Europe today fields two of the world’s most lethal fighter aircraft, flying side by side in the air forces of different NATO nations—but designed around radically different philosophies of war. On one side is the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation stealth fighter conceived in the United States and exported across the alliance as the backbone of future air combat. On the other is the Eurofighter Typhoon, Europe’s flagship fourth-generation-plus air superiority jet, optimized for speed, agility, and raw kinematic performance rather than invisibility.
Both are multinational defense programs. Both anchor sprawling industrial supply chains across allied countries. And both are central to NATO’s airpower calculus. Beyond those similarities, however, the F-35 and the Typhoon diverge sharply—in design, doctrine, and how they fight.
That contrast was thrown into sharp relief during a rare NATO training encounter over Germany in September 2024, when an American F-35A and a German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon met in a visual-range dogfight during a major alliance exercise. The result offered a rare, unfiltered glimpse into how two very different combat philosophies stack up when stealth meets agility in the unforgiving arena of close-in air combat.
The encounter took place during a joint NATO training event centered on Ramstein Air Base, involving more than 30 aircraft from nine alliance nations. The broader exercise was designed to expose pilots to unfamiliar platforms, tactics, and data-link architectures they would encounter in a real coalition war.
As part of that effort, US Air Force Captain Patrick “Hobbit” Pearce took off in an F-35A Lightning II, while 1st Lieutenant Alexander “Stitch” Grant flew a German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon. Both pilots were given the same coordinates, altitude, and time-on-target—but no information about the identity of the opposing aircraft.
When the two jets closed into the visual “merge,” both men immediately realized they were facing something new. Grant had never flown against an F-35. Pearce had never fought a Typhoon.
What followed was a classic, high-G dogfight—something increasingly rare in an era dominated by long-range missiles, networked sensors, and beyond-visual-range engagements.
Once the fight began, the Eurofighter Typhoon quickly demonstrated why it has long been regarded as one of the world’s finest air-to-air fighters. Powered by two Eurojet EJ200 engines and shaped by aggressive aerodynamics, the Typhoon excels at sustaining energy while maneuvering hard.
Grant was able to pull tighter turns and bleed less airspeed than the single-engine F-35. Despite Pearce’s own high-G maneuvers, the Typhoon eventually maneuvered into a firing position behind the Lightning II and scored a simulated gun kill.
Both pilots later described the intense physical toll of the engagement—sustaining 7 to 9 Gs while constantly craning their necks to maintain visual contact. In a pure dogfight, physical endurance and aircraft agility mattered as much as tactics.
The outcome surprised no one familiar with the jets’ design priorities. The F-35 was never optimized for close-in knife fighting. Its strengths lie in stealth, sensor fusion, and long-range engagement. The Typhoon, by contrast, was purpose-built for air superiority and excels in visual-range combat.
That result echoed earlier exercises. During Red Flag Alaska 2012, the Eurofighter Typhoon reportedly achieved multiple simulated kills against both the F-22 Raptor and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in visual engagements—reinforcing its reputation as a lethal dogfighter when stealth advantages are neutralized.
Captain Pearce was quick to emphasize that the dogfight result did not reflect how the F-35 is meant to fight in war.
“In a real combat scenario,” he noted, “I would exploit the F-35’s first-look, first-shot capability or bring in other assets rather than accept a fair fight.”
That statement goes to the heart of the F-35 concept. The Lightning II is not just a fighter; it is a sensor node in a larger combat network. Its value lies in detecting threats long before being detected, sharing targeting data with other aircraft, ships, and ground forces, and enabling kills without ever entering visual range.
Dogfighting, while still trained for, is a last resort—not the preferred mode of employment.
Radar technology sits at the center of this contrast.
The F-35’s AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar represents decades of incremental American advances, building on systems like the F-22’s APG-77. It is tightly integrated with the jet’s stealth shaping, electronic warfare suite, and sensor-fusion architecture.
The radar can track multiple air and ground targets simultaneously, operate in active and passive modes, and keep its own emissions low enough to reduce the chance of enemy detection. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) modes allow high-resolution ground mapping, while electronic attack capabilities blur the line between radar and jammer.
