F-16 Block 60 versus EF-2000 Typhoon

[toan]

The article was deleted by its poster.

[boff180]

I think most (if not all) EF-2000s that entered service in or before 2005 had some FCS restriction at that time (2005). The maximum G / AoA that they were allowed to pull up and maintain at that time was less than 8G / less than 30 degrees.

Nearly all Typhoons in front line service are FCS restricted, only block 5 have the full FCS, of which deliveries have just begun of new-build (eg: RAF have two) and the rest of the fleet are going through upgrade to block 5 standard.

Andy

[boff180]

Hi guys, spotted this quote from the HAF 2008 yearbook and thought it might be of interest.

The HAF F-16's that took part in ELITE08 were Block 50's.

...The DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat manoeuvres) 2vs2 scenarios had to do with 4 sorties of air battle between solely 2 Greek F-16s and 2 German Eurofighters. Given the fact that it was the first time in history that such an air fight took place, we tried to learn from first hand the impressions of 341 Squadron pilots who were engaged in these scenarios.

So, as Captain K. Pazaras (a pilot with more than 1300 flying hours in the F-16s and 3 participations in ELITE ) mentioned to HAF characteristically:
“The air battle missions against the Eurofighter were a very positive experience for us. We had to face a type of aircraft with tremendous manoeuvrability and agility, both in dogfight and low speed, demonstrating an excellent capability of nose authority and, of course, demonstrating the advantages of its two engines increased power. You can understand immediately its difference from relevant engagements with 3rd generation aircraft. In many respects, the Eurofighter is an airplane… to admire in the air battle! Eurofighter brought me about the same feeling when in the past I was flying the A-7 against the F-16!”.

On the same line was also the impression of another Greek pilot, Captain G. Mihelis, who stood against the German Eurofighters having more than 1000 hours on the type:
“It seems that (the Eurofighter) is an excellent aircraft in air battle. Of course, it is very difficult to face it in a dogfight, while it carries very good radar with long distance detection, releasing it from ground stations or airborne radar support requirements. The above in conjunction with the very good aerodynamic characteristics of Eurofighter, especially in low speed, its overpowered engine that in dry power (without afterburner) allows the fighter to surpass the Mach, constitute an airborne opponent who practically was requiring special effort and abilities from our side in order to face it effectively”.

Captain N. Printzios, without questioning the excellent impression made to the Greek pilots in their air fight against the two Eurofighters of Luftwaffe, expressed another parameter of this air fight, as he noted that:
“The relatively limited space we had in ELITE to move both in the horizontal and vertical plane, did not allow us to separate twenty to thirty miles in order to operate better. Consequently, in 1vs1 it is very difficult to face the Eurofighter. However, we have not tried bigger formations, for example 4 vs 2 with possibility to implement certain tactics, thus I cannot prejudge the outcome. In this specific case we have faced for the first time the Eurofighter in dogfight, that was something never happened before”…
Antonis Tsagaratos on exercise ELITE, Germany, July 2008, in the Hellenic Air Force Yearbook 2008

[Axure]

Would anyone elaborate about the meaning of manouverability of F-16 vs EF in a dogfight where both have HMS and latest WVRAAM missles?

It would seem to me that even if both adversaries are able to see each other and thus aim with their HMS, it doesn't mean they have equal chances. If a plane is able to position itself better, it should have a bigger probability of scoring a hit.

For the sake of simplicity, let's consider two planes chasing each others' tails in a circle, moving clockwise. If EF is at 9 o'ck and F-16 is at 3 o'ck then the chances are equal. But if EF is more manouverable and is at 10 o'ck, while F-16 is at 3 o'ck and both fire missiles at this moment, then I would think EF has a significantly bigger chance of scoring a hit.

[Scorpion82]

It's mainly a question of situational awareness, the one who sees the enemy first is in the best position for the kill. At very short ranges HOBS shots might not be sufficient however and then turning might become more important. And here the Typhoon wins hands down.

[Axure]

Oh, obviously I was talking about dogfight. Spotting an enemy is beyond discussion - I assume both aircraft have noticed each other on radar long time ago and both failed to kill BVR, so now it's a knife fight.

[boff180]

In that situation, both with HMS and HOBs; if it hasn't got to the point of a close turning knife fight it will most likely be first lock, first kill or even mutual kill.

However, if they are just entering the merge; it could be down to whoever has the longer ranged hobs missile to get the first shot off..... which IIRC, Asramm has a longer range than 9X or IRIS-T.

