F-16 vs F/A-18 in a dogfight?

Question

Who would get the upper hand in this fight? The Falcon or The Hornet?

Answer 1

For the people that don't know anything about dogfighting. The main idea is to get your plane into a firring position. Even missiles would need the right range and AOA (Angle of Attack) and G's (Aim-9 Sidewinders don't work when the plane it was launched from is doing more then 2 G's during Vietnam). That means the pilots need to climb, dive, turn, and roll into position to fire his/her guns or Missiles at the target.

The Main Factor is the Pilot. The Blue 4 or new pilot would easily be schooled by a experienced pilot. That was the main reason that the saber pilots were kicking MiG-15 butt in Korea. Most of the MiG-15 were inexperienced North Koreans and Chinese with a little more experience then the NK's. The American were mostly pilots that fought in WWII and are well skilled in the art of dogfighting. The F-86 Saber only main problem was the lower Ceiling then the MiG but it was the better fighter killer.

By my books on aircraft.
The F-16C has more speed then the F/A-18C.
( Mach 2.02 VS Mach1.8)
They both have the same Ceiling.
The Hornet has less fuel then the Falcon.
By F-16C Vs F/A-18. The F/A-18 can't monkey around and needs to take out the Falcon before its fuel gets low (Sounds like Spitfire Vs Bf 109)

But their is the F/A-18E Super Hornet.
The Speed was increased and and more fuel capacity. The speed is not as fast as the Falcon but very close and now the Falcon can't monkey around thank to the increcsed Fuel load of the Super Hornet. No mater what, The fight will be close and hard

Paul is corect that the F-16 is as old as the F/A-18. They competed in both Air Force and Navy Contracts. The Hornet is a F-17 that failed at the Air Force Contract with a reinforcing job so the plane can take the strane of carrier operation. and both are used in ground operations as well as air combat. The first time the F/A-18's were in combat they fought with not only a load of Anti-Air weapons but also with a load of bombs. A F-16 has to drop its bombs before even starting a dogfight. The main factor is how good and how experienced is the pilot and the Pilot's undertanding of the plane they fly.

As the Red Baron said, "It's not about the box, It's the man flying the box."

Answer 2

Wise guy gives an interesting answer........turning radius and climb rate have nothing to do with the equation? Even with modern off-boresight AAMs and helmet cueing systems, air combat is all about pointability. I'd also like for him to explain exactly what "dogfighting equipment" is. Oh, and as far as the F-16 being an older design..........you may want to do some research. The F/A-18 Hornet is a development of the YF-17, which competed with the YF-16 in the Lightweight Fighter program in the mid-70s. The YF-16 was adopted as the F-16 Fighting Falcon by the USAF, and the YF-17 was adopted by the USN/USMC and became the F/A-18 Hornet.

Given the same general capabilities with regards to weapons and avionics, as Scott A says it comes down to the pilot. It's not as if you're comparing an F-8 armed with AIM-9s to an F-22 armed with AIM-120s (not to mention the huge disparity in avionics). That's a no brainer. Comparing fighters of the same generation with comparable weapons and avionics will generally be a matter of which pilot is better.

Oh, and contrary to a previous answer, the Hornet was not the first fighter to have a thrust:weight ratio of 1:1 or better. That was the F-15.

Answer 3

This is a question that really doesn't have a good answer.
The problem is that they are both designed as multi-role platforms and they are both very good at what they do.
The F/A-18 is only 1 contract generation younger than the F-16 so they are not that different in that regard, not to mention that with constant product upgrade plans to avionics and other flight systems even the F-15 is still able to keep up and be a contender against these aircraft.
All things being equal, it would come down to the pilot and his experience and familiarity with his aircraft. Both are excellent in both dogfight and missle fight.

Answer 4

Besides the obvious pilot skill factor, that being considered equal, I would go with the Hornet. More thrust equals more options for the pilot. If my memory serves me right the Hornet was the first fighter plane that could accelerate straight up (at least on burner).

It would be one heck of a battle though.

Answer 5

I have fought both, and have watched both fight each other. (I'm a former Tomcat RIO.)

Without going into the scientific specifics of each jet's performance characteristics, such as turn rate and radius, roll rate, energy addition rate, and high-alpha nose pointing capability, I can say that the two jets are very evenly matched in most envelopes. In other words, the fight is going to be won by the pilot, not the jet. I've seen great pilots in 1960s-vintage F-5s absolutely spank average pilots in Hornets.

However, each jet will enjoy a small advantage in certain regimes. Pilots of each aircraft know these special areas and will work to lure the other jet into "their" fights.

In the Tomcat, for instance, we had a nice advantage at low altitudes because of our big swing-wings and nice pitch authority. We'd drag the fight downhill fast to use that advantage.

"It's not the box, but the man in the box."

Answer 6

Both planes are -3 G +9 G rated, which means both planes can outfly the pilots. Most new fighter aircraft have that rating. There are air to air missles that can pull 12 G, so the idea of outflying those is pointless. That's why everyone will be moving to stealth and pilotless aircraft, because they have already reached the technical limits on everything else.

Answer 7

Well . . . the answer to your question doesn't rest with the capability of each plane. Neither is equipped with dogfighting equipment, so turning radius and climb rate has nothing to do with the equasion.

The F-16 is a fine plane, but it's an older design, and unless it has the more sophisticated long-range enemy detection and targeting equipment and the accompanying missiles to knock their adversary out of the sky, they're going to be at the receiving end of whatever the far superior F-18 dishes out to them.
.

Answer 8

J-10 VS Euro-fighter Typhoon, winner is the Typhoon F-22 VS Su-PAK FA, winner is the F-22

Answer 9

i was just writing to laugh at some of the answers, that are just b@llsh!t to anyone that actually knows anything about these jets and jets, and to agree a bit with holloway...

both as late models same updated avionics and systems etc...then the f-16, on paper for me...just by a smidge...

even then it's too hard to say...it's a shame they never approved the YF-23A Widowmaker II for production...it would've mauled them both, and the F-22A...

Answer 10

i would go with the f 16 but it depends on how good the pilot is