of all trades, replacing everything from the F-14 in the fleet defense role to fighter bombers and even do anti ship. The navy had to give up their Tomcats, which left a deep hole that was not filled with the old hornet but with the new Super Hornet.

Neither airframe was built as an air superiority fighter, and both have their shortcomings in that role. They can carry 120s, and have a capable radar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a Hornet is running cold from a Viper it's already lost the fight, regardless of not having to take 1-2 seconds after a 180 turn to bug the Viper manually before launching on it and turning cold again. Bizarre scenario to use to show the usefulness of the hypothetical capabilities of MSI.

I always find these discussions that toe the line between classified/unclassified capabilities to be pretty pointless. Sure, maybe the Hornet in 2007 could shoot at a datalinked target without using it's own radar. It's implied in some documents that were leaked. For all you know, the Viper could do the exact same thing, but the documents showing that weren't leaked.

Just stick to the unambiguous public stuff, or stuff you can find out yourself with CFD and whatnot. Better for everybody.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2022 at 1:36 PM, Exorcet said:

 

The Hornet is known for being short legged. 

 

Indeed. Though, for what it's worth, in a fascinating interview with career-Legacy-Hornet-Driver for the USMC (Louis Gundlach), he said something to the tune of, "The Hornet is short-legged for carrier ops." Here's an excerpt: 

What is the biggest myth about the Hornet?
“Around the aircraft carrier the Legacy Hornet could have used more gas, but compared to other land-based fighters, the Hornet had more fuel endurance. When fighting against F-16s, AV-8Bs, and F-5s we would have gas left over when those aircraft were “Bingo” (low enough fuel that they had to head home). This was often after flying farther to the training range and having farther to fly home.”


Edited by wilbur81
  • Like 1

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your required fuel reserve required for recovery on a carrier is higher than on the field, which is probably what they mean when they're talking about that.

I'm not surprised that the F/A-18C in real life has more fuel, it's also the same in DCS, I've only tested F-16C vs. F/A-18C, but the F/A-18C has significantly more range & endurance than the F-16C.

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

Your required fuel reserve required for recovery on a carrier is higher than on the field, which is probably what they mean when they're talking about that.

 

Indeed. He talks about the Marshall Stack and need for the timing fuel reserve requirements for such a small, dynamic 'floating-airfield' that just aren't as much of a factor shore-based.


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wilbur81 said:

Indeed. He talks about the Marshall Stack and need for the timing fuel reserve requirements for such a small, dynamic 'floating-airfield' that just aren't as much of a factor shore-based.

 

For sure! Although I would imagine it's probably balanced out by the fact the carrier could probably often be in a more advantageous and possible closer position than the field assuming combat operations.

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Indeed. Though, for what it's worth, in a fascinating interview with career-Legacy-Hornet-Driver for the USMC (Louis Gundlach), he said something to the tune of, "The Hornet is short-legged for carrier ops." Here's an excerpt: 

What is the biggest myth about the Hornet?
“Around the aircraft carrier the Legacy Hornet could have used more gas, but compared to other land-based fighters, the Hornet had more fuel endurance. When fighting against F-16s, AV-8Bs, and F-5s we would have gas left over when those aircraft were “Bingo” (low enough fuel that they had to head home). This was often after flying farther to the training range and having farther to fly home.”

 

Yeah with the FM revision this needs to be looked at again in DCS. With the old FM the F-16 was vastly more fuel efficient and had much better range than the Hornet. The dogfight FM fix dropped range, but stores are too draggy right now.

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

For sure! Although I would imagine it's probably balanced out by the fact the carrier could probably often be in a more advantageous and possible closer position than the field assuming combat operations.

Maybe for a low intensity conflict. In a peer war the carrier is going to have to be many many miles away to avoid anti ship missiles.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...