A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The F/A-18 HAS replaced the F-14 in the US navy. There is a Sqn or 2 left of F-14D's, however they are due to be retired by about August 06. At that point, only Iran will still operate them, and their flightworthiness, has to be questionable at best.
Here's what the RAAF thought of the F/A-18 when it compared it to the F-16 in the early 80's:
"The F-18 exhibited no buffet at high AoA with supersonic flight achieved at 80 degrees AoA.
F-16 with its initial rigid fixed stick controller offered little feedback to pilot control inputs and caused digfficulty with slow speed handling in approach configuration when confronted by gusty wind conditions and being loaded with large external stores. Hornet did not suffer this.
With only differential stabilators and spoilers for lateral control, full control deflection gave a slower rate of roll than Hornet.
F-16 engine developmental failures with P&W F100 engines. Afterburner prone to flame out at high altitudes and not at all easy to relight. The F100 did not have a light-off detector that would automatically retard fuel flow to the AB in the event of a flame out. Resultant build up of unburnt fuel and the subsequent relight caused an "unstart".
When entering maximum rate "break turns" from level flight, 180 degrees could be turned before full AB power was achieved. By this stage the aircraft had bled off 200knots in the turn, without the ability to engage full AB sooner. This didn’t happen with the F404 of the Hornet.
Mechanical linkages to the variable inlet guide vanes were difficult to keep adjusted and often wore out due to high levels of accoustic vibration. Engine airflow problems were the norm with early F-16A/B variants.
F-16 used Nickel Cadmium batteries as a back-up to power the internal electrical systems. In the event of an engine failure, the four battery system was prone to failure itself.
The flight control software of the F-16 was designed to instantly reset all control surfaces to the streamlined settings initially engaged. In the case of an abrupt negative 5G bunt (for example), the main generator, back up hydrazine emergency generator and batteries would go offline and result in the electrical fly-by-wire undetecting latent failure in the backup system. Limited diagnostics and an inability to provide power to the emergency generator by other means meant it wasn’t as redundant as the Hornet in its FCS.
Lack of BVR missiles over the Hornet resulted in the RAAF giving the F-16 the arse. The early APG-66 radar was not a continuous wave radar and was unable to integrate BVR weapons. It also had a tendency to lock up on false target indications especially from ground sources.
Penguin was the only anti-ship missile cleared at the time on F-16. Not as useful as Hornet/Harpoon.
F-16 had inferior cackpit ergonomics to Hornet.
Slam engine acceleration on the Hornet was superior to F-16. It took only 3.5 seconds from idle to max AB, whereas it took a woeful five times longer for F-16 to do same!!!
The F-16 was subject to fifth stage AB lock out inside the AB light up envelope boundary.
Initail test showed the F-16 engine performance to be substandard for the RAAF when slam acceleration from a cold-soaked flight idle to full AB at 52,000 feet, 110knots and 38 degrees AoA with half rudder deflection resulted in a near loss of the aircraft from controlled flight. Same example with Hornet produced an effortless test with no loss of control".
Courtesy of Magoo's book, mostly...
The F/A-18 had superior air combat capability over F-16, as well as superior strike capability, and a maritime strike capability with Harpoon, which F-16 STILL does not have. Early Hornet's had superior range and acceleration to F-16, though the F-16 was assessed as a "slightly" better dogfighter.
One area where F-16 DID excel, was in it's cost. Witha larger build quantity and no need to build an airframe capable of being operated from a carrier, plus the limited BVR capability, the F-16 was significantly cheaper.
Subsequent models of both aircraft have improved significantly in all area's. Nearly all early model F-18/F-16's hae been upgraded to an F/A-18C/F-16C level of capability.
F-14's are an excellent interceptor but clearly show their age. Phoenix is no longer relevant as it was withdrawn from USN service years ago (and never sold to Iran). F-14 was never upgraded to carry AMRAAM or late model WVR missiles (such as AIM-9X). As such, with only AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9M AAM's, it'd be at a significant disadvantage against either an F/A-18 OR F-16 in modern air combat. 20 years ago, things would have been different, but not now.
F-15's have been, just about the greatest fighter aircraft ever built. With an air combat record of around 100-nil, it has triumphed against every other combat aircraft it has ever faced. F-15E Strike Eagles are also superb long range tactical strike aircraft. Latest variants, like South Korea's F-15K and Singapore's F-15SG are likely to remain highly capable combat aircraft for a long time to come.
As to what there is in common amongst these aircraft? They are all American designed and built. They are twin engine fighter aircraft, except F-16, which only has a single engine. That's about it. F-14 and F-15 were designed almost exclusively for air combat (but with "latent" bombing capability) F-18 and F-16 were designed as "tier 2" multi-role aircraft, that could conduct air combat missions and strike missions as required. Compromises are made in all aircraft design's, however ALL of these aircraft have served their respective airforces extremely capably and with the exception of the F-14, will do so for many years to come.
