I'm certain that the best F-16 pilot would be the best F-18 pilot simply by outrating the Super Hornet before losing air speed. The initial advantage the F-16 has is too great for pilots who understand fully well what they're doing with it. There's a fine reason the Air Force doesn't use F-18's instead of their old yet updated F-15's and F-16's.
Viper can accelerate thru a 9g sustained turn, at 400 kts., with a single engine. Hornet and Rhino cannot do that. As long as Viper stays above 400kts., the Hornet and Rhino will never catch the Viper. Turn and burn.
The Hornet is a bomber that can dogfight, and the Viper is a fighter that can bomb,,,,Still comes down to the pilot and the advantages of each plane in a dogfight....
At slow speed the F-18 has the advantage with higher angle of attack also known as single turn. At higher speed The F-16 has the advantage with more turning degrees per second also known as a 2 turn. It boils down to the pilot's skill at using the strengths of their jet and the weakness of their opponent's jet against them. The merge is important. The F-18 will attempt to out manouver the F-16 early and get it slow. The F-16 will want to stay fast and outrate the F-18 in a 2 circle fight.
The F16 was my favorite for a very long time but I have to say the F18 is the superior aircraft and the best multirole fighter/attack aircraft ever made. It's more versatile and just as aesthetically pleasing if not more so.
@@therealrobinc the strike eagle is definetly better at multirole but the f14???? The f14 was made with fleet defence in mind, not multirole, and thats why it was barely used for that role. The superhornet is better at multirole than the f14 easily
@@therealrobinccalling the f15 a multirole is a bit of a stretch of the term. The F15 E is basically a bomb/missile truck. It can do 2 things: bombing and BVR tasks. No SEAD, no CAS, no Anti-Ship. It is better at bombing than the F18? Surely. Is it better at AA BVR? Maybe. Can it do everything else that the F18 does? No. Pretty much the same for the F14, except is even more limited.
The F-18C has a better E/M diagram, which can be useful in BFM; however, the F-16 has more useful combat performance, IMHO. It’s ability to retain and gain energy at higher G-loads, is a huge advantage. Also, a combat loaded F-16 will break Mach easily, whereas a loaded F-18 will struggle. This is important for breaking contact. All of that said, being single-engine over hostile territory or 100s of miles away from a carrier, isn’t a good feeling.
The Viper it’s better plane for a plane vs plane combat, the F18 it’s better in air to ground missions, can operate in aircraft carriers and can flight with just one engine, but the F16 It’s faster, the combat radius it’s major and the turn rate it’s better. This is true, and every pilot of a F18 knows this fact, but the F18 can do a lot of things the F16 can’t.
@@mikebuck1897 The decision to adopt the F-35 is obviously a political one. The overblown & padded development costs for the F-35 meant that political pressure was brought to bear by the US upon its allies to adopt them to recoup the developmental expenditure and reduce per unit cost. In addition, non-allied but friendly countries also procure them to plug into US defence network & presumptuous extended umbrella protection. As a weapons platform & warbird design, the F-35 is overly reliant on its stealth sales pitch. Stealth while a good feature, is over-rated, expensive to maintain and NOT as decisive as promoted, just like how BVR missiles are over-rated. Stealth just reduces RCS. It doesn't make it invisible, just like how BVR missiles isn't invincible with 100% hit rate. The hubris with missiles is what led to Vietnam War era warbird designers excluding an onboard cannon when designing the F4 Phantom. And boy did they get a bloody nose when facing off MIGs with a tighter turn radius flown by USSR pilots. You send a warbird up to go against other warbirds. Otherwise why would you do so if you can just lob a missile and done with it, if one is so hung up on BVR? As a warbird in terms of thrust to weight ratio, payload, top speed, turn rate, etc, the F-35 is inferior to even the decades old F16. With updated avionics, helmet systems, radar, armaments, etc along with the latest combat software to operate combat drones alongside it, older warbirds can stand toe to toe and even overcome the ridiculously expensive to procure & maintain F-35. When fighting wars, one needs to consider operational costs as well, and older, higher performing warbirds like the F16 definitely makes more sense. The only reason why an inferior warbird like the F-35 is even considered & ultimately fielded is just to support & enrich the military-industrial complex that has the politicians in their pocket.
