Forum: General F-16 forum

In one of the Anatolian Eagle exercises held in Turkey, Pakistan Air Force F-16s scored a kill ratio of 3:0 over Eurofighters in close combat. The jets from PAF side were most probably the block 15 F-16s.

It came into light some months back when an interview of a PAF pilot was posted on a defence forum. This is now confirmed by Alan Warnes in the latest issue of Air Forces Monthly magazine. Of course, I won't be posting the article here, as it will be breach of copyrights. You can read more on it at [url=[Link pending approval];page=14]KeyPublishing forum[/url]. Post #404 onwards.

It just goes to show how the Viper is still a very potent, agile and maneuverable platform even against the likes of Typhoon which are supposed to have a big edge in terms of maneuverability and overall capability. These new jets are not invincible after all, and with equally good pilots on both the sides, anyone can score kills.

F-16.net Sponsor

In a WVR guns only contest its anybodys game, you have to get the nose pointing at the target - even an F-5 could take out a Typhoon head on with a lucky shot.
There are a lot of worrying comments on that forum - a lot talk as if the Typhoon should win every time based on it having no weakness at all over the F-16 - as if the airframe totally matters.

1. Firstly if the pilot makes a mistake or is not trained in WVR dogfighting - theres weakness 1.

2. Secondly - the winning F-16s were the F-16A block 15s(?), and the Danish use F-16AMs in that video where they are creaming the Italian Typhoons. Both are significantly lighter than the late F-16C/E blocks and may actually be more agile than the Typhoon in some areas.

3. In reality unless countermeasures drastically improve the probability of getting into a guns only fight has got to be minimal.

Still fun to see that the epitome of the "energy fighter" from 30 years ago can still do the job it was designed for, daytime knife fighting.

i'm shared beetween their victory and our loss.

There is an interesting interview with one of the PAF Viper pilots:

Steven Trimble from the DEW line wrote:

A special feature posted on the PAF Falcons web site provides a fascinating transcript of a one-on-one interview with an anonymous, although apparently very senior, Pakistani Air Force F-16 pilot. It reminds me of YouTube Terry's infamous indiscretions.

The Pakistani pilot manages to embarrass the pride of the Royal Air Force, candidly describe Israeli air-to-air prowess and explain how the US keeps the F-16 Block 52's secrets away from the Pakistanis and -- by extension -- the Chinese.

On the RAF Typhoon:

On one occasion - in one of the international Anatolian Eagles - PAF pilots were pitted against RAF Typhoons, a formidable aircraft. There were three set-ups and in all three, we shot down the Typhoons. The RAF pilots were shocked.

Q: Any particular reason for your success?

A: NATO pilots are not that proficient in close-in air-to-air combat. They are trained for BVR engagements and their tactics are based on BVR engagements. These were close-in air combat exercises and we had the upper hand because close-in air combat is drilled into every PAF pilot and this is something we are very good at.

On the Israelis:

Q: What are the Isrealis afraid of?

A: What they fear most is that we might learn about their tactics, especially BVR countermeasure tactics, which they have mastered.

Q: I heard a rumour that the TuAF once gave PAF pilots the opportunity to fly with and against the Israelis in A. TuAF F-16s pretending to be Turkish pilots - even letting them sit in the Turkish-Israeli ACMI de-briefs?

A: No comments.

On US concerns about the Chinese:

To recall an interesting little story: soon after the first F-16s were delivered to Pakistan in the mid-80s, the PLAAF Chief visited Sargodha. The Americans were there as well. As a gesture of courtesy, the PAF showed the PLAAF Chief one of the F-16s and let him sit in the cockpit. Some US technicians were there looking on. As soon as the PLAAF Chief sat in the F-16 cockpit, the first thing he did was to start measuring the HUD with his fingers, you know, when you extend your little finger and thumb to measure something? This worried the Americans.

