F-15E vs. F-18C

[Gwalker99]

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Somewhat, but major parts are still WIP, and much of the training is wrong, because it was made before the fixes. I'd wait.

what about F16?

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, Gwalker99 said:

what about F16?

 

Lovely plane.

 

I'll be using them as target drones in my F-15E. 

[Miro]

For those who know more than me: F-15E vs F-16C, which one is faster and accelerates better at 1000ft-10000ft, 10k ft - 20k ft, 20k ft - 36k ft, 36k ft and above?

[Nahen]

Faster is F-15, but better accelerate on lower altitude mby have F/A-18. Thrust to Weight ratio for F/A-18 is 0.96 for F-15E is 0.93 - very similar.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Nahen

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Miro said:

For those who know more than me: F-15E vs F-16C, which one is faster and accelerates better at 1000ft-10000ft, 10k ft - 20k ft, 20k ft - 36k ft, 36k ft and above?

The F-16 is a bit faster when the E has CFT's, but they're pretty close. It looks like the gap opens up as altitude increases.

[Nahen]

1 hour ago, Miro said:

For those who know more than me: F-15E vs F-16C, which one is faster and accelerates better at 1000ft-10000ft, 10k ft - 20k ft, 20k ft - 36k ft, 36k ft and above?

Well, in the subject of F-15E vs F / A-18 there was a question about the F-16 Well, the F-16 accelerates much faster than the F-15 in principle in all conditions. But beyond the lowest altitude range, the higher it gets, the more it lags behind the speed it reaches. In fact, from 10,000 feet and above, the F-15E achieves higher speeds up to the maximum altitude, where it is faster by almost 500 km/h. Of course, everything again depends on the configuration, the amount of armament and everything that affects aerodynamic drag and reduces the thrust to weight ratio.

[Exorcet]

8 minutes ago, Nahen said:

F-16 accelerates much faster than the F-15 in principle in all conditions.

It doesn't. In general they are close in performance. The Eagle can carry a lot more though, so it gets penalized when heavily loaded.

[Nahen]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

It doesn't. In general they are close in performance. The Eagle can carry a lot more though, so it gets penalized when heavily loaded.

The F-16 has much more excess power than the F-15 of all versions. That's why it accelerates so much faster.

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Nahen said:

The F-16 has much more excess power than the F-15 of all versions. That's why it accelerates so much faster.

The F-16 isn't faster than the F-15 according to manuals, they have about the same acceleration. Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.7 is about 170 seconds for both at 40000 ft with a comparable AA loadout. The manuals for each plane displays acceleration slightly differently so it's hard to get an exact comparison, but the F-15C and F-16C are basically equals, it's not like the gap between 16 and 18 where one can say that the F-16 is hands down superior in acceleration. The Strike Eagle's performance depends on payload but the 229's help it overcome the drag and weight penalty of the CFT's and remain competitive.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Exorcet

[Rex]

If I had to choose between the DCS F18 and the upcoming F15E, I would sell plasma until I couldn't stand in order to buy both.

[Nahen]

12 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The F-16 isn't faster than the F-15 according to manuals, they have about the same acceleration. Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.7 is about 170 seconds for both at 40000 ft with a comparable AA loadout. The manuals for each plane displays acceleration slightly differently so it's hard to get an exact comparison, but the F-15C and F-16C are basically equals, it's not like the gap between 16 and 18 where one can say that the F-16 is hands down superior in acceleration. The Strike Eagle's performance depends on payload but the 229's help it overcome the drag and weight penalty of the CFT's and remain competitive.

 

Acceleration in this case is determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio and nothing else.
And as if you didn't curve by reality:
on "empty"
For F-15E---0.93
For F-16---1.09
With an average take-off weight and 50% fuel:
F-15E --- 1.1
F-16C --- 1.24
Both are powered by the same motors:
F-15E:
2 × F100-PW-229, thrust: 17,800 lb dry (79 kN); 29,160 lb (129.7 kN) with afterburner each;
F-16C Block 52:
1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 for Block 52 aircraft, 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry and 29,160 lbf (129.7 kN) with afterburner.)