F16 is much more agile than the F18. The F16 turns and burns like no other and out accelerates the F18. It can maintain speed in a turn while the F18 loses tons of air speed in a turn. Maybe in BVR combat the F18 might have a slight advantage but not much. In a dog fight the F18 can not match the F16. Also not mentioned is the cockpit of the F16 is like a bubble giving the pilot a big advantage visually.
@c.san.8751 the block 3 is only just being built now. The F-16 can't get the nose around anywhere like the Hornet can. It'll out rate the hornet in a 2 circle fight. But if the viper gets slow it's dead
@@AJS86 My understanding is that they have already started delivery of the block 3. They have something like 70 or more already. I still believe that the F18 smokes the F16. F18 seems to be the most underrated of all jets the USA has yet seems so unbelievably capable. With latest block 3 enhancements, it becomes a 5th generation jet technology wise on a fourth gen platform. Hard to beat.
@@c.san.8751 you do realise there's a generation gap with the F-16 and a block 3 super? The F16 is a lot closer to the legacy hornet. Always was. Mid 70s design philosophy compared to an upgrade of a 90s design super hornet.
I am a huge fan of Navy Planes back to World War II, especially the Tomcat after nameless franchises, but I was able to pull off moves you could only imagine in the F16Viper. It sincerely fit like a glove when I mapped the controls in terms of Dogfighting and it can bomb too.
Remember the F-16 is an air superiority fighter since day one but the F-18 was designed as an attack aircraft with fighter capability operating on an aircraft carrier. Both planes can do dogfights with the F-16 has the upper hand being lighter and more maneuverable. But with an experienced fighter pilot at the controls of the F-18 it can be a dangerous adversary to the F-16! It all depends on the situation of the encounter, pilot's competency and aircraft mission profile.
What's sad about the F-18 is that its design lacked endurance that they've send another F-18 up just to fulfil the air tanker role. That drove up the wear & tear, as well as maintenance cost of the F-18 overall, effectively negating the maintenance hours reason why they can the F-14 Tomcat. The F-18 program was penny wise but pound foolish.
@@therealrobincyou're meaning the Super Hornets. The original classic Hornets were to operate in tandem with the F14. They replaced the A7,A6 and others.
Hey im sorry to sound stupid but I don’t understand UR Answer.. what is “aim-120 variant & AWACS Support.” & why wouldn’t U want that support.?? Thanks for helping me understand..
The F-16 is a slightly better dogfighter, but it does depend on the pilots and the situation. But if it's which is the better aircraft, then it's a very hard question. The main advantage of the F-18 is "multi-role capability". The F-16, at least when it was first designed, was just built for air-to-air combat. Its other abilities were added later. The F-18, right from the start, was designed for multi-role. It has air-to-air, air-to-ground, reconnaissance, can operate from an aircraft carrier and more. Not to mention it was designed for replacing several other aircraft. The Hornet is the workhorse. Although the F-16's abilities have grown over time, so has the F-18's. The multi-role capability and the fact is has 2 engines are why some countries, including Australia, chose it over the F-16 back in the 80's. The F-18 is so capable, that when it came time to replace it, they came up with the Super Hornet. All they had to do was modernize it for the 21st century.
Fights now days aren't fought visually any more, the F-18 would destroy the F-16 before it even came within the zone. The F-18 growler would see to that !
That's what Vietnam War era US warbird designers thought as well when they designed the F4 Phantoms. They thought missiles were superior and that guns were obsolete. They never included a cannon for the F4, and fighter pilots lost all dog fighting skills cos they were never taught them anymore. Boy did they get a bloody nose when facing off the Communist MiGs flown by USSR pilots, who were able to out turn the F4s. That's how Top Gun school came about. To teach the neglected art of aerial dogfighting. If you still have an onboard cannon after you've run out of missiles, you can still close in on your adversary and be in a fight while he's fleeing after exhausting all his missiles. It's ALWAYS a mistake to abandon any option that can deliver a credible, lethal response that can help you survive and win, over some new, fangled, shiny tech that will leave you dead in the water after they've been exhausted. While you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, boy does that knife come in handy after your adversary has run out of bullets and they are somehow in range, no? Those who ignore the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat it. Never subtract or give up any capability that covers all ranges of engagement, just because you're overly confident that a higher tech & more advanced weaponry has been deployed. KNOW the real & actual SCIENCE of weapons designs & their limitations. Why? Cos even fancy space age lasers are easily defeated by rain & fog.
