F-18 beaten by F-16 in agressor exercises, just like when they went up against German MIG-29s. True, though, if you're fighting export F-16s the F-18 is a good enough missile platform, but plane to plane, late model F-16s can carry AIM-120 too, have similar electronic capabilities, and much higher flight performance. That's even if no one decides to use the F100-229A. A MIG-29 using modern Western avionics and weapons would be bad news for either, since its flight performance is supposedly even higher than an F-16. As built, of course, avionics and fire control have some severe limitations. And it isn't especially long ranged.

The German AF recently ran its 29's against Hornets. It was a passing out parade for the 29's as the Germans are retiring them. The USAF commander said that the 29's with German pilots had the upper hand and they had earnt new found respect for the plane. I'll drag out the article and give refs for it, but it will be about 2 weeks (once I return from this location)

I'll also state that a developed F-17, such as Northrop's F-18L concept, or even the original P530 Cobra design, would have been much better offerings for everyone except the U.S. Navy (who should have just bought more F-14s anyway). It would have been able to have been quite a bit lighter, lacking all of the naval modifications and black boxes of the F-18, additionally saving the money spent on all of that reengineering, which would also have made the design much less expensive. In fact it would have been in the same class as the F-16, with similar flight performance and mission capability, but twin-engined and easily able to carry BVR missiles from the beginning.

What profile? Not doubting that F16s have beaten F18s in an Agressor role but they have beaten F15,F14 and most other aircraft. What a pointless analogy. Agressors take on different simulated capability ranging from simlpe day VFR Mig21 to the top of the spectrum, Red BVR capable interceptor. An bombed up F18, with AMRAAM, a very useful capability. A common Aggressor tactic is to attack a gorilla package with M1+ diving attacks from high altitude, a la Mig21 Vietnam, with a quick simulated Atoll attack. If the Blue escorts aren't awake-F15, F14-there is attrition from within the package. This generally happens on the first week of a Red Flag when complexity versus proficiency high v low! When F18s bomb trucks within the package, their AMRAAM capability has saved the package on numerous occassions when EGO drivers etc caught with their pants down. The F18 software has permitted continuous upgrading and the F17 reference surely just academic? RAAF F18's have gone from A models to an upgraded capability that will see them cruise missile armed, AMRAAM/ASRAAM (HMS too) defended, data linked to AWACS with the latest US ECM gear. This represents a very good capability that enables F18 to survive a complete fighter generation without block obsolescence. Almost 30 years of credible fighter cpability has been afforded F18. This is not possible with an aircraft such as the Mig29. Consider Malaysia's purchase of the 29-30 years of fighter capability-not likely! They buy 29, then SU27 or Super Hornet, then by 2015 they a facing the new fighter generation. The RMAF has gone from F5 to 29 to Super Hornet & SU27 and then in about 2020 will look at the new generation. RAAF replaces Mirage with Hornet, the amazingly updatable Hornet survives a fighter generation and is replaced by the next generation of fighter-JSF I presume. Mig29 a Cold War relic. At best a point defence interceptor, short range tactical fighter, with at best, an ad hoc ground attack capability. To Westernise it's avionics a tokenism ; expensive and more for maintenance and offering limited capability, as opposed to the purchase of a Western off the shelf fighter. A good point defence tactic of the 29, I have seen eclipsed by the F18 is the following- in excercise launch the defending alert jets, generally a pair or a four ship, followed by single. The pair or section breaks up the incoming attack. The single is AMRAAM laden, and on departure Viking climbs to the mid levels and stooges at very, very low speed-configured dirty. The strikers or hopefully, courtesy of the launching fighters or CAPS, leakers tend to ignore the single at higher altitude at their own peril. The single on occassion, loitering at very low speed, may not be detected by the Doppler radars of the attackers. FA18 has been an outstanding evolution. A very capable fighter bomber, role specific not the best, but in overall capability hard to beat-consider cost and maintenance.

661Knots wrote: >>What profile? DACT. >>Not doubting that F16s have beaten F18s in an Agressor role but they have beaten F15,F14 and most other aircraft. What a pointless analogy. Not entirely, it's just too general. The flight performance of the F-16 and F-15 is much higher than the F-18, the F-17 would have been a much closer match. The F-18 is pretty close to the F-14 in performance, has an edge in maneuverability but falls behind in a straight line once transonic speeds are reached. An updated F-14 with 35,000lb thrust engines, as proposed for the past ~15 years, would wipe the floor with it as far as BVR or ACM was concerned. The Navy needs the longest-ranged, heaviest load-carrying aircraft with the longest-ranged radar capability possible that can still come out on top in a knife-fight. A combination long-ranged defensive interceptor/BVR launch platform and self-escorting strike bomber. Anything less than that is a detriment to the effectiveness of a carrier battle group. >>An bombed up F18, with AMRAAM, a very useful capability. [...] When F18s bomb trucks within the package, their AMRAAM capability has saved the package on numerous occassions when EGO drivers etc caught with their pants down. I'm not arguing that. I don't think the F-18 is a terrible aircraft by any means, in fact I consider it a pretty effective one--just not as all-round capable as its three stablemates, nor its original F-17 incarnation. I think it _is_ too much a compromise for a situation (U.S. Navy multirole Tomcat alternative) that was never genuinely needed. I am also not trying to dump on the RAAF's best fighter. A lighter, less structurally complicated/weighted down version of the F-17 would have been a much better choice for the customers (like Australia and Canada) that are limited to using an aircraft in the light/medium multirole category. It would not have needed performance-reducing naval modifications and could have been equipped at a similar level to the F-18. Northrop did a study on just such an aircraft. It would have had a top speed of Mach 2.1 (vs. 1.8) with flight performance in other areas improved by roughly the same margin, and would have carried a similar ordnance load. Since the F-18 was already comming off the production line in quantity it was never built.

