What is your opinion on F-18, Jow Forums?

Fucking Chinese Jews.

It seems pretty good. US is still buying Super Hornets so it must be alright.

Attached: F18 1.jpg (1920x1080, 228K)

I BTFO of Iran with just 1 in BF3 so much be good

Do you prefer F-16 or F-18?

Attached: F-18 FA-18.jpg (1594x550, 207K)

Su-27

I've heard the navy struggles with extreme depressurization issues. Kills or endangers pilots way too often.

>Kills or endangers pilots way too often.
how often does it have to kill pilots before its "way too often" lmao

Pussy ass Navy flyboys, bitching again.

GOAT console multishooter.
Actually played a bit last winter after years of no vidya. Decent server support still.

Super Hornets and legacy Hornets are completely different aircraft. Please don't muddy the waters.

Goods:
carries a variety of weapons
carries a decently large payload
can do any mission except deep penetration stealth strikes and antisub
maneuverable

others:
range sucks
top speed sucks

top speed sucks

Great plane for (((them))) to use against enemies of Israel goy

I like using it more than the PAK FA in Ace Combat because it has a railgun.

Original F-18 was amazing when it came out. Sure, it had short legs, but when each of them carries a pair of sidewinders and a pair of sparrows with them into every engagement, even when they're being used in an air to ground role, that's a gamechanger. Very good in a dogfight too.

Almost as good as mig-21

Fighter jets aren't pressurised in the first place. The pilots have the masks that force feed them oxygen for a reason.

Attached: 250px-NASA_helmet_for_T-38_Speyer_front_top.jpg (250x250, 19K)

They are pressurized, just not enough to be able to breathe cabin air without getting hypoxic.

>F-16
Cheaper and not much worse than F-18

This is correct. Very easy to forget because they look the same but Im pretty sure there's not a part on them that's interchangable.

Everyones been mostly correct, It's a very capable mid 4th gen plane and its carrier capable which does tack on limitations as other anons have said: Low top speed, Not great range but its usually within range of a carrier and any country operating without aircraft carriers has tanker aircraft and it has done plenty of 12+ hour flights.
Other goodies include: Very pilot friendly apaparently so easy and ergonomic an idiot could use it. Very wide range of weapons capable for a2a and a2g. Can carry amraams, AND has jhmcs for when its in close, Also datalink.

both wrong, cockpits are sufficiently pressurized for the pilot to breath without a mask but having a mask forcing air into your lungs is good for high g maneuvers

F-18 bc carrier capability obviously. F-16s for post ww3 mercenary aesthetics though.

>low top speed

Why do non pilots always think aircraft fly around at, or even have the ability to reach their top mach speed? Only under certain conditions is top mach even achievable and it's rare for non test pilots to ever take their airframe to top mach. Stop watching anime and playing ace combat, fellas.

user its important because in aerial warfare and dogfighting or beyond visual range engagements everything is based around potential energy if you launch a missile at an enemy plane and your going faster and your higher up than he is that missile now has more altitude and speed to reach its target.
Being fast or having fast acceleration is arguably more important than anything else for this reason.
The reason people list top speeds is because it gives you an idea of what these planes are capable of what you said is correct that to reach those top speeds you would need a clean airplane with only half a tank somewhere at high altitude.
Heres an example: F18 top speed is listed at 1900km/h with a combat load it would cruise at probably around 300-500 ROUGHLY
F 15 top speed is listed as 3000km/h and it would cruise and accelerate a little faster than an hornet probably around 450-650
Its a very loose way of comparing speeds but thats why its important and i dont think most people who care a bout aviation and know this feel like autistically listing combat load speeds, combat load accelerations etc etc. o get a realistic way of how quick they actually are

Reread the part where only certain conditions that top mach is even achieved, and consider the fact that you dont understand physics or how aircraft achieve top mach in the first place.

Also flying as fast as you can towards an enemy fighter is actually NOT how BVR is performed, hi alt does mean you can launch a missile sooner, but you still want to keep your max r for as long as possible. But it's clear you don't know much about this.

Re-read my post salty boy, and obviously thats not how its done i simplified shit to the max cause your first post made it seem like you didnt know too much on the subject. Not everyones out to get you bro

Your post is retarded and in no way shape or form does it appear that you understand how top mach is achieved or again, how it matters in combat. A fighter with a top mach of 1.6 is completely negligible to a fighter with a 1.8 or 2.0 there are aircraft with a lower mach who have higher thrust to weight ratios than aircraft with pure higher speed. But more to the point, aircraft literally can not just instantly fly at their top mach whenever they want, nor is it achievable at every altitude (an F-15 and an F-18 at sea level are going to hit the same air density disallowing any more acceleration anywhere near mach 2, the F-15's potential higher mach speed becomes irrelevant) nor can aircraft hit their top in anything other than in a clean config, no ordinance, no fuel tanks, and they have to be at ~30,000ft, it also takes time to hit their speed even at this setting, up to two minutes, meanwhile their fuel is being consumed at such a rate that when they do hit top mach they're on fumes and need to land asap or meet a tanker. What does this mean? It means that this whole flight has to be coordinated so that by the end of the mach run, in which the aircraft is now out of fuel, he has to now be over a friendly airfield, not in enemy airspace.

This brings us back to the point that it's mostly test pilots, over the test ranges of Nevada and California who have hit their top mach speeds, because just doing so has to be a coordinated mission from beginning to end.

F/A-18

The early F-16s looked amazing. I get that it’s a small fighter and the conformal pods are necessary to upgrade it, but they ruin the sleek lines of the original.

Jow Forums needs to start hating on the nonexistent Chinese jews

Attached: F18 Typhoon.jpg (1924x1282, 361K)

The loser to the F-16? Which someone decided could replace the F-14?
It's barely not a shortlegged piece of shit.

f-16 because i bet being in that frameless cockpit feels amazing.

Is this Spain?