Pakistan F16 vs Typhoon. Reality or tall tales? (merged)
Thread Starter
Pakistan F16 vs Typhoon. Reality or tall tales? (merged)
Flight Global picks over a post from the PAF Falcons web site ranging over a couple of points.
One in particular claims that the PAF crewed F-16's out preform RAF crewed Typhoons in close quarters engagements.
MUST READ: Tell-all interview with Pakistan Viper pilot - The DEW Line
Just tall tales .... ?
JAS
One in particular claims that the PAF crewed F-16's out preform RAF crewed Typhoons in close quarters engagements.
MUST READ: Tell-all interview with Pakistan Viper pilot - The DEW Line
Just tall tales .... ?
JAS
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Analysis from The Register:
Analysis
The RAF Typhoon, formerly known as the Eurofighter, should nonetheless have been vastly superior in air-to-air combat whether BVR or close in within visual range (WVR). The cripplingly expensive, long-delayed Eurofighter was specifically designed to address the defects of its predecessor the Tornado F3 – famously almost useless in close-in, dogfighting-style air combat. The Typhoon was meant to see off such deadly in-close threats as Soviet "Fulcrums" and "Flankers" using short-range missiles fired using helmet-mounted sight systems: such planes were thought well able to beat not just Tornados but F-16s in close fighting, and this expectation was borne out after the Cold War when the Luftwaffe inherited some from the East German air force and tried them out in exercises.
Thus it is that huge emphasis was placed on manoeuvring capability and dogfighting in the design of the Eurofighter. The expensive Euro-jet was initially designed, in fact, as a pure fighter with no ground attack options at all – bomber capability has had to be retrofitted subsequently at still more expense. Despite lacking various modern technologies such as Stealth and thrust-vectoring the resulting Typhoon is generally touted as being one of the best air-to-air combat planes in the world right now. Certainly it is meant to be good in close fighting: it is armed with the Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM) which as its name suggests is intended for the close WVR fight.
Perhaps the account above is simply a lie, or anyway a bit of a fighter pilot tall story. But the pilot quoted will be easily identifiable inside his community if not to the outside world, and he could expect a lot of flak for telling a lie on such a matter in public. It seems likelier that the story is the truth as he perceived it: that the RAF's new superfighter was thrashed in the very type of combat it is supposed to be best at by a 1970s-era plane, albeit much modernised.
It's always possible, as the anonymous Pakistani pilot suggests, that the problem was with the crews. It may be that RAF pilots simply don't know how to fight close-in. During the many years when they had no other fighter than the lamentable Tornado F3 (the Typhoon only reached front line service a few years ago) they may have lost the institutional skillset required for dogfighting with short-range missiles.
But in general when the British forces perform badly it isn't because of a lack of skills and training. It's far more normal for them to be let down by their kit. Based on this account, the Typhoon is actually worse than an F-16, and as a result an export Flanker or Fulcrum equipped with Archer missiles would beat it easily in WVR combat.
It would appear that the Eurofighter's last remaining selling point compared to modern US-made stealth fighters which cost the same or less (or for that matter vastly cheaper ordinary non-stealth fighters like the F-16, F-18 Hornet etc) now has something of a question mark over it.
The Eurofighter hits just keep on coming. ®
The RAF Typhoon, formerly known as the Eurofighter, should nonetheless have been vastly superior in air-to-air combat whether BVR or close in within visual range (WVR). The cripplingly expensive, long-delayed Eurofighter was specifically designed to address the defects of its predecessor the Tornado F3 – famously almost useless in close-in, dogfighting-style air combat. The Typhoon was meant to see off such deadly in-close threats as Soviet "Fulcrums" and "Flankers" using short-range missiles fired using helmet-mounted sight systems: such planes were thought well able to beat not just Tornados but F-16s in close fighting, and this expectation was borne out after the Cold War when the Luftwaffe inherited some from the East German air force and tried them out in exercises.
Thus it is that huge emphasis was placed on manoeuvring capability and dogfighting in the design of the Eurofighter. The expensive Euro-jet was initially designed, in fact, as a pure fighter with no ground attack options at all – bomber capability has had to be retrofitted subsequently at still more expense. Despite lacking various modern technologies such as Stealth and thrust-vectoring the resulting Typhoon is generally touted as being one of the best air-to-air combat planes in the world right now. Certainly it is meant to be good in close fighting: it is armed with the Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM) which as its name suggests is intended for the close WVR fight.
Perhaps the account above is simply a lie, or anyway a bit of a fighter pilot tall story. But the pilot quoted will be easily identifiable inside his community if not to the outside world, and he could expect a lot of flak for telling a lie on such a matter in public. It seems likelier that the story is the truth as he perceived it: that the RAF's new superfighter was thrashed in the very type of combat it is supposed to be best at by a 1970s-era plane, albeit much modernised.
It's always possible, as the anonymous Pakistani pilot suggests, that the problem was with the crews. It may be that RAF pilots simply don't know how to fight close-in. During the many years when they had no other fighter than the lamentable Tornado F3 (the Typhoon only reached front line service a few years ago) they may have lost the institutional skillset required for dogfighting with short-range missiles.