@@therealrobinc Well, that does not mean much. The Ukraine war clearly shows that pilots do not want close visual range dogfights. Missiles were new during the Vietnam War, and if they did not work well, then maybe dogfights were necessary, but that time was long gone. Dogfights are optional. Pilots will avoid them today and no one will blame them for such a decision.
A lot of units are changing the engine out to a GE engine and as far as the MACH 2 speed well that all depends on how the aircraft is configured (wing tanks ex,) which drops its speed. Tt
Why do all the comparisons in the comment section come down to only one thing-- Dogfight? I consider a dogfight as optional. A pilot who has run out of missiles does not have to dogfight. The Ukraine war shows that no fighter pilot wants to dogfight by crossing the battle lines. All that maneuverability, pilot skill, etc., does not matter nowadays. Pilots will only shoot missiles and return home. Avionics, weapons, and situational awareness are more critical in such situations.
If we only speak of pure dogfighting capabilities Both basically carried the same kind of missiles, F16 is basically a rate fighter, but the F18 is a single circle fighter. F18 clobers the F16 at low speed, but F18 has difficulties gaining speed from low speed while the F16 is just a rocket. So it really depends how the pilots fight. Both are basically the same, just different fighting styles. I personally prefer the F18 because the gun is placed on the nose, making it easier to make lead shots even without radar locking the guy in front.
I am an engineer. I can't get " it depends on the pilot". Both are good old fighters. May be F16 cheaper and lower operating costs. Please compare f2000 last tranche vs gripen ng
Really? The F-18 is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. The F-16 is a fighter. The top speed of an F-18 is Mach 1.6 and the F-16 has a top speed of Mach 2.0. The F-16 can out turn the F-18 period.
Don't trust what you can find on the internet, a F-18 is faster, more advanced technologies and better jet, but less reliable. Nothing can justify the maintenance cost on a F18, the f16 was a much better operational jet.
@@BelleMorue F16 is an ego jet - can't deploy in out of area operations. Think Sea Harrier FRS1 in the Falklands. Much rather have a slower turning carrier-capable jet than a turn and burn which is nearly obsolete with BVR avionics. Just buy some F35B's and stop the discussion. There is a reason why the marines are going to keep the AV8B going - it can still account for itself in BVR and operate from unimproved short strips. F16 needs a runway - great with online arguments but in the real world of war you need a flexible expeditionary jet. I'm sure the National Guard in the US and some European nations will keep the F16 but 9G turns and afterburner only go so far in real wars.
Questions like this are meaningless. The 2 platforms are built for different jobs. To judge between the 2, you would have to strip away what makes them unique. So in conclusion its a stupid question.
they are not suposed to fight each other,but to acomplish missions together,....the f18 would be more of a bomber,...and the f16 as a flanker and assistance supporting ground forces.,.....maybe ,.....I hope so!!!!,....what can you expect after 4 beers and the next one waiting for the final battle.
Our country is vast and reaches into the arctic. We needed something with range, and two engines for safety. Not like I think the F16 has engine problems. We like the option of bombing the crap out of the enemy.
Anyway the F-16 is still an amazing Plane and the small Size of it make it more squshi i think if it comes to a gunfight. I dont know about the S Hornet if he has the same handling or not but i think handling in Aircombat is still one of the mostimportant things in an Airbattle.
I guess there are not that many F-16s.. Many NATO countries are going over to the F-35. They started same as Canada, with the original FA-18. As the various services went over to the F-35, they retired the F-18s. In order to keep those old F-18 up to nato specs. they all would have been installed with AESA radar. They can fire the whole NATO pack of weapons. I bet if you look around, you can find some of those upgraded F-18s. So, if you can't get the F-16s because there are not enough planes, then you could go to F-18s.
We even have morphing wings for the F-18. The idea is that the wings take the pressure by bending back. That would probably make it go faster if they actually worked. I guess it would make the aircraft faster. Anyway, they just bought the regular wings.
