A very common narrative by the pilots who flew the Hornet. High drag (drag inducing hard mounting points and thick/reinforced wing to carry air-to-ground payload) and also small engines/intakes limiting severely how much thrust/ram air effect can produce. Its key strength are slow speed handling/maneuverability. Anything over 450 knots and the drag takes a big toll. With weapons and tanks on, the Hornet cannot even get to Mach 1.
The two planes represent different schools of thought on air combat. And I dare to say the Hornet is the newest one. The F-16 was the child of the Fighter Mafia, that believed in a aircraft capable of sustaining high levels of energy. The F-18 have its roots in a Northrop study for high angles of attack fighter to succeed the F-5, hence the giant LERXs and the dual, forward mounted vertical fins. Up to mid seventies, realistically you could only fire a IR missile on the back of your opponent. Therefore you need to flight your way to the back of the other plane. A high energy fighter like the F-16 is ideal for that. But them the AIM-9L became a reality, and all the sudden, firing a IR missile from any angle is now a possibility. And not only that, by that time missiles capable of much greater turns than the Sidewinder were being tested by the US and UK. So in this brave new world, pointing your nose fast toward the enemy, became much more important than saving energy to reach your opponents rear end, since now you can fire (the missile range allowing) at anything you can see, independently of where they are going. Sure, the AIM-9L was not a magic bullet, but it changed the game dramatically and, as a surprise, the Russians did implemented a IR missile with even greater agility. And in this new scenario, the F-18 fast pointing nose became more important, since there is no use in maintaining your energy high if the enemy is already shooting at you, even if it is from a lower state of energy.
This is the most interesting comment on this subject I've seen yet. The irony of this situation is that it was the simulated performance of all aspect IR missiles in the AIMVAL evaluation that helped convince the U.S. to procure the F-16 as a cost effective partner to the F-15. So the light fighter that was the energy maneuverability wet dream was selected in part due to advancements in IR missiles that would theoretically make extended maneuvering for rear aspect shots less vital than the ability to quickly point the nose at all speeds. The USAF remained faithful to the sustained turn radius concept even while doing a lot of study into post stall maneuverability. The F-22 was sort if the best of both worlds in a stealth package, but USAF seems to have finally reduced the priority of maximum sustained turn rate with the F-35. And the hue and cry form those who came of age when sustained turn rate was job one has been deafening. It hurts, but I'm a fairly recent convert to the realization that sustained turn rate, while important, may no longer be the absolute priority in a multi role strike fighter.
@@gort8203 Keep in mind that the ACEVAL/AIMVAL were still in course when the F-16 was announced as the winner. So they might not have conclusions yet. And I don't think its agility was the determinant aspect, but the use of the P&W F100 and its range must have weighted the most. Also, it might have looked as less of a treat to the F-15 program, that was the fighter they really wanted.
@@magoid I get your point about the F-16 getting the green light before completion of the AIMVAL, but I guess I'm seeing them as linked by the emerging mindset that all aspect IR missiles would make light fighters a threat to heavy BVR fighters. IMHO, the AIMVAL was rigged to produce the desired result, indicating a mindset at work. Its theory was that quantity would outweigh quality. If the F-15 could not deliver a high exchange ratio against simpler fighters, USAF/NATO would lose a battle of attrition against Soviet/WARPACT air forces. That concern was somewhat driven by legacy aerial ROE. History has since demonstrated that BVR capability would dominate airspace. An additional irony is that LWF program developed a pure dogfighter, which was then rolled into the ACF program and morphed into a swing role fighter bomber. The F-100 was indeed an important reason the bureaucracy selected the F-16 as that ACF swing role fighter, but it had already won the LWF competition based on its agility, and the F-100 just helped sell it as the ACF. In any case, I don't think it was a serious threat to the F-15, which was already in service, and along with the F-14 represented the high-end fighter force in the AIMVAL. Terminating the F-15 would have pleased the fighter mafia extremists, and the F-16 buy probably did reduce the total size of the F-15 buy. But thankfully, combat experienced senior leaders recognized the true combat value of the F-15 and were not fooled or intimidated by the hoopla that feed into the military reform movement.
@@magoid That's a great comment and I'm in complete agreement. All aspect IR made the instantaneous turn rate king over sustained rate. A WVR engagement with all aspect IR, especially with high off bore sight capability, is typically over in about a dozen seconds, so the ability to quickly point the nose and get the first shot is far more important than maintaining energy. An excellent read on that: elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-backgrounder-on-energy-maneuverability.html
I am not a pilot, but I have friends who’ve retired from both the AF and navy. I see a lot of comments below about maintaining energy is not as vital today, which is not accurate. People tend to forget that rarely is it 1vs1, and that if you bleed all your energy to take a shot, even if you don’t miss there’s still going to be another opposing jet that you don’t see that will get you. The last thing you want is to be a sitting duck with little power to recover.
