TWR, Fuel & Performance: F-16C, JF-17, F/A-18C – Comparison

The second round of Thrust-to-Weight and performance data sees the setting moving forward to the 2000s and beyond. F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet need little introduction. These designs are cousins born from the same competition: the “Lightweight Fighter program”. The JF-17 is less known, but I covered this fighter jet recently. Given their popularity, I will not spend much time on them individually and move straight to the numbers.

F/A-18C lot. 20 “Hornet”

Probably the most flexible and versatile module of modern DCS, the Hornet represented in the game is powered by a pair of F404-GE-402.
The payload configuration tests, marked as “PL” in the charts, feature 6x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9. The “PL + FT” adds 2x 330 gal external fuel tanks. The latter configuration carries circa 14500 lbs of fuel.

The Hornet does not have missile wells like the Phantom II or the Tomcat, but a pair of missiles can be “clamped” to the fuselage. I have not found the Drag Index value of such stations, but the lack of rails and racks should reduce the overall drag. The other four AMRAAM require, in fact, a combination of LAU-115 and LAU-127 racks. The pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders is mounted on the wingtips.

Ground level

At ground level, the F/A-18C shows good acceleration without fuel tanks, especially if the reheat is used. If the afterburner is not used, the Hornet stabilises at the beginning of the transonic region, depending on the configuration. The 40-second detail shows how the fuel tanks constitute a considerable source of drag, whereas the effect of the missiles is limited until circa M.9.

All charts have time [s] on the abscissa and speed [M] on the ordinate.

High altitude

At 30,000 ft, the thinner, cooler air allows the Hornet to accelerate to supersonic speed with ease, but the heaviest payload struggles to cross the transonic region. Nevertheless, the speed continues its positive trend, and unloading may tangibly help to traverse the trench between M1 and M1.2.
At military thrust, each configuration passes M.9 following, more or less, the same trend. This is quite interesting, as often the adoption of fuel tanks flattens the curve.

F-16CM block 50 “Fighting Falcon”

The F-16 and the F/A-18 have similar origins, as both competed in the Lightweight Fighter program. Unfortunately, DCS does not feature the initial versions of the F-16 but only block 50, which somewhat changed the aeroplane’s original philosophy.
The F-16 is characterised by extremely gentle, smooth lines and a big air intake. It looks like a fast aeroplane, and its performance nails the look.
The loadouts tested feature 4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9 and two fuel tanks (370 gal each). The heaviest configuration carries circa 10,000 lbs of fuel.

Ground level

At ground level, the F-16 is extremely fast. The presence of 6 air-to-air missiles only barely affects the performance of the Fighting Falcon. However, the results change noticeably when fuel tanks are loaded. Curiously, the effect is greater when reheat is used, with a marked effect on the top speed. At military thrust instead, the draggy fuel tanks appear to affect the acceleration, whereas the speed somewhat aligns with the other configurations.
If fuel tanks are not loaded, pilots should be very careful and properly manage the little internal fuel the Falcon carries.

High altitude

At 30,000 ft, we observe a similar trend. The acceleration is eye-watering, and the clean Falcon settles at around M1.8 when reheat is used. At military thrust instead, the F-16 reaches M1.
Once again, the external fuel tanks are the most significant factor affecting the fighter’s performance. Contrary to the Hornet observed earlier, the curve of the Payload + Fuel Tank test at Mil is flat.

As a sidenote, I am quite surprised by how marginal the impact of 6 missiles on the overall performance is. It would be interesting to check the DI values of the rails and the missiles in the tested configuration and compare them to the F/A-18C.

JF-17 “Thunder”

The JF-17 is one of the most modern aircraft in the game, born of cooperation between the Chinese and Pakistani aviation industries. They focused on creating a lightweight, simple but flexible, and export-friendly product.

The tested configuration resembles the Fighting Falcon, with 2x PL-5 infrared missiles and 4x SD-10 Active Radar Homing missiles. The “PL + FT” configuration adds two 1100 litres fuel tanks.

I created a number of articles and videos dedicated to the JF-17 already, both covering the KLJ-7 and air-to-air, and a review of a book dedicated to this aircraft. I recommend them in case you are looking for more information.
However, it is worth noting that the engine mounted by the Thunder is closely related to the Klimov RD-33, the same turbofan engine that powers the MiG-29.
In DCS, the Jeff, as it is colloquially called, is known to be underpowered. Let’s see the numbers.

Ground level

At ground level, the clean configuration barely passes M1 when the afterburner is used. This is far from impressive, although the clean configuration in Military thrust settles at M.9, which is not particularly slow. Adding weapons changes the results dramatically, and the added drag and weight make the life of the single RD-93 turbofan engine particularly hard.

High altitude

At high altitude, things take a surprising turn. The Jeff’s acceleration is not particularly brilliant, but the trend persists and eventually reaches a good top speed. Once again, however, as soon as payload is added, things change. Although the payload-only curve pushes through M1, it seriously struggles and does not leave the transonic region even after 2 minutes and a half. With fuel tanks, the Jeff surrenders before hitting supersonic speed. Moreover, this is possibly the only aircraft where a clean Mil configuration is faster than the loaded one plus reheat.
Without afterburner, the mentioned clean setup does not show a particularly remarkable acceleration, but it still reaches a speed very close to M1. Adding payload instead, as expected, severely impact the aircraft’s performance.