The decision to adopt the F-35 is obviously a political one. The overblown & padded development costs for the F-35 meant that political pressure was brought to bear by the US upon its allies to adopt them to recoup the developmental expenditure and reduce per unit cost. In addition, non-allied but friendly countries also procure them to plug into US defence network & presumptuous extended umbrella protection. As a weapons platform & warbird design, the F-35 is overly reliant on its stealth sales pitch. Stealth while a good feature, is over-rated, expensive to maintain and NOT as decisive as promoted, just like how BVR missiles are over-rated. Stealth just reduces RCS. It doesn't make it invisible, just like how BVR missiles isn't invincible with 100% hit rate. The hubris with missiles is what led to Vietnam War era warbird designers excluding an onboard cannon when designing the F4 Phantom. And boy did they get a bloody nose when facing off MIGs with a tighter turn radius flown by USSR pilots. You send a warbird up to go against other warbirds. Otherwise why would you do so if you can just lob a missile and done with it, if one is so hung up on BVR? As a warbird in terms of thrust to weight ratio, payload, top speed, turn rate, etc, the F-35 is inferior to even the decades old F16. With updated avionics, helmet systems, radar, armaments, etc along with the latest combat software to operate combat drones alongside it, older warbirds can stand toe to toe and even overcome the ridiculously expensive to procure & maintain F-35. When fighting wars, one needs to consider operational costs as well, and older, higher performing warbirds like the F16 definitely makes more sense. The only reason why an inferior warbird like the F-35 is even considered & ultimately fielded is just to support & enrich the military-industrial complex that has the politicians in their pocket.
I'm certain that the best F-16 pilot would be the best F-18 pilot simply by outrating the Super Hornet before losing air speed. The initial advantage the F-16 has is too great for pilots who understand fully well what they're doing with it. There's a fine reason the Air Force doesn't use F-18's instead of their old yet updated F-15's and F-16's.
instantaneous turn rate
F-16C Fighting Falcon 26 deg/sec
F/A-18C Hornet 18.5 deg/sec
F/A-18E Super Hornet 18.0 deg/sec
sustained turn rate
F-16C Fighting Falcon 18 deg/sec
F/A-18C Hornet 12.3 deg/sec
F/A-18E Super Hornet 11.6 deg/sec
The Hornet can get a higher alpha and would be better in a slow fight. If the F-16 pilot got slow the Hornet would win.
Instantaneous turn rate is not relevant. Sustained turn rate at fighting speed is. In a knife fight with equal pilots, the Viper is going to lose.
Viper can accelerate thru a 9g sustained turn, at 400 kts., with a single engine.
Hornet and Rhino cannot do that.
As long as Viper stays above 400kts., the Hornet and Rhino will never catch the Viper. Turn and burn.
Combat now is all about situational awareness. Who has the better avionics nowadays is the key.
Thanks for your comment
Radars, stealth and communication systems is what makes the difference today.
Nah
The Hornet is a bomber that can dogfight, and the Viper is a fighter that can bomb,,,,Still comes down to the pilot and the advantages of each plane in a dogfight....
At slow speed the F-18 has the advantage with higher angle of attack also known as single turn. At higher speed The F-16 has the advantage with more turning degrees per second also known as a 2 turn. It boils down to the pilot's skill at using the strengths of their jet and the weakness of their opponent's jet against them. The merge is important. The F-18 will attempt to out manouver the F-16 early and get it slow. The F-16 will want to stay fast and outrate the F-18 in a 2 circle fight.
Spot on
Finally, someone in the comments that actually knows what they’re talking about.
Any hornet is a one turn fighter. They take far too long to recover lost energy.
The F16 was my favorite for a very long time but I have to say the F18 is the superior aircraft and the best multirole fighter/attack aircraft ever made. It's more versatile and just as aesthetically pleasing if not more so.
Nope.
Best land-based multi-role war bird is the F-15 Eagle.
Best carrier-based multi-role war bird is the F-14 Tomcat.
@@therealrobinc the strike eagle is definetly better at multirole but the f14???? The f14 was made with fleet defence in mind, not multirole, and thats why it was barely used for that role. The superhornet is better at multirole than the f14 easily
@@MrMonkeyManhthe F-15 had to be redesigned to be multi-role.
The Hornet was around well before the mudhen
@@therealrobinccalling the f15 a multirole is a bit of a stretch of the term. The F15 E is basically a bomb/missile truck. It can do 2 things: bombing and BVR tasks. No SEAD, no CAS, no Anti-Ship.