I remember the competition in the 70`s when the yf17 lost to the 16 and I thought how and then the navy realised what a good airframe the 17 was which morphed into the 18 .
Mover's comments illustrates why the criticism of the F-35s perceived poor wing loading and lack of maneuverability is so misguided. From pilot accounts the F-35 has better power than the F-18 but with similar AOA and nose authority. This is geared towards getting the first shot with all aspect IR missiles. BFM dogfighting is such a dangerous endeavour that it’s not something to aim for in a 1v1. Let alone WVR dogfighting in a multi ship scenario.
He is diplomatic with the F-35. Pilots like it because it is easy to fly and makes management of the aircraft easier, but he doesn't mention the nicknames he does in the interview (not in this video) for no reason. Fat Amy, Sex Panther, sixty percent of the time it works every time. If the BVR philosophy of that aircraft breaks down, which it inevitably always does, it's in a heap of trouble.
@@elta6241no, it isn't. The F-35 is a SEAD platform. Its a low level mach 1.2 full afterburner go in and splash the S-400 sites before they know what hit em, gather intel on where they last lit up before they went dark to avoid detection. Use sensors to pinpoint the SCUDs and SAMS and relay that to all friendlies and mark the position on GPS. Then go in stealth and fast and smoke em with HARMs or LGBs. The F-35 is an F/A-35. Its not an F-16 cheap capable fighter sidekick to the alpha. The F-35 is a successor to the F-105. The F-35 is the new THUD. You got the F-22 air superiority fighter for dominance. Not a pound for air to ground. It takes out airborne threats. And you got the F-35 optimized for SEAD, to take out the SAMs. This creates an area of total air domination.
OK, so to refine the question. . . What are the relative advantages vs. disadvantages performance-wise between the Hornet and the Viper? What advantages of one aircraft would the crew of one aircraft maximize vs the disadvantages over another? Vise-versa?
He pretty well covered the advantages vs disadvantages in this clip (& his F-16 one, which you might have not seen?). Long story short, the F-16 is a little rocketship. HEAPS of power, speed & good turning capability (rated to 9G vs the Hornet at 7.5G) but more suited for higher speeds (I think the corner velocity of the viper is around 450 kts?) than the Hornet. The hornet doesn't have enough power compared to the viper BUT its slow speed handling is much better (especially at 300-350 kts?) and it can pull higher AOA if needed, whereas the viper's FBW limits it in that respect. If a viper was dogfighting a hornet (guns only, no missiles), its game plan would be to go fast - probably some kind of zoom & boom - if its speed got too slow, the Hornet would have an advantage especially in a turning fight. Note: I am NOT a fighter pilot in any way, shape or form, so some (or all) of this could be crap! It's largely just things I have read and heard from others with real world experience flying these planes. Hope this helps.
With the introduction of High-Off-Boresight missiles (AIM-9X, R-73M....), high AoA has now become more important than high energy. In a FOX 2 fight, you just gotta make your first shot count otherwise its game over
Exactly, but on the other hand with introduction of potent BVR missile like AMRAAM - the whole ACM became far less relevant. And in most efficient air combat, namely BVR, high energy fighter like F-16 had big advantage over the Hornet since the most important was acceleration and sustaining supersonic speed during maneuvers to first add the most energy to the own missile and second to increase own chances of defeating energy of enemy missile.
I think you have it backwards. High Off-Bore Sight missiles are precisely that. They don't need the jet to maneuver. They do the crazy turning for you. Thats the whole point.