Here's what the RAAF thought of the F/A-18 when it compared it to the F-16 in the early 80's:
"The F-18 exhibited no buffet at high AoA with supersonic flight achieved at 80 degrees AoA.
F-16 with its initial rigid fixed stick controller offered little feedback to pilot control inputs and caused digfficulty with slow speed handling in approach configuration when confronted by gusty wind conditions and being loaded with large external stores. Hornet did not suffer this.
With only differential stabilators and spoilers for lateral control, full control deflection gave a slower rate of roll than Hornet.
F-16 engine developmental failures with P&W F100 engines. Afterburner prone to flame out at high altitudes and not at all easy to relight. The F100 did not have a light-off detector that would automatically retard fuel flow to the AB in the event of a flame out. Resultant build up of unburnt fuel and the subsequent relight caused an "unstart".
When entering maximum rate "break turns" from level flight, 180 degrees could be turned before full AB power was achieved. By this stage the aircraft had bled off 200knots in the turn, without the ability to engage full AB sooner. This didn’t happen with the F404 of the Hornet.
Mechanical linkages to the variable inlet guide vanes were difficult to keep adjusted and often wore out due to high levels of accoustic vibration. Engine airflow problems were the norm with early F-16A/B variants.
F-16 used Nickel Cadmium batteries as a back-up to power the internal electrical systems. In the event of an engine failure, the four battery system was prone to failure itself.
The flight control software of the F-16 was designed to instantly reset all control surfaces to the streamlined settings initially engaged. In the case of an abrupt negative 5G bunt (for example), the main generator, back up hydrazine emergency generator and batteries would go offline and result in the electrical fly-by-wire undetecting latent failure in the backup system. Limited diagnostics and an inability to provide power to the emergency generator by other means meant it wasn’t as redundant as the Hornet in its FCS.
Lack of BVR missiles over the Hornet resulted in the RAAF giving the F-16 the arse. The early APG-66 radar was not a continuous wave radar and was unable to integrate BVR weapons. It also had a tendency to lock up on false target indications especially from ground sources.
Penguin was the only anti-ship missile cleared at the time on F-16. Not as useful as Hornet/Harpoon.
F-16 had inferior cackpit ergonomics to Hornet.
Slam engine acceleration on the Hornet was superior to F-16. It took only 3.5 seconds from idle to max AB, whereas it took a woeful five times longer for F-16 to do same!!!
The F-16 was subject to fifth stage AB lock out inside the AB light up envelope boundary.
Initail test showed the F-16 engine performance to be substandard for the RAAF when slam acceleration from a cold-soaked flight idle to full AB at 52,000 feet, 110knots and 38 degrees AoA with half rudder deflection resulted in a near loss of the aircraft from controlled flight. Same example with Hornet produced an effortless test with no loss of control".
Courtesy of Magoo's book, mostly...
The F/A-18 had superior air combat capability over F-16, as well as superior strike capability, and a maritime strike capability with Harpoon, which F-16 STILL does not have. Early Hornet's had superior range and acceleration to F-16, though the F-16 was assessed as a "slightly" better dogfighter.
One area where F-16 DID excel, was in it's cost. Witha larger build quantity and no need to build an airframe capable of being operated from a carrier, plus the limited BVR capability, the F-16 was significantly cheaper.
Subsequent models of both aircraft have improved significantly in all area's. Nearly all early model F-18/F-16's hae been upgraded to an F/A-18C/F-16C level of capability.
F-14's are an excellent interceptor but clearly show their age. Phoenix is no longer relevant as it was withdrawn from USN service years ago (and never sold to Iran). F-14 was never upgraded to carry AMRAAM or late model WVR missiles (such as AIM-9X). As such, with only AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9M AAM's, it'd be at a significant disadvantage against either an F/A-18 OR F-16 in modern air combat. 20 years ago, things would have been different, but not now.
F-15's have been, just about the greatest fighter aircraft ever built. With an air combat record of around 100-nil, it has triumphed against every other combat aircraft it has ever faced. F-15E Strike Eagles are also superb long range tactical strike aircraft. Latest variants, like South Korea's F-15K and Singapore's F-15SG are likely to remain highly capable combat aircraft for a long time to come.
As to what there is in common amongst these aircraft? They are all American designed and built. They are twin engine fighter aircraft, except F-16, which only has a single engine. That's about it. F-14 and F-15 were designed almost exclusively for air combat (but with "latent" bombing capability) F-18 and F-16 were designed as "tier 2" multi-role aircraft, that could conduct air combat missions and strike missions as required. Compromises are made in all aircraft design's, however ALL of these aircraft have served their respective airforces extremely capably and with the exception of the F-14, will do so for many years to come.