F-16 or F-18?

[wilbur81]

On 3/1/2025 at 8:39 AM, Raviel29 said:

don't care

Doesn't matter whether "you care" or not... you can still mount a TGP on the Hornet's centerline pylon with excellent results.

[Raviel29]

On 3/5/2025 at 2:14 PM, wilbur81 said:

Doesn't matter whether "you care" or not... you can still mount a TGP on the Hornet's centerline pylon with excellent results.

The lack of an internal fuel tank indeed limits operational range and endurance. While this can be compensated by mounting external fuel tanks on the wing pylons, this is far from an ideal solution, especially for air-to-ground missions.

First, the F/A-18 Hornet, compared to aircraft like the F-15E Strike Eagle or F-16C Block 50/52, has a more limited operational range due to its smaller internal fuel capacity. In strike missions, where carrying a diverse payload is crucial (JDAM, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-154 JSOW, or GBU-24 Paveway III), external tanks occupy valuable hardpoints. This means fewer bombs, fewer anti-radiation missiles, and ultimately reduced operational flexibility.

Second, external fuel tanks increase aerodynamic drag and reduce maneuverability, which is problematic in dynamic combat environments. For example, during operations over Iraq and Syria, F/A-18s often carried additional fuel tanks, forcing earlier in-flight refueling or restricting available weapon loadouts.

For air-to-air  missions, this trade-off is somewhat acceptable since the aircraft doesn’t require as many hardpoints for weapons, and extended range can enhance  (CAP) endurance. However, in strike missions, this setup is simply inefficient.

In conclusion – theory is one thing, but real combat operations show that the lack of an internal fuel tank forces compromises that result in either reduced range or a reduced weapons payload. You can argue around it all you want, but physics and operational limitations of the F/A-18 cannot be ignored

[Tenkom]

17 hours ago, Raviel29 said:

The lack of an internal fuel tank indeed limits operational range and endurance. While this can be compensated by mounting external fuel tanks on the wing pylons, this is far from an ideal solution, especially for air-to-ground missions.

First, the F/A-18 Hornet, compared to aircraft like the F-15E Strike Eagle or F-16C Block 50/52, has a more limited operational range due to its smaller internal fuel capacity. In strike missions, where carrying a diverse payload is crucial (JDAM, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-154 JSOW, or GBU-24 Paveway III), external tanks occupy valuable hardpoints. This means fewer bombs, fewer anti-radiation missiles, and ultimately reduced operational flexibility.

Second, external fuel tanks increase aerodynamic drag and reduce maneuverability, which is problematic in dynamic combat environments. For example, during operations over Iraq and Syria, F/A-18s often carried additional fuel tanks, forcing earlier in-flight refueling or restricting available weapon loadouts.

For air-to-air  missions, this trade-off is somewhat acceptable since the aircraft doesn’t require as many hardpoints for weapons, and extended range can enhance  (CAP) endurance. However, in strike missions, this setup is simply inefficient.

In conclusion – theory is one thing, but real combat operations show that the lack of an internal fuel tank forces compromises that result in either reduced range or a reduced weapons payload. You can argue around it all you want, but physics and operational limitations of the F/A-18 cannot be ignored

I don't see your point. Everything is a compromise. You choose your loadout based on the situation. 

If you don't need the range then centerline FLIR is the obvious choice. You gain an amraam and the TGP is in a much better position.
If you do then you go with a centerline tank.

There are no worms. You simply pick the loadout that suits the situation.
 

[wilbur81]

On 3/15/2025 at 11:12 AM, Raviel29 said:

The lack of an internal fuel tank ....real combat operations show that the lack of an internal fuel tank...

You're speaking nonsense. The Hornet has multiple internal fuel tanks, along with every other aircraft ever designed.  Additionally, Vipers (along with Hornets) almost never deploy on combat missions without external tanks. There are anecdotes out there that speak of Viper squadrons that essentially never take off the two external wing-tanks.

[dscalora]

On 7/18/2024 at 4:30 AM, jimblue74 said:

In your opinion, is it easier to learn the F-16 or F-18 form? Obviously the issue of landing on an aircraft carrier is separate.

Strike Eagle!!