Comparisons

Before starting, a quick reminder: each aircraft has a different weight, drag index, and payload. Ergo, these comparisons should be considered from an operational point of view, rather than pure aircraft performance.
Moreover, fuel consumption is extrapolated and normalised from a limited data interval. It is, therefore, an indication of fuel usage rather than a very accurate value.

Ground + Reheat

Let’s see the Ground level plus Reheat scenario. As expected, the Fighting Falcon leaves everyone behind with ease. With normalised internal fuel only, the F-16 has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio, hitting 1.16. The Hornet follows at 1.01, and the Jeff reaches 0.97.
Splitting the chart, we can better appreciate the results, which seem consistent with the thrust-to-weight ratio in similar circumstances.
When the payload is added, the F-16 is the least affected, whereas the performance of F/A-18 and JF-17 is quite close.
Fuel-wise, the JF-17 is the most economical and efficient to run, followed by the Hornet with a 30% higher fuel usage. Lastly, the F-16 drinks almost twice the Jeff: a dramatic increment of 96%!

Ground + Military thrust

Moving to ground level with Mil thrust setting, we notice a couple of interesting things in the clean configuration test: in primis, the Hornet’s acceleration is quite close to the Falcon’s. Then, the JF-17, albeit showing the poorest acceleration, eventually manages to catch and take over the Hornet.
The fuel consumption crumbles compared to the previous scenario. In particular, the JF-17 uses the least amount of fuel, but this time, the worst enemy of the environment is the Hornet. It is interesting to check the impact of the afterburners on the overall consumption. Jeff, -74%; Hornet, -70% and Fighting Falcon, a whopping -83%.
Looking again at the data, it seems that the F-16’s afterburner affects the aircraft’s performance more than the others. Ergo, the Falcon’s reheat is both a great resource and the key to properly managing its fuel consumption.

30,000 ft + Reheat

At high altitude plus reheat, the Fighting Falcon is free from the shackles of the warm, thick air down low, and can fully show its muscles.
In a clean configuration, there is not a lot to say. The F-16 leaves everyone behind with ease after the transonic range. However, the acceleration until circa M.85 is not as one-sided, and the Hornet can somewhat keep up. As mentioned, once supersonic, the game is over.
The addition of payload and especially fuel tanks shakes things up a bit more. Whilst the JF-17 lags behind, the Hornet tails the F-16 closely until the transonic region. The ‘-18, however, albeit maintaining an accelerating pattern, struggles to free itself from the turbulent air. It would be interesting to check what happens if the Hornet unloads to accelerate further.
In terms of fuel, the situation resembles the first scenario: ground plus reheat. If the difference between JF-17 and F/A-18 is somewhat consistent, the Fighting Falcon’s fuel consumption is dramatically lower. Almost half of what the afterburner drinks down in the weeds.

30,000 ft + Military thrust

Last scenario: high altitude plus military thrust setting. This is where we find some surprises.
Starting with the clean configuration, we see the JF-17 accelerating slightly faster than the others. Although we are talking about a difference of M.02, it is still unexpected. Moving to more realistic scenarios, where ordnance and tanks are loaded, we find the second interesting observation: when there is a payload and tanks to drag around, the F/A-18 performs better until M.9. The Fighting Falcon dominated the previous tests. In this case, instead shows the same performance as the Jeff acceleration-wise. However, when it is time to push through the transonic range, the F-16 takes the lead again.
Peeking at fuel consumption, we have the third surprise: the Hornet drinks substantially more fuel than the others in this scenario, just slightly less than the usage at ground level. It may be related to the dual-engine configuration, but if you have more information, please share it in the comments.

Conclusions

This article concludes the series of aeroplanes I have analysed in greater detail. If the RAZBAM’s situation with ED is resolved, I will probably check the Mirage 2000 and the Strike Eagle.
Regarding the 16-17-18 triad, I think it went as expected, with the Fighting Falcon asserting dominance, albeit at the cost of a noticeably high fuel consumption when the afterburner is used.
The JF-17 is the opposite. It is not particularly slow as long as the loadout is light. The problem is, even the maximum loadout is relatively low when compared to its peers. On the other hand, its engine uses very little fuel, and perhaps spending some time to find the best balance between carried fuel and performance may be worth it.
Lastly, the F/A-18C. I think the best way to put it is: “There is a reason why the Super Hornet exists”. There are scenarios where the Hornet’s performance is surprisingly good, namely in military power, until the transonic region is met. Which, by the way, is where the vast majority of a mission is flown. Unfortunately, once it gets there, the F/A-18 struggles and could benefit from additional power and internal fuel to reduce drag. And what are the odds, these are two of the points drastically improved by the Super Hornet.
I look forward to seeing it in DCS sometime in the future.