It's just that the F-15E weighs 14,379 kg empty, and the F-16C 8,573 kg.

So you can do whatever you want but you can't cheat physics.

 

And finally - yes the F-15E is faster. What I wrote about is: able to achieve much higher speeds, with the increase in ceiling the advantage in speed increases. But still the F-16 will accelerate faster until it reaches its top speed and then eventually the F-15E will catch up and overtake it due to the higher top speed.

Therefore, the F-16 in maneuvering combat should, assuming that both machines have equally good pilots, win every skirmish. It recovers energy much faster, has much less inertia, and has a much higher so-called "roll rate" - which is not without significance in maneuver combat.

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, Nahen said:

Acceleration in this case is determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio and nothing else.

No, it's the thrust-drag to weight ratio.

3 hours ago, Nahen said:

 

And as if you didn't curve by reality:
on "empty"
For F-15E---0.93
For F-16---1.09

With an average take-off weight and 50% fuel:
F-15E --- 1.1
F-16C --- 1.24

These numbers don't make sense.

3 hours ago, Nahen said:

 

 

 

Both are powered by the same motors:
F-15E:
2 × F100-PW-229, thrust: 17,800 lb dry (79 kN); 29,160 lb (129.7 kN) with afterburner each;
F-16C Block 52:
1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 for Block 52 aircraft, 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry and 29,160 lbf (129.7 kN) with afterburner.)

It's just that the F-15E weighs 14,379 kg empty, and the F-16C 8,573 kg.

So you can do whatever you want but you can't cheat physics.

You didn't use physics, you ignored over half the math by leaving out drag and dynamic thrust.

3 hours ago, Nahen said:

 

And finally - yes the F-15E is faster. What I wrote about is: able to achieve much higher speeds, with the increase in ceiling the advantage in speed increases. But still the F-16 will accelerate faster until it reaches its top speed and then eventually the F-15E will catch up and overtake it due to the higher top speed.

Therefore, the F-16 in maneuvering combat should, assuming that both machines have equally good pilots, win every skirmish. It recovers energy much faster, has much less inertia, and has a much higher so-called "roll rate" - which is not without significance in maneuver combat.

I looked up the charts. The F-16 doesn't accelerate faster.

[henshao]

DCS F-16C uses the -129 I believe, it is a little quicker than the -229 version

[Nahen]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

No, it's the thrust-drag to weight ratio.

These numbers don't make sense.

You didn't use physics, you ignored over half the math by leaving out drag and dynamic thrust.

I looked up the charts. The F-16 doesn't accelerate faster.

I didn't use physics... Okay, then explain to me how an object with a smaller frontal cross-section, posing less aerodynamic resistance and having a similar mass and subjected to a similar driving force can accelerate slower in a medium that resists air?
Apart from the fact that the F-15 has less force to weight,

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Nahen said:

I didn't use physics... Okay, then explain to me how an object with a smaller frontal cross-section, posing less aerodynamic resistance and having a similar mass and subjected to a similar driving force can accelerate slower in a medium that resists air?
Apart from the fact that the F-15 has less force to weight,

You don't seem to understand that I'm not guessing or making estimates. I am giving you the measured accelerations for both planes. The only error is a small one from trying to figure out what exactly is a fair comparison when the aircraft manuals have different formats between them.

As for your physics, you left out half of the math. TWR barely means anything when drag and dynamic thrust aren't accounted for. And you can't account for drag by saying "the F-16 is smaller" the numbers matter. Even your TWR numbers are weird because first, your 50% planes are somehow better than empty, and second what is average takeoff weight and why is it relevant? The Strike Eagle's payload is huge. The "average" could be much more than a typical F-16 payload, which would skew the comparison.

[Nahen]

15 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

You don't seem to understand that I'm not guessing or making estimates. I am giving you the measured accelerations for both planes. The only error is a small one from trying to figure out what exactly is a fair comparison when the aircraft manuals have different formats between them.

