Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
For this reason they are almost perfectly equivalent in terms of mission capabilities.
Yet, "almost perfectly equivalent" does not mean "exactly equivalent", as an example, the Viper is a better AA platform than the Bug, in both BVR and WVR. The Bug however, can carry more Fox3 missiles and has a better stand-off capability carrying SLAM, SLAM-R and both cluster and HE JSOW weapons (the Viper can only carry cluster JSOW).
There are many others, I've just listed the first ones I remembered.
/this
However I think the OP was referring to weapons and mission capability instead of aerodynamics performances.
So the Hornet can carry more missiles, has more loadout options, and is carrier capable. The F16 is faster, but can't carry as much, and isn't carrier capable. So it sounds like it's just faster. How is the F16 better in BVR? I can see it being better in WVR if it has better nose authority, but I've done almost no WVR fighting in the F16 so far.
I was referring to both bits I suppose. Just trying to learn when I'd opt for one over the other now in DCS. At this point it just boils down to if I want to play on the carrier during that sit down or not XD Hah! Because for the most part they feel the same in the A-G stuff I've done. Where as attacking a convoy with a Mirage 2000C feels vastly different than attacking the same convoy in say an F-18
First let's talk about the engine(s). The Hornet runs on two smaller engines while the F-16 runs on a single larger engine. For the Hornet, that means redundancy and a decent top speed but generally weaker acceleration. For the Viper, that means greater acceleration with a similar top end speed. This is a big factor that makes them feel pretty different from one another and it also results in them having VASTLY different strengths in the stereotypical dogfight scenario.
While on the subject of engines, it is important to head off a particularly silly myth that seems to make its rounds every now and again. While it is true that the Viper carries less total fuel, its use of only a single engine makes overall fuel usage between the two similar enough that it isn't a major factor (unless you don't understand how to conserve fuel at all). When you combine that with the fact that both aircraft would operate with tanker support, the fuel issue between the two is lessened even more.
Next, let's talk about the cockpit. Both are reasonably advanced and come from a similar overall vintage but the Hornet's cockpit is slightly less focused on HOTAS use when compared to the Viper. It is clear that the Viper's designers were very keen to maximize the HOTAS concept while the Hornet was still somewhat non-committal on it. This isn't to say the Hornet doesn't adequately use HOTAS based controls, it is just that you are going to be hitting buttons manually on the DDI's a lot more than you might on the Viper.
Alongside that, the Viper obviously has the luxury of that rather nice bubble canopy that doesn't block any line of site. This is assuming you are one of those that gets upset over cockpit frames rather than just adjusting and getting on with it.
Let's get into sensors next. Both the Hornet and the Viper are going to be pretty similar in terms of radar, targeting pods, and even helmet mounted displays. The biggest difference is that the Viper can carry the HTS (HARM targeting system) pod. Think of it as essentially a very precise way of locating SAM radars from further away than a HARM missile's sensor can on its own. This lets you not only more accurately utilize your HARM's but will also let you very quickly and easily turn a radar source into a usable markpoint or navigation/target point. When you really learn how the system works, you will pretty quickly realize that the Viper is VASTLY superior in the SEAD/DEAD role as a result.
Before people get too upset. The Hornet is FINE in the SEAD/DEAD role but it is objectively not as specifically equipped for the job as the Viper is. The Hornet can do the job well enough but the Viper can truly excel at it since it has a dedicated sensor to make it faster, easier, and safer.
Now let's talk about weapons. Starting with the easiest, the air to air stuff. Both share the same general selection of Sidewinders and AMRAAM's with the Hornet getting the extra bonus of the older Sparrow missiles. Likewise. They both carry a internal gun.
The biggest difference right off that bat is that the Hornet carries the SLAM and SLAM-ER missile. These are like little cruise missiles in a way and allow for very precise long range attacks with a "man in the loop" option. The Hornet even carries their older cousin the Walleye which is significantly less capable (and quite outdated) but still very interesting.
Another larger distinction is that the Hornet (being a Navy plane) has anti-ship Harpoon missiles. This makes sense since the USAF wouldn't really need anti-ship missiles on the Viper anyway (since the Navy can simply use theirs).
Both carry the standard assortment of unguided bombs, JDAM's, and laser guided bombs. There are some distinctions here and there but they are overall of equal capability in this area.
