It's in 'The Register', so it must be true....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/eurofighter_beaten_by_f16/

I like the photo caption: "Costs like a Raptor, flies like a Tornado."

hmmmm.....IF this is true it's sad for both the RAF pilots and the Typhoon

Another thing to think about is that we still fly de-rated EJ200s. While thrust is useful in WVR, I doubt they would have changed that for a little friendly match.

They don't exactly state the conditions of the match either, so it's just mudslinging really.

I think what should be taken from this is the F-16 is still a very formidable WVR fighter!

Indeed it is!

This was a WVR 'engagement' yes? Something I thought the Typhoon would excel at.
Maybe not....

Well, it's not the plane, it's the pilot. The article itself speaks of this. Put a pilot untrained in dogfighting in a plane with superior T/W ratio up against a well-trained pilot in a lightweight but older fighter, and the outcome is given. This is nothing new, it goes all the way back to the beginning of aerial warfare. It's the beginning of Vietnam all over again, with MiG-17s flying circles around Phantoms without guns. The Typhoon has got a gun, but it appears the pilots don't know how to use it.

Er...
Let the Wookie win.

"NATO pilots are not that proficient in close-in air-to-air combat. They are trained for BVR [Beyond Visual Range] engagements and their tactics are based on BVR engagements. "


Ummm Red Flag or Top Gun sound familiar?

Of course, was the engagement set up in a realistic manner or was it "stacked" from the beginning in an effort to practice some particular tactics?
Remember the Eagles that "lost" in India?



The Jedi Master

There's more to this article elsewhere, and not quoted by the Register author. That PAF writer makes some interesting claims eg that the US fit tracking devices into the Turkish built F16.

India is interested in buying the typhoon. Do the PAF claims make any more sense now?

Grain of salt, just like the F-15's in India.

We improvised! We overcame!

Tracking devices does sound like good sense, mind...

Bingo. These types of "engagements" and the info released from them are meaningless. We don't know the conditions of the engagement, if there were any specific ROEs in place, if the Typhoons were trying to play a certain role, if either side was really trying their best (not likely, because you don't want to reveal your best electronics and performance capabilities in a mere training session), and so many other details that there's really nothing we can derive from this little tidbit.

In general, when it comes to military aircraft performance and comparisons, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know.

Absolutely right.

Which begs the question, why do they bother having these mock engagements then where they feel compelled to name a "winner"?

My guess is that it's not the people who arranged the mock engagement who declare any sort of winner. More likely it's something like some political officer who hears some tidbit of how some pilots were able to maneuver well and discussing how they got into firing position or what-not, and that "third party" decides to use it for political gain.

It makes Pakistan look a little tougher to its people for beating a super power in a mock engagement. They need to have an image of a superior military with all the flak there getting about the Bin Laden raid and drone strikes. I say we let 'em win for a change but just an opinion.

I thought UK spec Typhoons were 'gun less'.