As for your physics, you left out half of the math. TWR barely means anything when drag and dynamic thrust aren't accounted for. And you can't account for drag by saying "the F-16 is smaller" the numbers matter. Even your TWR numbers are weird because first, your 50% planes are somehow better than empty, and second what is average takeoff weight and why is it relevant? The Strike Eagle's payload is huge. The "average" could be much more than a typical F-16 payload, which would skew the comparison.

Physics is very concrete,  issue letely depend on mass, speed, etc. The coefficient of air resistance depends on many factors. And it matters when considering any movement in the air. Hence the frontal crossection matters, the mass - and more precisely the resulting inertia - matters as well as the force needed to give any movement - in this case, the thrust of the engines.

The 50% fuel F-16 and the 50% fuel F-15 differ in mass, cross-sectional area, inertia due to mass and acceleration.

You gave values at 40,000 feet... did you notice what I wrote? The higher you go, the better the performance of the F-15. Why? Because, above all, the thinner the air, the less important is the aerodynamic resistance - frontal crossection. Therefore, as I wrote on low ceilings, the F-16 accelerates much better. Do you understand the difference between resistance at 40,000 and say 10,000 feet? This is just PHYSICS. Besides, what is the maximum speed of the F-16 and the F-15 at these 40,000? Can you pass? Because so far everything you've given with "numbers" coincides with what I wrote.

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

Physics is very concrete,  issue letely depend on mass, speed, etc. The coefficient of air resistance depends on many factors. And it matters when considering any movement in the air. Hence the frontal crossection matters, the mass - and more precisely the resulting inertia - matters as well as the force needed to give any movement - in this case, the thrust of the engines.

The 50% fuel F-16 and the 50% fuel F-15 differ in mass, cross-sectional area, inertia due to mass and acceleration.

You gave values at 40,000 feet... did you notice what I wrote? The higher you go, the better the performance of the F-15. Why? Because, above all, the thinner the air, the less important is the aerodynamic resistance - frontal crossection. Therefore, as I wrote on low ceilings, the F-16 accelerates much better. Do you understand the difference between resistance at 40,000 and say 10,000 feet? This is just PHYSICS. Besides, what is the maximum speed of the F-16 and the F-15 at these 40,000? Can you pass? Because so far everything you've given with "numbers" coincides with what I wrote.

It's hard to understand what you're trying to say at this point. I'll just say again that you can't get accurate acceleration from TWR and you can't eyeball drag from the size of an airframe.

I mentioned 40,000 ft because the Eagle charts only exist for 10,000 and 40,000 ft and at 10,000 you have structural limits to contend with. Acceleration is still pretty similar at the lower altitude though.

[GGTharos]

5 hours ago, Nahen said:

Physics is very concrete,  issue letely depend on mass, speed, etc. The coefficient of air resistance depends on many factors. And it matters when considering any movement in the air. Hence the frontal crossection matters, the mass - and more precisely the resulting inertia - matters as well as the force needed to give any movement - in this case, the thrust of the engines.

The 50% fuel F-16 and the 50% fuel F-15 differ in mass, cross-sectional area, inertia due to mass and acceleration.

You gave values at 40,000 feet... did you notice what I wrote? The higher you go, the better the performance of the F-15. Why? Because, above all, the thinner the air, the less important is the aerodynamic resistance - frontal crossection. Therefore, as I wrote on low ceilings, the F-16 accelerates much better. Do you understand the difference between resistance at 40,000 and say 10,000 feet? This is just PHYSICS. Besides, what is the maximum speed of the F-16 and the F-15 at these 40,000? Can you pass? Because so far everything you've given with "numbers" coincides with what I wrote.