Andy

[Axure]

OK, so I assume maneuverability still counts for the reasons I've presented.

But what also gets very important is HOB's and HMS's locking range.

BTW, I assume some missiles can lock on after launch, just based on HMS lock.

Are there any data whatsoever on HMS or HOB locking ranges? (Of course, I'm not asking for classified data, but for whatever scraps one can find in magazines or on the web.) Boff180, how do you know about ASRAMM's advantage?

[boff180]

Whilst ASRAAM is designed as a HOBs missile; it also is employed by the RAF to give a limited Medium Range IR missile capability. Whislt the 9X.etc concentrate on terminal manouveurability; the ASRAAM concentrates on initial manouveurability (being able to pull almost a 180 off the rail) and speed to get the kill; as a result the missile has a longer range.

Many HOBs missiles have LOAL however, it may not just be from a HMS loack; the latest fighters (F-22, F-35, Typhoon, Rafale.etc and possibly Block 60) have the ability to pass targeting data to the missile from the defensive suite of sensors.

Andy

[Canard]

But the F-22 have neither HMS nor AIM9X nor HOBS.
AIM-120D and AIM-9X maybe avaible with the Increment 3.2.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Where did the F-22 come from??? WOW IT REALLY IS STEALTH!!!

[viperzerof-2]

I was hoping to revisit this, not much more is publicly known on both aircraft but a 2000s Block 60 Typhoon match up has always interested me.

We know from the Italian Air Force the block 15 ADF and Typhoon are fairly well matched under 10000. The 15 em chart and 50 look fairly similar but the 50 has more power. I don’t know how a 60 without CFT would fair but assuming it has similar turning its power is probably tremendous.

APG-80 is known from the UAE requirements to be more powerful then RBE2 AESA which at least seems credibly able to compare with CAPTOR-D in Exercises.

Some UK pilots claim the Typhoon can put accelerate the block 50. While don’t doubt it can supersonic I’m a little unsure that’s the case sub sonic. The EJ200 is optimized for high speed high altitude supersonic and mentioned as the opposite of the RB199. We know an A2A GE Viper can out accelerate a Raptor. At the same time Raptor pilots have mentioned the Typhoon has formidable acceleration but no mention of it being better. Some marketing brochures of the Typhoon give accelerate figures for a presumably A2A configuration that’s not better then the vipers.

The Carnegie endowment article gives a typhoon a 16.2 turn rate at 5000 feet compared to 15 degrees in a similarly configured Super Hornet. This doesn’t sound so different from the legacy hornet and Viper. The paper interestingly says the Block 60 with CFT was the worst performer in terms of sustained turn rate, I don’t know how to do the conversion to see what difference it would make without them.

Why research the AMK kit? One of the flight international articles implies the Typhoon has a disadvantage in a knife fight against the Viper and Hornet. If it was truly number one in this aspect, why bother?

[Scorpion82]

Why research the AMK kit? One of the flight international articles implies the Typhoon has a disadvantage in a knife fight against the Viper and Hornet. If it was truly number one in this aspect, why bother?

To cut a long story short. The Typhoon was designed to excel in both instantaneous and sustained turning performance, compared to the earlier American and Russian 4th generation fighters. Aerodynamic deficiencies prevented the aircraft from meeting its specified AoA target and a pretty conservative AoA limit has been imposed. The consequence is a not too stellar ITR performance, as the FCS imposed AoA limit lies below max lift. Nose pointing is therefore restricted as well and specifically in this area the aircraft subsequently falls short compared to the "pointers" like the F/A-18, MiG-29 or Su-27. As is the Typhoon is a rate fighter, like the F-16 and there lies its strength in WVR. At low speeds the ALSR and limited nose pointing put it at a disadvantage compared to other fighters. The Eurofighter Enhanced Maneuverability programme (EFEM) was conceived to address the deficiets and the AMK is the solution developed, following the earlier XP1 strakes programme trialled on DA5 in 2007.

[viperzerof-2]

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... /C17574615

[hornetfinn]

Now that was interesting info, thank you viperzerof-2! Interesting that they seemed still overestimate the Slotback radar performance back then as it was rather unremarkable mostly due to really poor processing power, ancient antenna design and most likely also rather low performance receiver. So ECR 90/Captor-M had and has significantly better performance all around. Of course Bars and Irbis-E are totally different beasts and Eurofighter definitely now needs AESA radar to have the advantage.