But in general when the British forces perform badly it isn't because of a lack of skills and training. It's far more normal for them to be let down by their kit. Based on this account, the Typhoon is actually worse than an F-16, and as a result an export Flanker or Fulcrum equipped with Archer missiles would beat it easily in WVR combat.
It would appear that the Eurofighter's last remaining selling point compared to modern US-made stealth fighters which cost the same or less (or for that matter vastly cheaper ordinary non-stealth fighters like the F-16, F-18 Hornet etc) now has something of a question mark over it.
The Eurofighter hits just keep on coming. ®
Perhaps we should send some RAF Typhoon pilots to....."TOP GUN"....!
Cue background music..............
Seriously though, a couple of points to ponder:
What is the normal standard of journalism of the Register?
Who has ever read an article, from any fighter pilot (hence large ego), anywhere in the world, that says.."we were thrashed"..."they were all over us man"..."we might as well have stayed on the ground"....etc. If the guy is going to make any comment, it will be about the strengths/achievements/positive abilities of himself and his fellow pilots and native air force.
The actual quote in the original link (abbreviated?) from the PAF pilot comments on the training of NATO pilots in close in fighting, rather than the relative performence of the F-16 vs Typhoon airframes!
Cue background music..............
Seriously though, a couple of points to ponder:
What is the normal standard of journalism of the Register?
Who has ever read an article, from any fighter pilot (hence large ego), anywhere in the world, that says.."we were thrashed"..."they were all over us man"..."we might as well have stayed on the ground"....etc. If the guy is going to make any comment, it will be about the strengths/achievements/positive abilities of himself and his fellow pilots and native air force.
The actual quote in the original link (abbreviated?) from the PAF pilot comments on the training of NATO pilots in close in fighting, rather than the relative performence of the F-16 vs Typhoon airframes!
Mushroom_2
You missed out the crucial bit from your cut and paste .... the name of the author :
So no bias or male bovine faeces in that article then.... 
Anyone else reckon Lewis Page is PPRuNes very own WEBF......
You missed out the crucial bit from your cut and paste .... the name of the author :
By Lewis Page
Anyone else reckon Lewis Page is PPRuNes very own WEBF......
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its not Page's analysis that you should be thinking about, but the original report from Pakistan
Read the whole series of comments the pilot is supposed to have said, and you realise its all BS. For instance the claim that on the F-16s supplied to Pakistan, each electronic component has a "digital seal" (whats one of them?) which triggers an alarm back in the USA when opened... and that each one has a tracking bug inside to prevent diversion to China.
Hows that going to work? First the technology sounds pretty unlikely, and also pretty easy to defeat - besides being a potential liability in combat
Read the whole series of comments the pilot is supposed to have said, and you realise its all BS. For instance the claim that on the F-16s supplied to Pakistan, each electronic component has a "digital seal" (whats one of them?) which triggers an alarm back in the USA when opened... and that each one has a tracking bug inside to prevent diversion to China.
Hows that going to work? First the technology sounds pretty unlikely, and also pretty easy to defeat - besides being a potential liability in combat
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if this is indeed a PAF spoiler in the face of Indian interest in the Typhoon, I doubt they will take much notice - they have flown against it themselves in the Indra Dhanush series of Exs.
STH
STH
PAF pilot claims that the incident occurred at an international AE at which the RAF and PAF were present.
According the the Ex AE website, the only time this could've been was 2007.
The first time RAF Typhoons attended Ex AE was in 2009.
Er.....
According the the Ex AE website, the only time this could've been was 2007.
The first time RAF Typhoons attended Ex AE was in 2009.
Er.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mare Nostrum
Age: 41
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my previous military work, I can tell you that in these multi country exercises with certain countries, the opposing pilots think they won the dogfight because they think they automatically beat your missile just because they used a flare or chaff, or because they maneuvered. Convincing them that what they did was not sufficient usually proves futile.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget you've had a similar claim from India in 2007:
Typhoon vs. SU-30MKI: The 2007 Indra Dhanush Exercise
"India’s Ministry of Defense, had this to say about the initial RAF-IAF clashes, and adds some words of wisdom:
“The operational part of the ‘Exercise Indradhanush-2007’ began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties… The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior maneuvering in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. [emphasis DID’s] The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon’s agility in the air."
I've read elsewhere the Indians claiming that they got a 50:50 kill rate against the Typhoons despite not using their locally-designed radars "for reasons of secrecy"
Take ti as you will - sounds like an attempt to force the price down to me
Typhoon vs. SU-30MKI: The 2007 Indra Dhanush Exercise
"India’s Ministry of Defense, had this to say about the initial RAF-IAF clashes, and adds some words of wisdom:
“The operational part of the ‘Exercise Indradhanush-2007’ began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties… The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior maneuvering in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. [emphasis DID’s] The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon’s agility in the air."