If  you want to account for physics perhaps you could consider:

• The F-15's intake ramps will recover a lot more pressure at altitude compared to the F-16, so simple thrust to weight assumptions get thrown out of the window immediately.
• The F-16 can pack on plenty of drag.  You could compare them empty, but it's a worthless comparison since they wouldn't be in combat when empty anyway.
• The eagle isn't going to suffer as much from hauling air to air weapons compared to a viper

[henshao]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The F-15's intake ramps will recover a lot more pressure at altitude compared to the F-16, so simple thrust to weight assumptions get thrown out of the window immediately.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/09/28/bjorns-corner-supersonic-transport-revival-part-8/

The intake design on the F-15 has to be one of the most elegant aerodynamic solutions I've ever seen. The nodding ramps also function as a canard/leading edge flap for the lifting fuselage, and help control the center of lift shift from supersonic flight ala F-14 glove vanes

[Despayre]

On 11/20/2022 at 8:45 PM, Beamscanner said:

...<snip>

I guess speaking in generalities is a no no here and will get the armchair experts into a frenzy. 

 

I'm ok with it, but my armchair is kinda pissed at you.

[tusler]

According to the professionals I found this about F15E vs F18C

From:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basic-difference-s-between-F-15-Eagle-and-F-15E-Strike-Eagle#:~:text=What is the difference between,has a darker paint job.

 

 

Shari Williams

Professional aviatrix.Upvoted by

Tim Hibbetts

, F/A-18C pilotAuthor has 697 answers and 1.7M answer viewsUpdated Sep 5

Related

How does the F-15/F-16 compare to the F-18 in a dogfight?

Never flew the F-16 against the F-18. Like most fights it often comes down to experience. The F-15 can out turn the F-18 above 350 kts, the F-18 has an advantage below 350kts. Where the F-18 really suffers is drag and power. In the Eagle I never had a problem getting slow with a Hornet, I could fly my plane around 100kts and keep up with he Hornet, the advantage I enjoyed was power, even slow I could out climb and out power the Hornet. In more of an ACM environment, when we accelerated we could pick up 100kts in 3 sec or so, the Hornet would picked up around 60 kts, over time I would have the speed and power to exploit the vertical or out rate the Hornet. Now, if an Eagle pilot is not good at slow speed fights, they will lose to a good Hornet pilot….quickly. When I had about 700 hours in the Eagle I went out with my flight lead and we did a 2v2 with Hornets, after two longer range setups(35–40nm), we had enough gas to do a 2v2 visual butterfly setup(full up for both planes), with post merge kills. A fight that should in theory favor the Hornet. My flight lead died 5 seconds after the merge(he turned the wrong way). So I was left to fight 2 Hornets. The fight that transitioned from a close in turning fight, to a more expanded fight, a vertical fight and back to a turning fight many times over. I slowly worked my energy up, expanding the fight to get weapons separation, and shot one Hornet, then proceeded to kill the second one at the floor with the gun. I truly think they believed they had me dead to rights after my flight lead died. That there was no way they could lose. They were wrong. Good times!

[Alba57]

I think F/A-18C is a way better module in DCS in terms of fun. Several reasons for that:

1. Can operate both from land and from the carrier. More fun.

2. More variety of weapons/missions. The F/A-18C can perform SEAD missions with HARMs and Maverick missiles, and anti-ship missions with Harpoon missiles. The F-15E can't.

3. The F-15E doesn't "out-tech" the Hornet. Both birds are from the same era (4 generation) and their technological level and avionics are pretty similar, as well as their capabilities.

4. The Hornet is intended for one pilot, the Mudhen for pilot and WSO. So, the best way to fly the Mudhen, as happens with the Tomcat, is with a friend. But not everybody has a mate with the same schedules to fly with online. It seems that the Mudhen will have a AI WSO in the future, but it steals a big amount of the enjoyment, IMO. If you are going to fly solo most of the time because you don't have a mate to fly with regularly, it's better to fly a single-seat plane, again IMO.