It is better at bombing than the F18? Surely. Is it better at AA BVR? Maybe. Can it do everything else that the F18 does? No.
Pretty much the same for the F14, except is even more limited.
@robinc3841 ok. And best car is a bicycle.
F -18 is the best multirole fighter/attack aircraft :) Emilio from Slovakia
in my opinion the f-16 will beat the f-18 in an air-to-air combat, but the f-18 will be superior to the f-16 in air-to-ground bombing or similar work.
I like the super hornet especially along side the growler
واش ممكن ناخدوا اف 18هورنيت نتمنى دير لنا فيديو على هاد المقاتلة والمهام ديالها
F16 looks the best
The F-18C has a better E/M diagram, which can be useful in BFM; however, the F-16 has more useful combat performance, IMHO. It’s ability to retain and gain energy at higher G-loads, is a huge advantage. Also, a combat loaded F-16 will break Mach easily, whereas a loaded F-18 will struggle. This is important for breaking contact. All of that said, being single-engine over hostile territory or 100s of miles away from a carrier, isn’t a good feeling.
Both have advantages over the other, depending on how they maneuver against one another.
The Viper it’s better plane for a plane vs plane combat, the F18 it’s better in air to ground missions, can operate in aircraft carriers and can flight with just one engine, but the F16 It’s faster, the combat radius it’s major and the turn rate it’s better.
This is true, and every pilot of a F18 knows this fact, but the F18 can do a lot of things the F16 can’t.
I stopped this video because of the voice. I'd rather read an article.
Makes me miss having thumbs down counts.
F-16 beats Hornet. However, Super Hornet beats F-16
In a dogfight? I don’t think so
I don’t think a Super Hornet would beat an old Hornet in a dogfight
BUT the F-14 Tomcat will smoke them BOTH easy. 😎
@@therealrobinc F-14 and F-15 were my favorite interceptors. America’s 4th Gen Fighters are the best by far. It’s no wonder everyone wants the F-35.
@@mikebuck1897 The decision to adopt the F-35 is obviously a political one.
The overblown & padded development costs for the F-35 meant that political pressure was brought to bear by the US upon its allies to adopt them to recoup the developmental expenditure and reduce per unit cost.
In addition, non-allied but friendly countries also procure them to plug into US defence network & presumptuous extended umbrella protection.
As a weapons platform & warbird design, the F-35 is overly reliant on its stealth sales pitch. Stealth while a good feature, is over-rated, expensive to maintain and NOT as decisive as promoted, just like how BVR missiles are over-rated. Stealth just reduces RCS. It doesn't make it invisible, just like how BVR missiles isn't invincible with 100% hit rate.
The hubris with missiles is what led to Vietnam War era warbird designers excluding an onboard cannon when designing the F4 Phantom. And boy did they get a bloody nose when facing off MIGs with a tighter turn radius flown by USSR pilots.
You send a warbird up to go against other warbirds. Otherwise why would you do so if you can just lob a missile and done with it, if one is so hung up on BVR?
As a warbird in terms of thrust to weight ratio, payload, top speed, turn rate, etc, the F-35 is inferior to even the decades old F16. With updated avionics, helmet systems, radar, armaments, etc along with the latest combat software to operate combat drones alongside it, older warbirds can stand toe to toe and even overcome the ridiculously expensive to procure & maintain F-35.
When fighting wars, one needs to consider operational costs as well, and older, higher performing warbirds like the F16 definitely makes more sense.
The only reason why an inferior warbird like the F-35 is even considered & ultimately fielded is just to support & enrich the military-industrial complex that has the politicians in their pocket.
What is wrong with the ai narrating this lol they need to turn the emotion in its voice down
F16 is much more agile than the F18. The F16 turns and burns like no other and out accelerates the F18. It can maintain speed in a turn while the F18 loses tons of air speed in a turn. Maybe in BVR combat the F18 might have a slight advantage but not much. In a dog fight the F18 can not match the F16. Also not mentioned is the cockpit of the F16 is like a bubble giving the pilot a big advantage visually.
One circle fight the Hornet will dominate.
Sustained turn rate the Viper is ahead.
@@AJS86 Block 3 F18 Super Hornet wins every time.
