Typhoon vs F-16

[Webmaster]

I noticed someone raising the question of Typhoon vs F-16 mock dogfights. There have been multiple exercises over the past few years involving both, but it's unknown how many of these fights actually occured. Exercises are mostly based on a blue vs red concept, where the blue have great advantages over the red force. The blue fighters in most cases need to protect the strike package against the red fighters, proving their skills as opposed to evaluate how the aircraft type performs against another type. So they may not say much about the 1 on 1 Typhoon vs F-16, let alone in declassified info.

However, there's another source for Typhoon vs F-16 info, the Italian Air Force! The only AF that operates both types. So let's see. AFM April 2008 issue has an article on the Italian F-16s. Italian F-16s and Typhoon share the same weapons so far, the AIM-9L and AIM-120B/C-5, but the BVR was probably not considered. The F-16s are so called Air Defense Fighters, former USAF F-16A/Bs, but upgraded with Falcon Up and Falcon 2020 kits, as well as AN/APG-66A radar and F100-PW-220E engine. The Typhoons considered here are Tranche 1 aircraft, without the PIRATE IRST/FLIR sensor. Both squadrons consist mostly of former F-104 pilots.

Since 2006, many Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) missions have been flown against 4 Stormo Typhoons from Grosseto [...]

Apart from beyond visual range profiles, in which Typhoon pilots have the advantage of the aircraft's radar and fusion sensor information, in low-level dogfights the F-16 pilots at Trapani reckon that they achieve a similar operational performance, at least when armed with the same type of missile as the Typhoon. However above 10,000ft (3,080m) they cannot compete in any aspect of flight, at either sub- or supersonic speeds.

Now, this is from the perspective of the F-16 pilots, so you might find the judgement of 'similar performance' at low-level unreliable. But at least we can be sure now that at higher levels, the Typhoon beats the F-16 (as it should do of course). Now for the lower levels, if this holds true, then it'd be interesting to look how the Hornet performs against the Typhoon. We could look at the Spanish Air Force for that, but I haven't read much about their experiences with the Typhoon yet. Anyone?

[MKopack]

I got stomped pretty hard for suggesting that the modern MiG-29's are basically modernized 1980's era aircraft in another thread, but I'm going to take the same stand here. The Viper first flew in 1975, that's thirty-three years ago. OLD. As much as I love my Vipers, there's no way an F-16, even a lightweight ADF A model with a 220E engine, should be competitive with a Typhoon anywhere - and if the Viper comes close to the Typhoon, even only at low level, it makes the contention that the Typhoon beats the F-22 up close (from yet another thread) seem even more rediculous.

Mike

[Webmaster]

Hehe, well you suggested them to be useless and rehashed... that's a bit different from modernized and capable.

The F-16 set the benchmark, so any newer fighters should beat it. This partly confirms the Typhoon doing that, but interestingly at low-level performance wise it can be matched by the F-16 according to these F-16 pilots. That's quite interesting and makes you wonder.

I don't think the Typhoon vs F-22 had been a comparable scenario, but if it was you can either think of it as ridiculous, but actually I don't know if I'd be surprised if a light F-16 would outturn a F-22 at low-level.

[MKopack]

Hehe, well you suggested them to be useless and rehashed... that's a bit different from modernized and capable.

The F-16 set the benchmark, so any newer fighters should beat it. This partly confirms the Typhoon doing that, but interestingly at low-level performance wise it can be matched by the F-16 according to these F-16 pilots. That's quite interesting and makes you wonder.

I don't think the Typhoon vs F-22 had been a comparable scenario, but if it was you can either think of it as ridiculous, but actually I don't know if I'd be surprised if a light F-16 would outturn a F-22 at low-level.

Much like the Typhoon / Raptor discussion, I wonder of the Typhoon pilots would agree that the Vipers can match them at low level. I tend to doubt it, as I said, pilots will tend to talk up their own aircraft, so you really need to hear both sides.

I spent several years working the old P&W engined F-16A/B's, I've preflighted 78-0001, the first production aircraft, and regularly 'worked' 78-0005. While they were very capable aircraft in their day, that's been a long time. Those cracks that were in the wings then are still there today. They are old airframes and there's no reason that a Typhoon shoudn't be able to fly circles around them at any level. Our A's cleaned house whenever the Tomcats came to town to play, but were generally ripped apart by the Eagles when they were both limited to visual range.

Mike

[Webmaster]

Much like the Typhoon / Raptor discussion, I wonder of the Typhoon pilots would agree that the Vipers can match them at low level. I tend to doubt it, as I said, pilots will tend to talk up their own aircraft, so you really need to hear both sides.

Sure, as always full context is missing and bias present, but still both of them are interesting claims (I never said they were facts). What makes it even funnier is that those same F-16 pilots will soon start conversion to the Typhoon. There's always a number of other factors involved of course which we don't know, in this case the Typhoon force was working up to operational clearance, so I don't know if any limitations were at play here that might explain it.

It's just the first time that I've come across some info on Typhoon-vs-F-16 mock fights and thought I share it.

Anyway, like the F-22 should have no need to enter the WVR fight, the Typhoon should have no need to enter the low-level WVR fight.

[Globetrotter]

delta wing configuration on the Eurofighter should make it lose energy before the F-16 does, at least at low level where the air is heavier. I think that's the only way you can understand the difference.

[valkyrian]

delta wing configuration on the Eurofighter should make it lose energy before the F-16 does, at least at low level where the air is heavier. I think that's the only way you can understand the difference.