If we talk alpha, the energy circle and less 350kts the F18 HAS SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE. >350kts I would turn with all bar the F16. The F14 is, has and always will be a bloody great Turkey in a turning fight. A cold war relic that needs a pole put up it's bum and stuck out the front of Naval Air Stations. The F17 would have been the F5 of the 90's. Obsolete by now but you would have been happy quoting unrealistic and unusable performance figures for combat ops? I asked for clarification as to when, where and how F16 mauls F18 consistantly and hinted at what profile. You said DACT. Vague answer and absolute rubbish. Let us stick to the one contentious issue-when, where and how does F16 consistantly maul the F18?

Ah--no. >>If we talk alpha, the energy circle and less 350kts the F18 HAS SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE. At 350kts? I wouldn't want to be caught anwhere near that slow if someone was planning on shooting at me. Alpha? The F-14 has significant high-angle capability, it has to, it still needs to be able to land even if the wings are fully swept. I don't have the figures offhand but I'll see if I can dig them up, I'll certainly not be posting any more "quick and dirty" summaries on this thread. >>The F14 is, has and always will be a bloody great Turkey in a turning fight. A cold war relic that needs a pole put up it's bum and stuck out the front of Naval Air Stations. The F-14 is not anywhere near _that_ limited, even the underpowered early models. It ain't an F-4. And it never was updated, as it should have been. That's the point. Aerodynamic improvements were proposed by Grumman back at the beginning of the '90s. With F-100-229A or F-119 engines, or even if the 30,000lb improved TF-30 variants had originally been available, vs. the F-18--or much of anything else--it wouldn't have _needed_ to get into a turning fight. >>The F17 would have been the F5 of the 90's. Obsolete by now but you would have been happy quoting unrealistic and unusable performance figures for combat ops? The F-17 could have been developed into a better F-18 of the '80s. Northrop already had a proposal to do just that. All of the useful equipment with none of the dead weight = significantly improved performance. The Navy wouldn't have needed it, but could have bought a few as agressors just to back production, it could have been exported, being somewhat longer-ranged than the F-16 with more sophisticated (BVR) radar but otherwise comparable. If you want to quote useless and unuseable performance figures, the Hornet isn't even supersonic with anything under the wings, is difficult to get to its rated service ceiling in clean condition, and even the E/F can't get closer than maybe 2/3 the combat radius of the F-14 and then with only with half the ordnance load (needs to carry underwing fuel to do it).

Displaying a high level of ignorance Wolf. There are some advantages of a low speed fight-in the case of a Hornet with ASRAAM/HMS you can point the nose and shoot near anywhere in the circle within a few seconds. Slow is not always a good situation, but depending on the fight, the numbers involved and the adversary, can be decisive. Back to the bone of contention-what fantasy land do F16's continually defeat F18?

>>Displaying a high level of ignorance Wolf. Whatever you say, Six-sixty-one. >>There are some advantages of a low speed fight-in the case of a Hornet with ASRAAM/HMS you can point the nose and shoot near anywhere in the circle within a few seconds. With >90° off-boresight AAMs and HMS I will have to submit that low speed turning performance is quite a bit less important than with 3rd generation ~30° look-angle weapons. You can just turn your head--to the extent that the difference between the turning performance of an F-14 and F-18 is likely to be worth a lot less. At any rate I'm not arguing that the extant F-14 models can't be beaten by the Hornet particularly in a low-speed turning engagement--which the Tomcat driver would be stupid to get into in the first place. What I am asserting is that the Hornet was the wrong plane to operate off Navy carriers. Short on range and throw-weight, very mediocre for power projection. The F-14 is a much better strike, interceptor, and recon aircraft. If F-18 funds had been spent on Tomcat upgrades, it could have been a further improved knife-fighter too. A land based Hornet equivalent that was a metric ton lighter, with strengthened wings, and resultant benefits in wing loading and thrust/weight ratio without needing to be "embiggened" (like the E/F) would have been a better alternative for all foreign Hornet operators. >>Back to the bone of contention Yes. Like I said, DACT--WVR ACM exercises where the F-16 has a higher T/W ratio, better acceleration, significantly higher climb rate and ceiling, higher instantaneous and sustained turn rates, and better transonic performance. These include aggressor excercises, and also flying against USAF and other F-16s. I'll have to find the references. (If I don't have time to do so, you can of course consider the argument withdrawn for lack of support.) Also firsthand discussion with a USN crewman who complained that they always get their tails handed to them by F-16s in simulated dogfights, but I'll readily admit I don't have a signed and notorized written statement to that effect.