I've read elsewhere the Indians claiming that they got a 50:50 kill rate against the Typhoons despite not using their locally-designed radars "for reasons of secrecy"
Take ti as you will - sounds like an attempt to force the price down to me
Last edited by jamesdevice; 8th Jun 2011 at 22:25.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking purely as an ancient (non flying) eedjit one has to ask - during the India/ Pakistani kerfuffle was the Gnat not an unlikely winner? The only true test is combat, real or Red Flag, and what do the statistics show?
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interview with Pakistan AF pilot, including TuAF exchange program & Typhoon
I hope this link hasn't been posted before; I've searched.
There is an interesting article at paffalcons.com about the Pakistan Air Force exchange program with the Turkish Air Force. It mentions
- PAF F-16 performance against Typhoon close-in.
- Why IAF and PAF don't go up against each other in Anatolian Eagle.
- How they keep block 52 F-16 info away from the Chinese.
- How the US monitors compliance with the above.
In general, there were bits of info I'd not considered before, for example PAF likens its flying style to IAF, whilst IAF is keen for PAF not to learn its BVR techniques.
There is an interesting article at paffalcons.com about the Pakistan Air Force exchange program with the Turkish Air Force. It mentions
- PAF F-16 performance against Typhoon close-in.
- Why IAF and PAF don't go up against each other in Anatolian Eagle.
- How they keep block 52 F-16 info away from the Chinese.
- How the US monitors compliance with the above.
In general, there were bits of info I'd not considered before, for example PAF likens its flying style to IAF, whilst IAF is keen for PAF not to learn its BVR techniques.
Last edited by Bushfiva; 9th Jun 2011 at 05:58. Reason: Aaaaand... yes, it has been posted before.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jamesdevice
.
For instance the claim that on the F-16s supplied to Pakistan, each electronic component has a "digital seal" (whats one of them?) which triggers an alarm back in the USA when opened... and that each one has a tracking bug inside to prevent diversion to China.
For instance the claim that on the F-16s supplied to Pakistan, each electronic component has a "digital seal" (whats one of them?) which triggers an alarm back in the USA when opened... and that each one has a tracking bug inside to prevent diversion to China.
Unique Identification
Unique Identification (UID) is an international standards based approach adopted by the DoD that makes the acquisition, repair, and deployment of items faster and more efficient. This is achieved by: (1) Marking qualifying items with a machine-readable data matrix mark that contains a permanent, globally unique and unambiguous identifier called a Unique Item Identifier (UII), and (2) Capturing specific lifecycle item data for the UII in a centralized database, called the IUID Registry. The result is easier access to authoritative information about UII marked items throughout their life in the DoD inventory and Government Furnished Property (GFP) in the hands of contractors. The UII can then be leveraged as a common data key across functionally disparate data systems. Because the mark is machine-readable, human error in data entry is eliminated, significantly improving the accuracy of inventory and acquisition records.
Unique Identification (UID) is an international standards based approach adopted by the DoD that makes the acquisition, repair, and deployment of items faster and more efficient. This is achieved by: (1) Marking qualifying items with a machine-readable data matrix mark that contains a permanent, globally unique and unambiguous identifier called a Unique Item Identifier (UII), and (2) Capturing specific lifecycle item data for the UII in a centralized database, called the IUID Registry. The result is easier access to authoritative information about UII marked items throughout their life in the DoD inventory and Government Furnished Property (GFP) in the hands of contractors. The UII can then be leveraged as a common data key across functionally disparate data systems. Because the mark is machine-readable, human error in data entry is eliminated, significantly improving the accuracy of inventory and acquisition records.
How it works is in; DPAP | Program Development and Implementation | Unique Identification | Technology
It's Loggie thing and wouldn't be easily understandable to a passed-over Corkhead or his stick-monkey informant.
Incidentally, that was a beastly thing to say about WEBF.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, block 52+ F16 was also one of the original contenders for the competition. So this story could have come via any number of sources for any number of reasons, as the US still appear to think its not a foregone conclusion yet.
Lets face it, everyone knows what Lewis Page's opinion is on anything vaguely British or European, particularly Typhoon, so its not like you need to look far to find an unfriendly journo for such a story....
Lets face it, everyone knows what Lewis Page's opinion is on anything vaguely British or European, particularly Typhoon, so its not like you need to look far to find an unfriendly journo for such a story....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point WW.
Same could be said of any aircraft though, remember the 90's and the lead up training to DS when the F3's went up against two radar threats and three + hawks.........
However, I also see a massive amount if inter-service jealousy against the Typhoon as after how many decades of "making do" the RAF has at last a hyper-performance aircraft in it's charge once again....the long going media campaign against the RAF waged relentlessly by some who have been put out to grass/passed over is really tiresome...
AtB
GR.
Same could be said of any aircraft though, remember the 90's and the lead up training to DS when the F3's went up against two radar threats and three + hawks.........
However, I also see a massive amount if inter-service jealousy against the Typhoon as after how many decades of "making do" the RAF has at last a hyper-performance aircraft in it's charge once again....the long going media campaign against the RAF waged relentlessly by some who have been put out to grass/passed over is really tiresome...
AtB
GR.