On US export control practices:

They have ways of keeping an eye on the Block 52s without being personally present. The main concern is the transfer of cutting-edge technology - the avionics and radar, the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) the Sniper pod. They have put digital seals all the sensitive technologies, which can only be opened via a code, which only they know. If there is a malfunction or these parts need to be serviced, they will be taken out of the Block 52s and shipped back to the US for repairs/servicing. If we try to pry open these systems without the codes, inbuilt alarms will be relayed to the Americans, which will be a breach of the contract.

Q: Will the Americans be able to track the locations of the Block 52s through some sort of tracking devices hidden inside the aircraft?

A: If there are tracking devices then they will be inside the sealed systems, like the avionics suites or the sniper pods because we will not have the ability to look inside. If their Predator and Reaper drones are transmitting their GPS locations via satellite so can a Block 52 F-16.

Even though Turkey produces the F-16, there are some components that are manufactured in the US and only come to Turkey for the final assembly. In one incident, a Turkish Block 50 crashed and the pilot was killed. They salvaged the wreckage and laid it out in hanger and started putting together the pieces to find out the cause. They found a piece of sealed equipment which had cracked open and inside they found some device that looked like a bug. Upon inquiry, it turned out to be a tracking device.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/must-read-tell-all-interview-w-1.html

Smitty

"NATO pilots not that proficient in WVR", who are they kidding? :S

Alot of bolox if you ask me.

I guess that must be their deduction based on exercises they hold with Nato countries. IMHO 3-0 WVR supports the basis of that deduction. It's all relative I guess. He does say they are more highly trained BVR.

Its not like the text above looks like an objective conversation anyway. Smile

I'm not surprised however, the main thing is we don't know much about the ROEs in the exercise.

Anybody who thinks the F-16 is a 35+ year-old tired dog is only kidding themselves. With so many experienced pilots all across the world flying it after so many years, it should rightfully be called one of the deadliest fighters to ever get in a knife fight with, even today.

One thing I can say about this, and all the reports of the Indian "successes", is that we don't know what the rules of engagement, or even the purpose behind the exercises are.

The lightweight A's are still pretty agile aircraft, but in a "real world" engagement I don't believe the Pakistani F-16's would have experienced the same level of success against the Typhoons.

Mike

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

I'm not surprised however, the main thing is we don't know much about the ROEs in the exercise.

Anybody who thinks the F-16 is a 35+ year-old tired dog is only kidding themselves. With so many experienced pilots all across the world flying it after so many years, it should rightfully be called one of the deadliest fighters to ever get in a knife fight with, even today.

I never said it was a 35 year old tired dog, I said it was the top of the line knife fighter 30 years ago, and that it still can be.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

I'm not surprised however, the main thing is we don't know much about the ROEs in the exercise.

Anybody who thinks the F-16 is a 35+ year-old tired dog is only kidding themselves. With so many experienced pilots all across the world flying it after so many years, it should rightfully be called one of the deadliest fighters to ever get in a knife fight with, even today.

I never said it was a 35 year old tired dog, I said it was the top of the line knife fighter 30 years ago, and that it still can be.

My comment wasn't directed at you James (actually, I didn't even read your earlier post) and I'm in complete agreement with you.

i actually agree with him on the two first questions..modern western pilots are not very good at close air combat, instead they are very well trained at BVR...so it is reasonable that an air-force that isn't very modern, and relies less on BVR like the PAF, would be better in close air combat.
this could be true and is reasonable.

Perhaps I'm off base here, but you'll have to prove me wrong, but, I'd be willing to bet that most USAF pilots get nearly as many flight hours per month dedicated directly to within visual range combat than the average Pakistani pilot gets overall in a year.

PAF is now catching up with others in BVR arena but they are very aggressive when it comes to WVR maneuvers. They practice dogfights very often. Even with Chinese F-7s which are of previous generation they do extreme maneuvers.
F-16 is still the bench mark of aerodynamics a standard on which later fighters are produced on.

Forum: General F-16 forum

Pakistani F-16s clean-sweep Eurofighter in dogfights