Well, Hornet is a great aircraft, no doubts about it. But F-16 is better! well, that depends on wad way you are looking at!

Originally Posted by zander_0633

Well, Hornet is a great aircraft, no doubts about it. But F-16 is better! well, that depends on wad way you are looking at!

just just...just..just.....just..just..hhhh, just just okay

What do you mean Mightymacbeth?

nathing

Ok, that's better!

This is like asking what is the better gun.
An M-4 or a Vickers machine gun. They both do different things and both have different points to judge on. So if your going to pick the "better" aircraft, pick two that are similiar.

Originally Posted by MightyMcbeth

wow tough battle..

tomtom, umm, reason? heh

F-16 is faster than F/A-18.

I voted for the F-16, not only is it, IMO, the most versatile aircraft in the United States' arsenal, it is also much easier to produce than the F/A-18 Hornet. I think in a one on one the Hornet will win 6 out of 10 times, but the Falcon is much easier to produce, being smaller than the Hornet and al though I will be blasted by many members on here numbers count. What was one big reason the F-16 was put into production? The top brass realized that all their large, high tech fighter/interceptors were in danger of being swamped by the shear numbers of the technologically inferior Soviet Mig's. So the F-16 came into being, a small, fast, cheap, versatile aircraft that still packed one hell of a punch. Sure the Hornet can land on a carrier, but it's capabilities will be limited because it needs to be able to sustain the impacts of several hundred carrier landings and take offs.

So, I chose the F-16 because of price, versatility and ease of production. Not only that but the F-16 has been adopted for use by the Israeli's and they seem to know quite a bit about what's gold and what's crap.

Originally Posted by Damien435

I voted for the F-16, not only is it, IMO, the most versatile aircraft in the United States' arsenal, it is also much easier to produce than the F/A-18 Hornet. I think in a one on one the Hornet will win 6 out of 10 times, but the Falcon is much easier to produce, being smaller than the Hornet and al though I will be blasted by many members on here numbers count. What was one big reason the F-16 was put into production? The top brass realized that all their large, high tech fighter/interceptors were in danger of being swamped by the shear numbers of the technologically inferior Soviet Mig's. So the F-16 came into being, a small, fast, cheap, versatile aircraft that still packed one hell of a punch. Sure the Hornet can land on a carrier, but it's capabilities will be limited because it needs to be able to sustain the impacts of several hundred carrier landings and take offs.

So, I chose the F-16 because of price, versatility and ease of production. Not only that but the F-16 has been adopted for use by the Israeli's and they seem to know quite a bit about what's gold and what's crap.

American pilots aren't cheap though... The Soviets may be willing to sacrifice one of their pilots if it means killing one American pilot (Cold War fact), but America fights to win. From what I've read about the newer generation fighters (namely the F-22), American air power is based on the idea of killing multiple targets from far away (multiple target vector). I think it was the F-14 (the upgraded one) that first carried a missile system capable of firing at six targets at once. Soviet fighters tend to focus on close combat so they're more maneuverable. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Btw, I voted for the F-18. The F-16 while quite versatile seems kind of old to me.

hmm, interesting facts and views u got there fellas.. nice