@@TheJustinJ But you do need the jet to maneuver. Even with AIM-9X doing up to 90 degrees off boresight shots, that's in a perfect world. In reality, you need several seconds to lock the seeker onto your target, confirm it's locked, and fire. Even then, your target may be too close for the missile to pull that crazy turn, so you have to make that judgement as well before pulling the trigger. All of this is much more likely to succeed if you can rate your nose as fast as you can during these few seconds. It might be different with something like F-35 combined with an AIM-9X version that's capable of lock-on-after-launch. Then it truly shoots in any direction and you don't need to maneuver at all to line up a shot, just pull the trigger and laugh :)
@trekmanone1676 3 minutes ago (edited) I've been triggered enough. My 2.5 cents upcoming... Ukraine and the F-16 decision. IMHO, bad choice. Here's why. Canada, Norway and Finland all selected the F/A-18 Hornet as flight platform of choice. If Sweden didn't have the Gripen, they would have as well. None of them have aircraft carriers... What do all these countries have in common??? They are freakin cold with long winters. Sounds a little like Ukraine. Don't get me wrong. The F-16 is a great "low-cost" air dominant platform. Everything was "cut" back to get the price tag right. It is a sleek, very fast Italian racing car. Just don't race it in freezin cold winters! If the F-16 is a sleek, fast Italian raciing care, then the F/A-18 Hornet is an Abrams tank!!! Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland all practise state highway landings, hot fuel and rearming and takeoff across their countries. Never seen a F-16 do that. That "scoop" prevents it. Do you think Russia will stand by and "let" Ukraine have airbases, with clean runways, exist? I realize the F-16 has an international proliferation thus spares, training, maintenance are more available than the F/A-18. Not many Super-Carriers in the world these days. But there is frezzin freakin cold winter and lots of rural highways to leverage. When the first winter comes to Ukraine and the fleet of F-16s are grounded, I think Ukraine might call up the Australians and ask if those "garbage" F/A-18s are still available!
So F-16 is a Porsche 911 the f-18 is a BMW M5 is that aGood comparison? Nimbleness and quickness traded for a little more carry and slow speed ability.
Man oh man , i xould listenn to you all day but one thing i wonder " Mover " , could all of what you think isn't really that needed all that much ??? ( the flight gear ) Is it excess equipment meant to be put to use by a Marine . I have to ask and because i'm plain out stupid a plain out 70 year old ole man concerning this and dang sure no fighter pilot . If anyone approaches witb a open mind which we know you have that trait and ability . Give it a thought and lets see your thoughts .Thet may be rhe same as now or different .Lets see .I am curious four aure and my friendS are also. We feel confident. One item i ikely think i mentioned already is your are well trained and a hell of a fighte pilot.Reason i tahing you are food it the so called MECHANICS .This is when musle reacarion does the work Awesomain it's own .
Mover is an interesting Dude. Fighter Pilot, Police Officer, Airline Pilot, Author, and Ruiner of Movies.
A most honest assessment.
A very common narrative by the pilots who flew the Hornet. High drag (drag inducing hard mounting points and thick/reinforced wing to carry air-to-ground payload) and also small engines/intakes limiting severely how much thrust/ram air effect can produce. Its key strength are slow speed handling/maneuverability. Anything over 450 knots and the drag takes a big toll. With weapons and tanks on, the Hornet cannot even get to Mach 1.
Awesome stuff ! Short, precise, exactly what we wish to know ! Thanks man !!
The two planes represent different schools of thought on air combat. And I dare to say the Hornet is the newest one. The F-16 was the child of the Fighter Mafia, that believed in a aircraft capable of sustaining high levels of energy. The F-18 have its roots in a Northrop study for high angles of attack fighter to succeed the F-5, hence the giant LERXs and the dual, forward mounted vertical fins.
Up to mid seventies, realistically you could only fire a IR missile on the back of your opponent. Therefore you need to flight your way to the back of the other plane. A high energy fighter like the F-16 is ideal for that.
But them the AIM-9L became a reality, and all the sudden, firing a IR missile from any angle is now a possibility. And not only that, by that time missiles capable of much greater turns than the Sidewinder were being tested by the US and UK.
So in this brave new world, pointing your nose fast toward the enemy, became much more important than saving energy to reach your opponents rear end, since now you can fire (the missile range allowing) at anything you can see, independently of where they are going. Sure, the AIM-9L was not a magic bullet, but it changed the game dramatically and, as a surprise, the Russians did implemented a IR missile with even greater agility. And in this new scenario, the F-18 fast pointing nose became more important, since there is no use in maintaining your energy high if the enemy is already shooting at you, even if it is from a lower state of energy.
This is the most interesting comment on this subject I've seen yet. The irony of this situation is that it was the simulated performance of all aspect IR missiles in the AIMVAL evaluation that helped convince the U.S. to procure the F-16 as a cost effective partner to the F-15. So the light fighter that was the energy maneuverability wet dream was selected in part due to advancements in IR missiles that would theoretically make extended maneuvering for rear aspect shots less vital than the ability to quickly point the nose at all speeds. The USAF remained faithful to the sustained turn radius concept even while doing a lot of study into post stall maneuverability. The F-22 was sort if the best of both worlds in a stealth package, but USAF seems to have finally reduced the priority of maximum sustained turn rate with the F-35. And the hue and cry form those who came of age when sustained turn rate was job one has been deafening. It hurts, but I'm a fairly recent convert to the realization that sustained turn rate, while important, may no longer be the absolute priority in a multi role strike fighter.
