Is the Super hornet much better than F-16?

I read that aside from the Super hornet none of fourth generation fighter are designed with modern electronic in mind and are really handicap in term of cooling/electricity generation etc...

And F-16 are hit harder than the others because of it small size

So is the Super hornet a much better platform that F-16?

Platform for what? Different aircraft have different capabilities for different missions.

Nodeo-Franvier said:

I read that aside from the Super hornet none of fourth generation fighter are designed with modern electronic in mind and are really handicap in term of cooling/electricity generation etc...

And F-16 are hit harder than the others because of it small size

So is the Super hornet a much better platform that F-16?

Click to expand...

As long as operating from a carrier is a requirement : yes.

It's a meaningless question.

The F-14D is out of service but was upgraded with the latest electronics before the end of its service life in the early-2000s. Today's F-15E/X, and F-16C Blk whatever, have all new electronics of the latest generation. The only problem with the F-16 in comparison to the F-18 E/F Super Hornet is the somewhat smaller size of its radar antenna.

Nodeo-Franvier said:

So is the Super hornet a much better platform that F-16?

Click to expand...

If you want a bomb truck, that can carry a lot, or at the longer distances, than the Super Hornet is probably a better thing to have. The F-16 with the thick spine and the CFTs should come close, though.
If you want a fighter without the extra fat, you're probably better off with the F-16 that has no appendices.

However - BiffF15

Nodeo-Franvier said:

And F-16 are hit harder than the others because of it small size

Click to expand...

This needs quite a bit of unpacking.
If they are being shot at by guns, yes the smaller size may help.
If they are being shot at by missiles things get a lot more difficult. I doubt if small size is really going to help.

We can talk (not well) about the visibility to radar or infrared, or visibility to the human eye. But while some of that can be measured (and public records as scant) a lot depends on the enemy sensors. Things change a lot in 50 years.

Shortround6 said:

This needs quite a bit of unpacking.
If they are being shot at by guns, yes the smaller size may help.
If they are being shot at by missiles things get a lot more difficult. I doubt if small size is really going to help.

We can talk (not well) about the visibility to radar or infrared, or visibility to the human eye. But while some of that can be measured (and public records as scant) a lot depends on the enemy sensors. Things change a lot in 50 years.

Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding this

But what I meant by F-16 being hit harder is about lower Internal volume that may handicap F-16 abilities to take in more modern avionic

Nodeo-Franvier said:

I might be misunderstanding this

But what I meant by F-16 being hit harder is about lower Internal volume that may handicap F-16 in regard to more modern avionic

Click to expand...

Sorry, I took the harder to hit as a separate question/problem.
The smaller volume for electronics may have been a problem in 1970s through ????
But electronics got a lot smaller over the years for the same capability or they could fit more capability into the same or smaller spaces.
The Super Hornet is around 25-30 years newer than the F-16. A new or reverbed F-16 can have electronics several generations newer than what it had in 1980.
What they can also do to the cooling and electrical generator systems is also well ahead of what they could do in 1970-80. The Super Hornet can probably hold more stuff but what are the missions and what was the desired electronics fit in any given year or in several years out of decades long life spans?

IIUC, the Super Hornet was in response to needing more range, plus a bigger wing (in order to keep the wing loading low) to carry the increase in fuel, the expected increase in size of the new ordnance coming into service, and an increase in overall ordnance load. Apparently, with the desired weapons loads the F/A-18A/B/C/D was at the limits of what was considered acceptable in terms of TO and stall speeds when operating from carriers, and was unacceptable in range - plus carriage of the new ordnance was stressing the wing structure too much.

At the time they were looking at either either buying the F-14D+ Blk whatever variants for combined Fighter/Attack (the Tomcat had more range on internal fuel with an 8,000 lb bomb load than the Hornet did clean), or building an entirely new aircraft, or adapting the F/A-18C/D.

It turned out that in terms of cost effectiveness the F/A-18C/D was not capable of being upgraded or simply improved to provide what was specified (fitting a new wing and larger tail was looked at but eventually discarded).

The F-14D+ would have been able to accomplish the mission(s), but was a maintenance hog (take a look at the variable geometry wing system and the air inlet system), so a new airframe was chosen.

The Super Hornet is really not an updated Hornet - it is a 95%(?) new airframe with almost no parts in common with the FA-18A/B/C/D Hornet. The overall planform of the Hornet was considered good so the appearance of the Super Hornet is that of a bigger Hornet. The last number I saw said that maintenance is estimated to be about 50% of what the F-14D+ Blk whatever would have been.

ThomasP said:

The F-14D+ would have been able to accomplish the mission(s), but was a maintenance hog (take a look at the variable geometry wing system and the air inlet system), so a new airframe was chosen.

The Super Hornet is really not an updated Hornet - it is a 95%(?) new airframe with almost no parts in common with the FA-18A/B/C/D Hornet. The overall planform of the Hornet was considered good so the appearance of the Super Hornet is that of a bigger Hornet. The last number I saw said that maintenance is estimated to be about 50% of what the F-14D+ Blk whatever would have been.

Click to expand...

Since the Super Bug was practically a new aircraft, and grew that much in size (and price), one wonders how much the F-14 with a modern fixed wing would've cost, both to buy and maintain, and what kind of capabilities would've have.

Me too.

If I had been making the decision, I probably would have erred on the side of greater mission capability of the F/A-14D+ vs the reduced maintenance costs of the Super Hornet, and go with all F/A-14D+ Tomcat squadrons - at least until the new F-35 came along. I suspect that integrating the same data-link/data-sharing systems incorporated in the F-35 and implementing a really serious RAM-D program would have provided enough benefit to justify the choice of keeping the F/A-14+ in service.

That way we would still have a top tier fleet defense and air superiority aircraft until the 5th or 6th generation NGAD fighter comes along.

As with airframes / aircraft, avionics will leapfrog to. The Super Hornet Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM / dogfighting) performance is very similar to the legacy models. I have fought F-18A, B, C, D (standard and EPE) and F models. To be honest the best fight I had with them was an A model flown by a 400 hour guy. He had an understanding of BFM that was well beyond his time in the airframe.

The F-16 I started fighting in the early 90s was the block 25, 30/32 and 40/42. The MLU Vipers got the bump to the equivalent avionics as those jets then along came the 50/52. Its radar was unbelievable inside targeting range. Huge jump above the APG63. Time marches on and the Eagle gets an AESA, then an improved AESA that weighs much less than the first gen. The F16s got multiple upgrades, intertwined with the Eagle, and now have newer processors and I believe they are getting AESAs. The CFTs for the Viper don't hinder its performance very much from what I've been told. However its range should be enhanced greatly.

Look at the upgrades given to the MLU Vipers that Ukraine received. Probably the most bad ass A/B models in existence.

The EFG model Hornets continue to be upgraded as well.

Leapfrogging 101.