@c.san.8751 the block 3 is only just being built now.
The F-16 can't get the nose around anywhere like the Hornet can. It'll out rate the hornet in a 2 circle fight.
But if the viper gets slow it's dead
@@AJS86 My understanding is that they have already started delivery of the block 3. They have something like 70 or more already. I still believe that the F18 smokes the F16. F18 seems to be the most underrated of all jets the USA has yet seems so unbelievably capable. With latest block 3 enhancements, it becomes a 5th generation jet technology wise on a fourth gen platform. Hard to beat.
@@c.san.8751 you do realise there's a generation gap with the F-16 and a block 3 super?
The F16 is a lot closer to the legacy hornet. Always was. Mid 70s design philosophy compared to an upgrade of a 90s design super hornet.
Don't forget,the F-18 is built for carrier landing and take offf
I am a huge fan of Navy Planes back to World War II, especially the Tomcat after nameless franchises, but I was able to pull off moves you could only imagine in the F16Viper. It sincerely fit like a glove when I mapped the controls in terms of Dogfighting and it can bomb too.
Remember the F-16 is an air superiority fighter since day one but the F-18 was designed as an attack aircraft with fighter capability operating on an aircraft carrier. Both planes can do dogfights with the F-16 has the upper hand being lighter and more maneuverable. But with an experienced fighter pilot at the controls of the F-18 it can be a dangerous adversary to the F-16! It all depends on the situation of the encounter, pilot's competency and aircraft mission profile.
f16 is like ketchup, you can only dip it with certain types of food. F18 is more like a piece of bread, you can use it to dip different sauces.
@@calmdownbigbrother6405And both the F-15 Eagle & F-14 Tomcat will smoke the F-16 & F-18 respectively.
What's sad about the F-18 is that its design lacked endurance that they've send another F-18 up just to fulfil the air tanker role.
That drove up the wear & tear, as well as maintenance cost of the F-18 overall, effectively negating the maintenance hours reason why they can the F-14 Tomcat.
The F-18 program was penny wise but pound foolish.
@@therealrobincyou're meaning the Super Hornets. The original classic Hornets were to operate in tandem with the F14. They replaced the A7,A6 and others.
There's no more versatile a navy jet than the Hornet
Well, the answer is clearly whichever one that has never aim-120 variant and awacs support.
Hey im sorry to sound stupid but I don’t understand UR Answer.. what is “aim-120 variant & AWACS Support.” & why wouldn’t U want that support.?? Thanks for helping me understand..
F16
There is your answer
it comes down to the pilot and his skill
Glad they are both on our side.
The F-16 is a slightly better dogfighter, but it does depend on the pilots and the situation. But if it's which is the better aircraft, then it's a very hard question. The main advantage of the F-18 is "multi-role capability". The F-16, at least when it was first designed, was just built for air-to-air combat. Its other abilities were added later. The F-18, right from the start, was designed for multi-role. It has air-to-air, air-to-ground, reconnaissance, can operate from an aircraft carrier and more. Not to mention it was designed for replacing several other aircraft. The Hornet is the workhorse. Although the F-16's abilities have grown over time, so has the F-18's. The multi-role capability and the fact is has 2 engines are why some countries, including Australia, chose it over the F-16 back in the 80's. The F-18 is so capable, that when it came time to replace it, they came up with the Super Hornet. All they had to do was modernize it for the 21st century.
F-16 is the superior dogfighter
Fights now days aren't fought visually any more, the F-18 would destroy the F-16 before it even came within the zone. The F-18 growler would see to that !
That’s simply false, speed would play a huge factor in such a fight. It’s up for grabs but chances are the f16 comes out on top 8/10 times.
That's what Vietnam War era US warbird designers thought as well when they designed the F4 Phantoms.
They thought missiles were superior and that guns were obsolete. They never included a cannon for the F4, and fighter pilots lost all dog fighting skills cos they were never taught them anymore.
Boy did they get a bloody nose when facing off the Communist MiGs flown by USSR pilots, who were able to out turn the F4s.
That's how Top Gun school came about. To teach the neglected art of aerial dogfighting.
If you still have an onboard cannon after you've run out of missiles, you can still close in on your adversary and be in a fight while he's fleeing after exhausting all his missiles.