Crucially, the APG-81 does not operate alone. It is fused with data from the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), and electronic warfare sensors, presenting the pilot with a single, integrated picture via the helmet-mounted display.
Lockheed Martin describes it bluntly:
“The F-35’s AN/APG-81 AESA radar is the most capable in the world.”
The Eurofighter Typhoon approaches the problem differently.
Originally fielded with the mechanically scanned Captor-M radar, the Typhoon has evolved into an AESA-equipped platform with the Captor-E and the more advanced ECRS (Eurofighter Common Radar System) variants. Unlike the F-35’s fixed radar array, the Typhoon’s AESA is repositionable, offering a significantly wider field of regard—up to 50% greater than traditional fixed systems, according to Eurofighter.
This allows Typhoon pilots to scan wide swathes of airspace and track fast-moving, off-axis threats while maneuvering aggressively. Combined with the PIRATE infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, the Typhoon can passively detect targets without emitting radar energy—an increasingly valuable capability in contested environments.
The differences extend to weapons carriage and employment.
The F-35 prioritizes stealth. Its primary air-to-air weapons—AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles—are carried internally to preserve low observability. A 25 mm GAU-22/A cannon is also housed internally. For strike missions, the jet can carry JDAM precision-guided bombs internally, with external pylons available when stealth is less critical.
The Typhoon, unconstrained by stealth shaping, boasts 13 external hardpoints and can carry a heavier and more diverse visible weapons load. Its 27 mm Mauser cannon is paired with a wide range of missiles, including the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—widely regarded as one of the most capable BVR weapons in service today.
In later tranches, the Typhoon has also evolved into a true “swing-role” fighter, carrying Storm Shadow cruise missiles, Brimstone, Paveway IV, JDAM, and future stand-off weapons like SPEAR 3.
The Eurofighter program, jointly run by the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain, has evolved through distinct production “tranches.”
Tranche 1, delivered from 2003, focused almost exclusively on air-to-air combat.
Tranche 2, starting in 2008, introduced stronger airframes, enhanced wiring, and vastly improved mission computers, enabling true multirole capability.
Tranche 4, ordered from 2020 onward, is the first Typhoon built around an AESA radar from day one, with upgraded cockpits, communications, and electronic warfare systems.
The F-35, by contrast, follows a continuous upgrade model—though not without controversy. Lockheed Martin’s “build-while-test” approach led to delays, cost overruns, and expensive retrofits for early aircraft. Hundreds of deficiencies have been reported over the years, with Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware and Block 4 software now seen as critical to unlocking the jet’s full potential.
Despite those challenges, the scale of the F-35 program is unmatched.
Around 1,200 F-35s are already in service with 19 nations, with more on order. The Eurofighter Typhoon, meanwhile, has seen orders for 729 aircraft across nine operators.
This disparity has strategic and industrial consequences—particularly in the United Kingdom.
London recently chose not to order new Tranche 5 Typhoons, instead opting to buy 12 additional F-35s. That decision leaves BAE Systems’ Warton assembly line with just one aircraft left to complete and no confirmed follow-on work.
BAE Systems and workers’ unions warn that shutting the line would hollow out Britain’s skilled aerospace workforce, creating a production gap before the UK–Japan–Italy Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), also known as “Tempest,” enters production later in the decade.
Export orders from partners like Kuwait and Qatar continue, but because each nation assembles its own jets, those sales will not sustain the UK line. Unless policy shifts or new exports emerge, Britain’s Typhoon production era is effectively drawing to a close.
The September 2024 dogfight over Germany did not crown a single “better” fighter. Instead, it highlighted a deeper truth about modern air combat.
The Eurofighter Typhoon remains a fearsome air superiority machine—fast, agile, and deadly in close combat. The F-35 Lightning II, meanwhile, is redefining how air wars are fought, emphasizing information dominance, stealth, and networked warfare over traditional dogfighting prowess.
In the skies of a future NATO conflict, the two are less rivals than complements. The Typhoon dominates the visual fight. The F-35 shapes the battlespace long before the enemy knows a fight has begun.
And that, perhaps, is the most important lesson of all