@@gort8203 Keep in mind that the ACEVAL/AIMVAL were still in course when the F-16 was announced as the winner. So they might not have conclusions yet. And I don't think its agility was the determinant aspect, but the use of the P&W F100 and its range must have weighted the most.
Also, it might have looked as less of a treat to the F-15 program, that was the fighter they really wanted.
@@magoid I get your point about the F-16 getting the green light before completion of the AIMVAL, but I guess I'm seeing them as linked by the emerging mindset that all aspect IR missiles would make light fighters a threat to heavy BVR fighters. IMHO, the AIMVAL was rigged to produce the desired result, indicating a mindset at work. Its theory was that quantity would outweigh quality. If the F-15 could not deliver a high exchange ratio against simpler fighters, USAF/NATO would lose a battle of attrition against Soviet/WARPACT air forces. That concern was somewhat driven by legacy aerial ROE. History has since demonstrated that BVR capability would dominate airspace.
An additional irony is that LWF program developed a pure dogfighter, which was then rolled into the ACF program and morphed into a swing role fighter bomber. The F-100 was indeed an important reason the bureaucracy selected the F-16 as that ACF swing role fighter, but it had already won the LWF competition based on its agility, and the F-100 just helped sell it as the ACF. In any case, I don't think it was a serious threat to the F-15, which was already in service, and along with the F-14 represented the high-end fighter force in the AIMVAL. Terminating the F-15 would have pleased the fighter mafia extremists, and the F-16 buy probably did reduce the total size of the F-15 buy. But thankfully, combat experienced senior leaders recognized the true combat value of the F-15 and were not fooled or intimidated by the hoopla that feed into the military reform movement.
@@magoid That's a great comment and I'm in complete agreement. All aspect IR made the instantaneous turn rate king over sustained rate. A WVR engagement with all aspect IR, especially with high off bore sight capability, is typically over in about a dozen seconds, so the ability to quickly point the nose and get the first shot is far more important than maintaining energy.
An excellent read on that: elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-backgrounder-on-energy-maneuverability.html
god, I love the Hornet.
I am not a pilot, but I have friends who’ve retired from both the AF and navy. I see a lot of comments below about maintaining energy is not as vital today, which is not accurate. People tend to forget that rarely is it 1vs1, and that if you bleed all your energy to take a shot, even if you don’t miss there’s still going to be another opposing jet that you don’t see that will get you. The last thing you want is to be a sitting duck with little power to recover.
I remember the competition in the 70`s when the yf17 lost to the 16 and I thought how and then the navy realised what a good airframe the 17 was which morphed into the 18 .
They wanted 2 engines.
Navy jocks need the Martin Baker seat, hence the straps..wouldn't trust a USAF ACES seat for a carrier launch or recovery, would you :D
Mover's comments illustrates why the criticism of the F-35s perceived poor wing loading and lack of maneuverability is so misguided. From pilot accounts the F-35 has better power than the F-18 but with similar AOA and nose authority. This is geared towards getting the first shot with all aspect IR missiles. BFM dogfighting is such a dangerous endeavour that it’s not something to aim for in a 1v1. Let alone WVR dogfighting in a multi ship scenario.
He is diplomatic with the F-35. Pilots like it because it is easy to fly and makes management of the aircraft easier, but he doesn't mention the nicknames he does in the interview (not in this video) for no reason. Fat Amy, Sex Panther, sixty percent of the time it works every time. If the BVR philosophy of that aircraft breaks down, which it inevitably always does, it's in a heap of trouble.
@@elta6241no, it isn't.
The F-35 is a SEAD platform. Its a low level mach 1.2 full afterburner go in and splash the S-400 sites before they know what hit em, gather intel on where they last lit up before they went dark to avoid detection. Use sensors to pinpoint the SCUDs and SAMS and relay that to all friendlies and mark the position on GPS. Then go in stealth and fast and smoke em with HARMs or LGBs. The F-35 is an F/A-35. Its not an F-16 cheap capable fighter sidekick to the alpha. The F-35 is a successor to the F-105. The F-35 is the new THUD.
You got the F-22 air superiority fighter for dominance. Not a pound for air to ground. It takes out airborne threats. And you got the F-35 optimized for SEAD, to take out the SAMs. This creates an area of total air domination.
3:40 "it's not the crate, it's the guy in it"* Fighter pilots & road racers, axiom.
OK, so to refine the question. . . What are the relative advantages vs. disadvantages performance-wise between the Hornet and the Viper? What advantages of one aircraft would the crew of one aircraft maximize vs the disadvantages over another? Vise-versa?