5. The F-15E has more fuel and a bigger payload than the F/A-18C, and for sure that's great in real life, because the Mudhen can stay more time in patrol and perform deeper attacks than the Hornet and put a bigger amount of bombs in the target (although that's not so important with guided weapons), but... it's that really important in DCS? How many people actually fly 4-6 hours missions, like in real life? In DCS, most people fly missions that doesn't last more that one hour from take-off to landing. Maybe one and a half hour. Most of us have real-life obligations and usually can't spend more time with this hobby. And I don't think a lot of people perform missions in DCS that include to stay four hours patrolling a CAP or a kill box looking for a scud launcher of waiting for a tank or a fighter to show, like in real life. So much fuel is not really needed, usually. Also, the maps are not big enough to perform really long range strikes, even if someone wants to perform a mission that includes to fly hundreds of miles and several hours until reaching the target, and several hours to RTB.  

If anyone is hesitating between buying the Hornet of the Mudhen, I recommend the Hornet. 

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Alba57

[Exorcet]

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

I think F/A-18C is a way better module in DCS in terms of fun. Several reasons for that:

1. Can operate both from land and from the carrier. More fun.

Carrier is nice, but I've never really considered it a big deal. If I had the choice between two versions of the same plane, one Air Force and one Navy, I'd usually go Air Force. A busy land base can be as interesting as a boat, Air Force tends to have better HOTAS in my opinion, and the plane might be lighter without carrier gear.

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

2. More variety of weapons/missions. The F/A-18C can perform SEAD missions with HARMs and Maverick missiles, and anti-ship missions with Harpoon missiles. The F-15E can't.

I see people praise the variety of Hornet missions, and I understand why, but is Harpooning that much different from Mav's or JDAM? I feel like the only thing lacking from the Strike Eagle is HARM because I feel like it would be an amazing SEAD platform. Other than that, it has enough variety to feel pretty much as flexible as the Hornet unless you really happen to like a specific weapon like Harpoon.

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

3. The F-15E doesn't "out-tech" the Hornet. Both birds are from the same era (4 generation) and their technological level and avionics are pretty similar, as well as their capabilities.

They might be of the same generation but the Eagle is a bigger and more expensive plane and that comes with better avionics, especially the radar.

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

4. The Hornet is intended for one pilot, the Mudhen for pilot and WSO. So, the best way to fly the Mudhen, as happens with the Tomcat, is with a friend. But not everybody has a mate with the same schedules to fly with online. It seems that the Mudhen will have a AI WSO in the future, but it steals a big amount of the enjoyment, IMO. If you are going to fly solo most of the time because you don't have a mate to fly with regularly, it's better to fly a single-seat plane, again IMO.

The Strike Eagle's second seat is optional unlike the Tomcat. As far as DCS is concerned, it's a single seater, though you do have to carry around the penalties of the backseat.

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

5. The F-15E has more fuel and bigger payload than the F/A-18C, and for sure that's great in real life, because the Mudhen can stay more time in patrol and perform deeper attacks that the Hornet and put a bigger amount of bombs in the target (although that's not so important with guided weapons), but... it's that so important in DCS?How many people actually fly 4-6 hours missions, like in real life?

For me this is absolutely important. I hate unrealistically quick missions. They feel contrived and unrealistic. Having to manage fuel is fun, and huge maps (1000's of miles) are the most interesting for me.

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

 

In DCS, most people fly missions that doesn't last more that one hour from take-off to landing. Maybe one and a half hour. I don't think a lot of people perform missions in DCS that include to stay four hours patrolling a CAP or a kill box looking for a scud launcher of waiting for a tank or a fighter to show, like in real life. So much fuel is not needed, usually. Also, the maps are not big enough to perform really long range strikes, even if someone wants to perform a mission that includes to fly hundreds of miles and several hours until reaching the target, and several hours to RTB. 

It's more than just range. Endurance can play a part. I have a Hornet mission that involves flying under radar. It's impossible to do without AAR because of the reduced range from flying at a few hundred feet. The Strike Eagle could probably do it without refueling because of its greater fuel fraction and the ability to fly from land bases (an issue with carriers if you're being realistic is that they need to be really far from the front lines to avoid being destroyed - when flying a USN Hornet my carrier usually ends up at the very corner of the map).