It's ALWAYS a mistake to abandon any option that can deliver a credible, lethal response that can help you survive and win, over some new, fangled, shiny tech that will leave you dead in the water after they've been exhausted.
While you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, boy does that knife come in handy after your adversary has run out of bullets and they are somehow in range, no?
Those who ignore the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat it.
Never subtract or give up any capability that covers all ranges of engagement, just because you're overly confident that a higher tech & more advanced weaponry has been deployed.
KNOW the real & actual SCIENCE of weapons designs & their limitations.
Why? Cos even fancy space age lasers are easily defeated by rain & fog.
@@RW-zn8vy Block 3 F 18 Super Hornet wins.
@@therealrobinc Well, that does not mean much. The Ukraine war clearly shows that pilots do not want close visual range dogfights. Missiles were new during the Vietnam War, and if they did not work well, then maybe dogfights were necessary, but that time was long gone. Dogfights are optional. Pilots will avoid them today and no one will blame them for such a decision.
Depends on pilots
Touche' (smile)
A lot of units are changing the engine out to a GE engine and as far as the MACH 2 speed well that all depends on how the aircraft is configured (wing tanks ex,) which drops its speed.
Tt
He who loses in a fight between these two aircraft, is the first guy that made a mistake.
Why do all the comparisons in the comment section come down to only one thing-- Dogfight? I consider a dogfight as optional. A pilot who has run out of missiles does not have to dogfight. The Ukraine war shows that no fighter pilot wants to dogfight by crossing the battle lines. All that maneuverability, pilot skill, etc., does not matter nowadays. Pilots will only shoot missiles and return home. Avionics, weapons, and situational awareness are more critical in such situations.
I've learnt something I thought the F18 was made by Grumman Northrop
Both are great planes.
If we only speak of pure dogfighting capabilities
Both basically carried the same kind of missiles, F16 is basically a rate fighter, but the F18 is a single circle fighter. F18 clobers the F16 at low speed, but F18 has difficulties gaining speed from low speed while the F16 is just a rocket. So it really depends how the pilots fight.
Both are basically the same, just different fighting styles. I personally prefer the F18 because the gun is placed on the nose, making it easier to make lead shots even without radar locking the guy in front.
Get the viper slow and it struggles the Hornet dances about without effort at low speed
I am an engineer. I can't get " it depends on the pilot".
Both are good old fighters. May be F16 cheaper and lower operating costs.
Please compare f2000 last tranche vs gripen ng
I think in a dog fight no plane can defeat f16 without canard or thrust vectoring
Really? The F-18 is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. The F-16 is a fighter. The top speed of an F-18 is Mach 1.6 and the F-16 has a top speed of Mach 2.0. The F-16 can out turn the F-18 period.
Hornet 1.8+ *
@@marcx117 It also Varies how which one is outfitted
There's a 1/2 dozen variations of both.
Comparing them stock defeats the purpose.
Don't trust what you can find on the internet, a F-18 is faster, more advanced technologies and better jet, but less reliable. Nothing can justify the maintenance cost on a F18, the f16 was a much better operational jet.
@@BelleMorue F16 is an ego jet - can't deploy in out of area operations. Think Sea Harrier FRS1 in the Falklands. Much rather have a slower turning carrier-capable jet than a turn and burn which is nearly obsolete with BVR avionics.
Just buy some F35B's and stop the discussion. There is a reason why the marines are going to keep the AV8B going - it can still account for itself in BVR and operate from unimproved short strips.
F16 needs a runway - great with online arguments but in the real world of war you need a flexible expeditionary jet. I'm sure the National Guard in the US and some European nations will keep the F16 but 9G turns and afterburner only go so far in real wars.
Even the Super Hornet has to call the F-14 Tomcat daddy cos the older retired F-14 Tomcat can kick the Super Hornet in the nuts 365/24/7.
Don't forget that the F-18 has 100% more vertical tail-fins than the F-16.
Stop feeding your A.I. ritalin ffs XD
Questions like this are meaningless. The 2 platforms are built for different jobs. To judge between the 2, you would have to strip away what makes them unique. So in conclusion its a stupid question.
they are not suposed to fight each other,but to acomplish missions together,....the f18 would be more of a bomber,...and the f16 as a flanker and assistance supporting ground forces.,.....maybe ,.....I hope so!!!!,....what can you expect after 4 beers and the next one waiting for the final battle.
