Falcon versus Hornet - Which Fighter Reigns Supreme?

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:08:24 -0500

They have served alongside each other for decades, but they’ve been rivals for just as long. The F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 Hornet went toe-to-toe ever since the Lightweight Fighter Competition. But which is really the better plane? Comments Please.

Response by LTC Greg Henning made Jan 2 at 2017 10:18 AM

LTC Greg Henning — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:18:10 -0500

Each aircraft was built to support different missions

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 2 at 2017 12:01 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:01:12 -0500

Hornet is the only aircraft to score air-to-air kills while carrying external bombs. They're specifically designed to be able to do dogfight while on the way to a bombing target. No other aircraft is designed like that.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 2 at 2017 12:23 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:23:29 -0500

Since both aircraft were built for different purposes this choice is not really fair SP5 Mark Kuzinski. IMHO the pilot is the most critical factor in aircraft competition. Certainly the more "fly-by-wire" capability an aircraft has the less the pilot has to do. In any event the th skill and the capability of the pilot is the determining factor.
The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft that is one of the most resilient warplanes in the world. It is also an airplane which has been used by many air forces throughout the world with great success in combat. It has stood the test of time for decades and is a worthy airframe.
The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is a twin-engine supersonic, all-weather carrier-capable multirole combat jet, designed as both a fighter and attack aircraft.
Since I couldn't vote neither I am voting for the F/A-18

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 2 at 2017 3:23 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 15:23:23 -0500

Both airframes have different characteristics based on speed, altitude, loadout, etc. Add to that the difference in skill level of the pilots. That said, the winner is the one that locks on to the other first.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Jan 2 at 2017 4:36 PM

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:36:01 -0500

Update:
The F-16 is a single-engine fighter (using either a Pratt and Whitney F100 or a GE F110) that can carry a wide variety of air-to-ground ordnance, and up to six air-to-air missiles, either the AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-9 Sidewinder. It also has a M61A1 20mm Gatling gun with 500 rounds – or about five seconds of firing time. According to GlobalSecurity.org, the Falcon has a range of over 2,100 nautical miles and a top speed of Mach 2.

The Hornet uses two F404 engines, and like the F-16, can carry a wide variety of air-to-ground ordnance. However, it can carry up to six air-to-air missiles as well (either the AIM-120, the AIM-9, or the older AIM-7), and it has a M61 with 570 rounds (about six seconds of firing time). GlobalSecurity.org credits the Hornet with a range of over 1,800 nautical miles and a top speed of Mach 1.8.
Both planes have long and distinguished combat careers. The F-16 got its first combat action in 1981, with the famous raid on the Osirak reactor. The F/A-18 made its debut in 1986 with the Freedom of Navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra that year. Since then, they have fought side by side. Both have been exported, with the F-16 having an edge on that front, while the F/A-18 operates from carriers as well as land bases.

So, which is better? If you needed one plane for all the military services, which would be the right choice? While the F-16 might win in a dogfight, the F/A-18 offers more versatility, and its ability to operate from carriers is a huge plus. While Congress was irritated with the Navy, and later ordered it to purchase some F-16s, which aviation historian Joe Baugher notes were used as aggressors, the fact remains that the DOD may have been better off buying the F/A-18 for all services.

Response by SPC David S. made Jan 2 at 2017 4:52 PM

SPC David S. — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:52:42 -0500

While they are built with different missions in mind if I could only buy one I'd have to go with the F-18's dual engine over the single engine F-16. As well try to launch/land an F-16 from a carrier. I'd say I would pick it over the F-35 as well.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jan 3 at 2017 5:44 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:44:51 -0500

All comes down to who is in the cockpit at the time of the engagement.

Response by Sgt John Steinmeier made Jan 5 at 2017 1:40 PM

Sgt John Steinmeier — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 13:40:56 -0500

In a pure guns dogfight, the F-16.

In a missile dual probably even steven.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Jan 5 at 2017 1:41 PM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 13:41:44 -0500

As a Former Director of F-16 Co-production program in Europe, I am biased. The F-16 was a dream fightinmg aircraft and one of the first aircraft that could go stealth. But in the 1st Gulf war, I gained a lot of respect for the F-15 and the F/A-18 Hornet.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 10 at 2017 1:15 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:15:02 -0500

Kind of comparing apples to oranges, so there is no correct answer to your poll. The F-16 won out in a head to head competition as an inexpensive mass produced lightweight fighter for the Air Force. As the winner at the time it was the superior aircraft for the AF mission. Having lost the AF competition, McDonnell Douglas corrected the issues that made it lose the competition, added a few more features and ultimately sold what became the F-18 to the Navy. Both are excellent aircraft for the mission they were designed for, but other than the fact that they both fly and fight you really can't compare them.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Jan 10 at 2017 6:58 PM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:58:36 -0500

Isn't this like asking which sports car reigns; Mustang vs. Corvette - . I actually think the answer is: it depends, and under what circumstance? Both are very capable fighting aircraft. I'd rather hear comments from the pilots who've flown both aircraft and read their assessment The Falcon is lighter and more agile. If you've ever stood next to a F/A-18 you'd be amazed at just how big that bird is. The missions of these two aircaft are different, plus the Hornet is carrier capable. That, of course gives it a slight edge in the mind of some. But, the fighting Falcon would be a very tough advocacy for the Hornet given equal pilot skills. Today I like the Mustang GT350, but tomorrow I might like the Corvette. I'm sure glad they are both are in our inventory.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 17 at 2017 6:40 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:40:37 -0500

Posted on this a week ago then got my February Air Force Magazine with this article. May help clear things up.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/February%202017/Legacy-of-the-Lightweight-Fighter-Competition.aspx

Air Force Magazine

When the Air Force F-15 and Navy F-14 were being developed in the early 1970s, their performance—especially their speed and radar detection range—was unprecedented, and so was their price. Congress shuddered at the idea of such expensive machines being the fighter mainstays of the two services and directed the Air Force to explore less costly aircraft that could complement the F-15 and, later, the F-14.