I'd also suggest to people who haven't tried prolonged search missions to try them at least once. It's a lot of fun. Not knowing where or when the enemy will show up can add tension and keep you engaged. I've been perfectly content to fly CAP missions for hours without finding the enemy, because the entire time I was on alert looking for them.

39 minutes ago, Alba57 said:

If anyone is hesitating between buying the Hornet of the Mudhen, I recommend the Hornet. 

 

Objectively, I can't see the Hornet being a better purchase. Like 99% of cases it's going to come down to buyer's preference. The exception here being that the Hornet will be a more mature module with more content released. That's the only way I could suggest the Hornet over the Strike Eagle generally, if you want maturity and readily available content.

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, Alba57 said:

I think F/A-18C is a way better module in DCS in terms of fun. Several reasons for that:

1. Can operate both from land and from the carrier. More fun.

2. More variety of weapons/missions. The F/A-18C can perform SEAD missions with HARMs and Maverick missiles, and anti-ship missions with Harpoon missiles. The F-15E can't.

3. The F-15E doesn't "out-tech" the Hornet. Both birds are from the same era (4 generation) and their technological level and avionics are pretty similar, as well as their capabilities.

4. The Hornet is intended for one pilot, the Mudhen for pilot and WSO. So, the best way to fly the Mudhen, as happens with the Tomcat, is with a friend. But not everybody has a mate with the same schedules to fly with online. It seems that the Mudhen will have a AI WSO in the future, but it steals a big amount of the enjoyment, IMO. If you are going to fly solo most of the time because you don't have a mate to fly with regularly, it's better to fly a single-seat plane, again IMO.

5. The F-15E has more fuel and a bigger payload than the F/A-18C, and for sure that's great in real life, because the Mudhen can stay more time in patrol and perform deeper attacks than the Hornet and put a bigger amount of bombs in the target (although that's not so important with guided weapons), but... it's that really important in DCS? How many people actually fly 4-6 hours missions, like in real life? In DCS, most people fly missions that doesn't last more that one hour from take-off to landing. Maybe one and a half hour. I don't think a lot of people perform missions in DCS that include to stay four hours patrolling a CAP or a kill box looking for a scud launcher of waiting for a tank or a fighter to show, like in real life. So much fuel is not really needed, usually. Also, the maps are not big enough to perform really long range strikes, even if someone wants to perform a mission that includes to fly hundreds of miles and several hours until reaching the target, and several hours to RTB.  

If anyone is hesitating between buying the Hornet of the Mudhen, I recommend the Hornet. 

 

 

F-15E vs F/A-18C...

1 - The amount and variety of weapons taken A-G is basically the same. The differences are "cosmetic" and do not affect the capabilities of both planes at all - both will perform the same missions successfully using the weapons available to them.

2 - The amount of fuel taken and the longe of the flight is something that gives a huge advantage both in reality and in DCS - Even when learning how to use the module - you have more time to practice without the need to land and refuel again. One-hour missions? You mean take off from an aircraft carrier, do a circle 50 miles from it and land CASE3 which takes 3/4 of that time ? It probably takes an hour... well, I feel bad for Hornet pilots, since that's all they fly Normally, pilots flying from the ground as God commanded, not from some swaying boat, take off, fly a few hundred miles, do the job and land. It takes an average of 2-3 hours I think. I don't remember ever taking part in missions lasting less than about 3 hours. But it's probably because I fly the F-15C and I can afford it without refueling in the air for a flight lasting over 3 hours, including combat  

3 - One pilot... When I hear/read comparisons of the F-15E to the F-14 in terms of a two-person crew, I basically know right away that the person who writes/speaks has no idea about the F-15E

Edited February 19, 2023 by Nahen

[Spurts]

The Hornet has better standoff options: JSOW, HARM, Harpoon, SLAM, SLAM-ER.  AFAIK nothing on the F-15E module will have more standoff range than a Maverick or GBU-24 (both avail on Hornet as well).  That said, I am not a fan of those munitions in most cases, but you cannot say the loadouts are equivalent when only one has standoff capability.