He pretty well covered the advantages vs disadvantages in this clip (& his F-16 one, which you might have not seen?). Long story short, the F-16 is a little rocketship. HEAPS of power, speed & good turning capability (rated to 9G vs the Hornet at 7.5G) but more suited for higher speeds (I think the corner velocity of the viper is around 450 kts?) than the Hornet. The hornet doesn't have enough power compared to the viper BUT its slow speed handling is much better (especially at 300-350 kts?) and it can pull higher AOA if needed, whereas the viper's FBW limits it in that respect. If a viper was dogfighting a hornet (guns only, no missiles), its game plan would be to go fast - probably some kind of zoom & boom - if its speed got too slow, the Hornet would have an advantage especially in a turning fight. Note: I am NOT a fighter pilot in any way, shape or form, so some (or all) of this could be crap! It's largely just things I have read and heard from others with real world experience flying these planes. Hope this helps.
With the introduction of High-Off-Boresight missiles (AIM-9X, R-73M....), high AoA has now become more important than high energy. In a FOX 2 fight, you just gotta make your first shot count otherwise its game over
Exactly, but on the other hand with introduction of potent BVR missile like AMRAAM - the whole ACM became far less relevant. And in most efficient air combat, namely BVR, high energy fighter like F-16 had big advantage over the Hornet since the most important was acceleration and sustaining supersonic speed during maneuvers to first add the most energy to the own missile and second to increase own chances of defeating energy of enemy missile.
Le fuel
I think you have it backwards.
High Off-Bore Sight missiles are precisely that. They don't need the jet to maneuver. They do the crazy turning for you. Thats the whole point.
@@TheJustinJ But you do need the jet to maneuver. Even with AIM-9X doing up to 90 degrees off boresight shots, that's in a perfect world. In reality, you need several seconds to lock the seeker onto your target, confirm it's locked, and fire. Even then, your target may be too close for the missile to pull that crazy turn, so you have to make that judgement as well before pulling the trigger. All of this is much more likely to succeed if you can rate your nose as fast as you can during these few seconds. It might be different with something like F-35 combined with an AIM-9X version that's capable of lock-on-after-launch. Then it truly shoots in any direction and you don't need to maneuver at all to line up a shot, just pull the trigger and laugh :)
@trekmanone1676
3 minutes ago (edited)
I've been triggered enough. My 2.5 cents upcoming...
Ukraine and the F-16 decision. IMHO, bad choice. Here's why.
Canada, Norway and Finland all selected the F/A-18 Hornet as flight platform of choice. If Sweden didn't have the Gripen, they would have as well. None of them have aircraft carriers... What do all these countries have in common??? They are freakin cold with long winters. Sounds a little like Ukraine.
Don't get me wrong. The F-16 is a great "low-cost" air dominant platform. Everything was "cut" back to get the price tag right. It is a sleek, very fast Italian racing car. Just don't race it in freezin cold winters!
If the F-16 is a sleek, fast Italian raciing care, then the F/A-18 Hornet is an Abrams tank!!! Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland all practise state highway landings, hot fuel and rearming and takeoff across their countries. Never seen a F-16 do that. That "scoop" prevents it.
Do you think Russia will stand by and "let" Ukraine have airbases, with clean runways, exist?
I realize the F-16 has an international proliferation thus spares, training, maintenance are more available than the F/A-18. Not many Super-Carriers in the world these days. But there is frezzin freakin cold winter and lots of rural highways to leverage.
When the first winter comes to Ukraine and the fleet of F-16s are grounded, I think Ukraine might call up the Australians and ask if those "garbage" F/A-18s are still available!
So F-16 is a Porsche 911 the f-18 is a BMW M5 is that aGood comparison? Nimbleness and quickness traded for a little more carry and slow speed ability.
Depends, the diaper???
Man oh man , i xould listenn to you all day but one thing i wonder " Mover " , could all of what you think isn't really that needed all that much ??? ( the flight gear ) Is it excess equipment meant to be put to use by a Marine . I have to ask and because i'm plain out stupid a plain out 70 year old ole man concerning this and dang sure no fighter pilot . If anyone approaches witb a open mind which we know you have that trait and ability .
Give it a thought and lets see your thoughts .Thet may be rhe same as now or different .Lets see .I am curious four aure and my friendS are also.
We feel confident.
One item i ikely think i mentioned already is your are well trained and a hell of a fighte pilot.Reason i tahing you are food it the so called MECHANICS .This is when musle reacarion does the work Awesomain it's own .