Not as long as the delta is coupled with canards and relaxed static stability. the position of the canards in comparison with the wing, provides a long arm (by far the greatest of all existed canard equipped fighters) which helps the EF to achieve very high pitch rates, while the wing operates at optimum lift (losing less energy).

The only area i think a Falcon (with F110 or F100-PW-229) is superior, is the subsonic flight regime, where the highest aspect ratio (3) in comparison with the EF (2.39) would allow the Falcon to achieve a higher L/D ratio, thus achieve better turning ability. I wouldn't say the same for the A models, since while they posses a high L/D, they lack thrust (F100-PW 200/220 )
 In transonic and supersonic speeds the high aspect becomes a disadvantage, and EF's wing can generate higher L/D, so 110% a supersonic EF can turn inside a tighter circle than the Falcon...

I agree about Falcon being an old design, but still a new Falcon is a 9g airframe, with excellent turning abilities. What can the F/A-18 do against a Typhoon close in? The Hornet is a 7,33 G airframe, it lucks the T/W ratio, low fuel fraction...

I liked that F-15 vs F-16 part...any good stories?

[Webmaster]

What can the F/A-18 do against a Typhoon close in? The Hornet is a 7,33 G airframe, it lucks the T/W ratio, low fuel fraction...

Well, I am wondering about the Hornet vs the Typhoon because the Hornet is said to be a better handling jet at slow speed than the F-16, because it's capable of higher AoA. Now the Typhoon should be able to beat it, but does it?

[...]

SLOW-SPEED CHARACTERISTICS

There's no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet. But that's another story. The Hornet flies very comfortably at AoAs of up to 50 degrees and has great pitch, roll and yaw authority between 25 degrees of AoA and the lift limit of 35 degrees of AoA. Most crowds are amazed when the Blue Angels perform the Hornet low-speed pass, which is around 120 knots and only 25 degrees of AoA. There are no nasty departures to worry about, and if the pilot happens to lose control, the best recovery procedure is to grab the towel racks (two handgrips on the canopy bow used during cat shots). On the other hand, a Viper has a 25-degree AoA limiter built into its software, and even fewer degrees of AoA are available if it's carrying air-to-ground goodies on the hard points. Up against the limiter, the nose stops tracking; in that case, it's time to drop the hammer and use the big motor to get the knots back, which by the way, happens in a hurry.

The Hornet, however, will stand on its tail, hold 100 knots and 35-degrees AoA and swap ends in a maneuver called "the Pirouette," which looks like a jet fighter doing a hammerhead with a quarter roll. To the spectator and the participant, it looks and feels impossible. The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown. In a Hornet, it's difficult not to get the first shot in a close-in dog-fight that starts from a perfectly neutral merge (going opposite directions at the same altitude). My Viper buddies tell me there is very little room for error when they fight the Hornet. The best way to handle the situation is to get the Hornet to slow down, while they maintain energy so the Viper's superior thrust-to-weight will out-zoom the Hornet and then they can shoot at it from above. As a Hornet driver, I have never lost to a Viper guy that I saw, but I have run into Viper drivers that said the same thing about their jet.

[...]

Full article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200306/ai_n9262073

[valkyrian]

Slow speed and high alpha is a region where the small aspect ratio delta wing won't help at all, and combined with the negative static stability of the EF, i bet the flight control system will limit the aircraft's aoa, just like the way the F-16 is being limited. On the other hand, the almost neutral stability of the Hornet, the big LERX, and the trapezoidal wing, will do a small miracle.

I wonder who would like to slow down instead of keeping his speed high...A TVC Flanker maybe?

[MKopack]

"The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown."

The Hornet can make an amazing first turn allowing it to point it's nose nearly anywhere, but then just doesn't have the power to accelerate out. As the article states, a Hornet can be a tough opponent for a Viper. The Viper turns well, but bleeds energy quickly in a tight turn, which leaves it slow, right in the middle of the Hornet's manuvarability comfort zone. So, you have to pick your tactics well, stressing your advantages and your foes disadvantages. While the F-16 has been known for 25 years for its manuverability, it can make sense to use its power advantage (much as an old F-104 pilot would have) and make slashing attacks that the Hornet couldn't follow. Just because the Hornet wants to slow down and enter a 'traditional' turning dogfight, doesn't mean that you need to follow him.

The Typhoon shares the Hornet's 'first turn' capabilities, as well as the Viper's power and should be, along with the Raptor, easily a match for either of them.

"I wonder who would like to slow down instead of keeping his speed high...A TVC Flanker maybe?"

Slow works well during airshows or 1 vs. 1 excercises, but would not be a fun place to be in real combat. While that TVC Flanker is slowing down to take on a foe, his foe's wingman is just about to have him for lunch. I can't think of a better target than someone who is slow and out of energy and alrealy concentrating on someone else. Modern missiles almost don't miss, and as they say "Speed is Life".

Mike

[Webmaster]

Slow speed and high alpha is a region where the small aspect ratio delta wing won't help at all, and combined with the negative static stability of the EF, i bet the flight control system will limit the aircraft's aoa, just like the way the F-16 is being limited. On the other hand, the almost neutral stability of the Hornet, the big LERX, and the trapezoidal wing, will do a small miracle.

I wonder who would like to slow down instead of keeping his speed high...A TVC Flanker maybe?

What about a Swiss pilot in the Alps...

[MKopack]

What about a Swiss pilot in the Alps...

Having seen some flying in the Alps, they don't slow down much. Amazing to fly that fast and low with so much rock all around you.

Mike