Cluster bombs are a major distinction. The Hornet can only carry the standard cluster bomb (Rockeye/CBU-99) with unguided submunitions while the Viper can carry the CBU-97/CBU-105 that contain the guided sensor fuse munitions. This makes the Viper's cluster bombs MUCH more effective against armor and even more spread out vehicle targets.
Mavericks are interesting. The Hornet gets the bonus of carrying the laser Maverick (which is pretty easy and fast to use in a variety of conditions). It can carry TV and IR Mavericks as well but this is probably where the Viper gets a bit of a leg up (to make up for its lack of laser Mavs). The Viper has a more seamless hand-off between the targeting pod sensor and the Maverick seeker head. Likewise, You can even do (depending on what Mavericks you are carrying and how) dual targeting where you independently lock each Maverick and fire them at two different targets in rapid succession. It might not seem like a big deal but it does make it possible to do double the work in a single pass.
We already went over the HARMs. The Viper and Hornet both can carry them but the Hornet is limited to only the HARM's own sensor while the Viper can use the HTS pod to significantly increase SAM detection range and offers the pilot options in regards to setting markpoints or target points on them.
Beyond that, there isn't much to say about weapons (unless I am forgetting something) They can also each carry JSOWs but they are pretty similar in that regard. While on the subject, The Hornet and Viper handle GPS guided weapons a bit differently in that the Hornet allows you to directly input coordinates into each weapon individually (thus allowing you to rapidly release them with no further input). The Viper is a lot like the A-10C in that the JDAM/JSOW will go after whatever your current active sensor point of interest is. This might be a pre-planned waypoint, markpoint, where the ground radar is locked on to, or even where your targeting pod is locked on to. This means that releasing a large amount of them is slower but it is still just as effective in the end.
Now that we are done with weapons, let's talk about some other things. The Hornet and the Viper have one pretty significant difference. The Hornet (by design) is generally better at tighter, lower speed turns. It will still slow down and its limited acceleration will make speeding up harder after dumping a lot of energy but it can keep its nose on something easier. The Viper is a lot different. It is still incredibly maneuverable but you are going to generally want to avoid just jamming the nose around and instead focus on maintaining a optimum turning speed as that will give you very reliable, steady maneuverability without dumping a ton of energy. The Viper needs you to be a bit more thoughtful when yanking the stick and that can make it seem less capable for those that don't bother to understand how it works.
Another important thing to talk about is refueling. The Hornet uses a probe and drogue style setup while the Viper uses the boom. These are VERY different and while the boom is faster in terms of fuel transfer, it can also be a bit less forgiving. Both are totally doable in DCS with enough meaningful, deliberate practice but they are very different none the less.
Finally, let's talk about missions. This is perhaps the area where the biggest overall difference will manifest. Since the Hornet was intended to be a carrier aircraft, all your missions are going to start with a catapult launch and they will end with a carrier recovery. You can get pretty deep into this and learn how to properly do the launches, case 1 and case 3 recoveries. This can get pretty challenging (if you want to do it right) and does add a pretty significant layer on top of every mission. In contrast, the Viper is going to be confined to airbases and this can also change the feel of the mission. Both carrier operations and airbase operations bring a different atmosphere to the whole thing.
Here is the thing. They are both fantastic, incredibly capable aircraft. They might have specific areas where one is technically, objectively better than another but their differences are more in how one might build missions around them and how carrier operations versus airbase operations can change the feel of the mission. You will do the same task a bit differently in each aircraft. It isn't something that someone who learns the bare minimum and only hangs out on public servers might pick up on in a big way but if you really dig in, the differences really come to the surface.
Exactly because it is faster: the faster you move, the more extra energy your missile gets at the launch time.
More energy means a longer range and higher capability to turn and hit a manouvering target.
And the same apply when you need to defend on a Viper in BVR: you can turn cold and/or descend to the deck to try notch the incoming missile faster.
It is just a matter of physic ;-)
Ok
Wind corrected munitions (WCMD)?
yep, that's right.
F18 doesn't have any "smart" CBUs. F16 has those heat seaking anti armor bombs CBU97 and CBU105. Which makes stuff like DEAD work much much easier in the F16.
Actually both Hornet and Viper can carry JSOW-A, which uses the same cluster warhead of CBU-87 and CBU-103. Indeed JSOW-A are less precise than WCMD but yet they can be launched off the SAM engagement range, so I guess there is not too much difference in DEAD task between the two planes.