CF-18
your intermittent screams are annoying man
dude its a PC AI voice. not a real person. but yes it sucks . you are right in that
Depends on the pilot
Worlds most upbeat robot. Pleasant voice, wonder if it can dance too. Do the robot
The script writer is hardly able to present facts.
Which one beat the aliens in IDF4? I rest my case 🫡
So Stop making the F-18 if the F-16 is way better in a fight.
Our country is vast and reaches into the arctic. We needed something with range, and two engines for safety.
Not like I think the F16 has engine problems.
We like the option of bombing the crap out of the enemy.
Would the Growler beat the F16
growler is not made to fight
Yes sir these wars are legit. You betcha bottom 14mil I'm there W Bells on 😂
Anyway the F-16 is still an amazing Plane and the small Size of it make it more squshi i think if it comes to a gunfight. I dont know about the S Hornet if he has the same handling or not but i think handling in Aircombat is still one of the mostimportant things in an Airbattle.
It’s crazy but you could have 2 hornets and the viper will still win!🐝🔫👎🏽
Not a chance. Especially the F18 Block 3 Super Hornet
I Take the F-18.
D@mn, cant listen to this. Automated voice kills me with those last 2 words of each sentence
Old pahtpahtz!!! Roa Aotearoa nui.
Red bull(Au) telk my name ORA!!!! F-1
F sixteen, all day, every day.The f fifteen is the biggest hunk is s***Our military has ever had
Willi woman but not you(Kennedy😂)
F-16(Me❤) but F-18 (women name Wanna?? )55 this woman from Willi and not from you order??
Why this woman 2y before
It's not the plane!!!!!
I don't know why I keep coming to Military News ... videos are absolute GARBAGE.
We haven’t won a war since WW2. What is he talking about?
I guess there are not that many F-16s..
Many NATO countries are going over to the F-35.
They started same as Canada, with the original FA-18.
As the various services went over to the F-35, they retired the F-18s.
In order to keep those old F-18 up to nato specs. they all would have been installed with AESA radar. They can fire the whole NATO pack of weapons.
I bet if you look around, you can find some of those upgraded F-18s.
So, if you can't get the F-16s because there are not enough planes, then you could go to F-18s.
We even have morphing wings for the F-18. The idea is that the wings take the pressure by bending back. That would probably make it go faster if they actually worked. I guess it would make the aircraft faster.
Anyway, they just bought the regular wings.
The decision to adopt the F-35 is obviously a political one.
The overblown & padded development costs for the F-35 meant that political pressure was brought to bear by the US upon its allies to adopt them to recoup the developmental expenditure and reduce per unit cost.
In addition, non-allied but friendly countries also procure them to plug into US defence network & presumptuous extended umbrella protection.
As a weapons platform & warbird design, the F-35 is overly reliant on its stealth sales pitch. Stealth while a good feature, is over-rated, expensive to maintain and NOT as decisive as promoted, just like how BVR missiles are over-rated. Stealth just reduces RCS. It doesn't make it invisible, just like how BVR missiles isn't invincible with 100% hit rate.
The hubris with missiles is what led to Vietnam War era warbird designers excluding an onboard cannon when designing the F4 Phantom. And boy did they get a bloody nose when facing off MIGs with a tighter turn radius flown by USSR pilots.
You send a warbird up to go against other warbirds. Otherwise why would you do so if you can just lob a missile and done with it, if one is so hung up on BVR?
As a warbird in terms of thrust to weight ratio, payload, top speed, turn rate, etc, the F-35 is inferior to even the decades old F16. With updated avionics, helmet systems, radar, armaments, etc along with the latest combat software to operate combat drones alongside it, older warbirds can stand toe to toe and even overcome the ridiculously expensive to procure & maintain F-35.
When fighting wars, one needs to consider operational costs as well, and older, higher performing warbirds like the F16 definitely makes more sense.
The only reason why an inferior warbird like the F-35 is even considered & ultimately fielded is just to support & enrich the military-industrial complex that has the politicians in their pocket.
@@therealrobinc The F-35 has a 70 -1 kill ratio. But, no matter how good this fighter is, you will not admit you are wrong.
Can be she not know😂
F16V is the best !