First Typhoon "Shot Down"?

[BATMAN]

Danger Room - Wired Blogs

First Typhoon "Shot Down"?

Back in July we relayed reports of the first-ever "shoot-down" of an F-22 Raptor fighter, during a mock dogfight with a U.S. Air Force F-16. Our European friends -- Brits, Italians, Germans and Spaniards -- might have had a couple chuckles at the news, for their new fighter, the Typhoon, had never suffered a similar humiliation. (Or if it had, no one had reported it.)

No longer. It has come to light that during an exercise in Italy in May, a Hungarian Gripen light fighter -- a small, single-engined design generally considered only slightly better than an F-16 -- shot down an Italian Typhoon, according to a press release from the manufacturer, quoting a Hungarian pilot:

“Other aircraft couldn’t see us -– not on radar, not visually -– and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.”

“Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors –- but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”

Should F-22 jocks worry? Maybe, according to the BBC, which claims that the "RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the U.S."

The lesson here? Sometimes a basic fighter, expertly flown, will win even against your latest high-tech jets, no matter how many tens of billions of dollars you sink into whiz-bangs.

 

[EagleEyes]

Little differences in the aircrafts, like payload and range doesn't make them any inferior. It all then comes down to pilot and support given to him.

 

[Munir]

There is always a factor of luck and smaller is indeed a big advantage. Tell that to sabre pilots during PAF-IAF war when they encountered Gnats...

 

[Always Neutral]

There is always a factor of luck and smaller is indeed a big advantage. Tell that to sabre pilots during PAF-IAF war when they encountered Gnats...

Dear Munir,

Sorry did not understand your comment ? Please elaborate.

Regards

 

[Munir]

It is about inferior plane able to handle newer plane. Gripen is less then EF2000... Still it can beat it under certain variables. We know Mig1 can handle F15 if flown well... But if you look at the chances then you might bug out and fight another day. Smile.

Paf had more modern planes when they flew against Gnat but it was a night mare to find them in the air (small)...

 

[Always Neutral]

ok. Thanks.

 

[EagleEyes]

to find them in the air (small)...

I just feel like eloborating this part.

Small aircrafts also give small radar signatures hence harder to be detected during the course of the time.

For example Su-30 is likely to be detected first, because it has a bigger radar, and is overall a bigger plane.

 

[Munir]

indeed... optical,infrared and radar.

 

[Mustapha]

Salaams to all,
I'm Flabergasted...

A Plane that was invented in the late 1970s, defeated a modern plane only which was invented like a few years ago... I wonder what this means to the EU...lol...

 

[Munir]

Well... If I add that the war in IRac was a purely onesided airwar and even then there is no victory. Goliath pumped everything that explodes in Irac and still we have to see terrorism expanding. As far as I know the western powers always act like netcetric overwheling manner and then tell that the opponent has weak pilots and bad planes. The reality is much different. The only bad pilots in the past were Syrians and egyptians. Even I would win with two hands down.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I believe that sabre was a bigger aircraft than the gnat in size. Second thing is that each of those aircraft had dissimiliar combat capabilities---sabre I believe was a high altitude fighter whereas gnat was more manuevarable at lower altitudes---in the heat of the battle, the pilot who remebered the strong points of the their fighter aircraft and remembered what the other aircraft was capable of, used that advantage to win the fight. Aircraft with smaller turning radius and of higher stability at lower speeds, in good hands would overcome a more high tech plane in close combat.

In DACT-----high tech plane when flying against the low tech planes are not utilizing all of their capabilities----they are intentionally handicapped, but in battle---heat of the moment, anything can happen. Training does makes a big difference but the airforce planes should not be solely based on that emphasis.

You cannot win or draw a war if your fighter aircraft are the under dogs all the time.

So, this romantic idea that my better trained pilot will win the war for me in a future combat with its less capable aircraft, is first of all not being fair to the airforce pilots to do their jobs right----it is asking too much. If not all, then some of the aircraft must be of similiar capabilities-----in case of pakistan---at least atleast 18 to 24 planes must have the same capability of the su 30----the surprise factor will always keep the enemy pilot at bay.

 

[Munir]

A pilot knows which planes the opponent has. How to overcome its own handicaps and how to use its advantages. Otherwise he should fly transport plane and not a hiogh performance fighterjet.

Surely there is a luck factor but lots can be reached by training and info... senior pilots win air combat easily from a fighterpilot that is flying a few years and even lots of talent...

Now with certain bvr technology you need a better plane...

 

[MastanKhan]

Mustapha,

You need to understand combat training of dissimiliar aircraft in air combat against each other. The high tech plane is handicapped---it is not using all of its skills and technology.

Basically, it is using its minimum capability or most vulnerable position that it may offer to an adversary----trying to be as similiar to the opponents plane-----case in point----the american / pakistani wargames in the late 70's between F 15's and mirage 3's. The article is posted on pakdef.info and gives a good insight into air combat training of dissimiliar aircraft.

In real time warfare, things would be totally different between the american flyers and their opponents.

 

[con]

Airwar has moved on from A versus B to System versus Systems. The side which can field a highly integrated system,optimized for maximum battlefield visibility wins the fight.

An LCA can be made to fire 80 km BVR and an Typhoon as well. Which means Irrespective of typhoon able to haul 6 tonne or being 4.5 and accepted as gen ahead of LCA etc etc,given the length of the killing arm being the same, the pilot who strikes first, wins.

You build a doctrine and try to optimize the system around that.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Con,

So, in other words a JF 17 may take out an SU 30's from a distance after being integrated with a highly sophisticated system and a high tech BVR missile. That is a very exciting analysis and it is good to know that an underdog carrying a big punch can knock off the mighty with the right kind of support.

You know what, it looks very good on the paper, but I would not bet my life on it.