Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

[Quant]

> (Jack White) wrote
>

I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
watch the replies.


> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> East including Israel.
>
>
> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.


So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
at least 135 km. Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
than short range ones? Israel clearly has superiority in the short
range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
and counter measures are very important. While Israel will know the
exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.


> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
> F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
> Typhoon is there.


The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
superiority over its neighbors.



> The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
> Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
> From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
> Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
> The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
> and F-16Is though.
> An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
> better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
> pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
> from what I've read.
> F-22 Raptors are VERY EXPENSIVE, I don't know if Israel can afford
> them even with free US taxpayer money.
> I'd think that Israel would probably go for the JSF in the future.
>
>


Israel is already part of the JSF project.


Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.

It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.

[Big Dave]

Aaaah but isn't the AIM 54 being retired as the only plane that can carry it
is the F14 which is also nearing it max flying hours so will also be
retired?

BD

[Peter Kemp]

On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, (Quant) wrote:

>> (Jack White) wrote
>>
>
>I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
>neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
>watch the replies.
>
>
>> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>> East including Israel.
>>
>>
>> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
>> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>
>
>So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
>at least 135 km.

And is designed for shooting down non-manouvering bombers. It's also
being withdrawn from service, and the Israelis never even had aircraft
qualified for it, let alone any missiles.

The Meteor is still a few years from deployment though, but when it
arrives, it should handily outrange AMRAAM which is the longest spear
in the IAF armoury (Derby is alleged to have a much shorter range).

>Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
>missiles won't have those capabilities?

Because there are no current projects publicly announced that have the
capabilities of the Meteor. Could there be one in development? Maybe,
but there's no evidence for it.

>Why do you think that in the
>tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
>than short range ones?

Because you don't need to be in Israel's airspace to fire a missile!
The simple fact is that if you can launch at 20 miles, and you
opponent has to close to 10 miles, then he's already on the defensive
and at a disadvantage.

> Israel clearly has superiority in the short
>range.

Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM, which
is a handy little performer itself.

>Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
>and counter measures are very important. While Israel will know the
>exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
>and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
>won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
>because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.

So you're saying the Saudi's and Egyptians have never heard of ELINT?
I find that difficult to believe. Whether they're any good at it is
another matter.

>> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
>> F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
>> Typhoon is there.
>
>
>The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
>relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
>Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
>its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
>happen).

Both Israel the Arab nations use US early warning systems, including
E-2s, and in the case of SA, E-3s (which the Israelis *don't* have.

Peter Kemp

[Steven DeMonnin]

Quant wrote:

(Jack White) wrote
>>
>
>
> I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
> neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
> watch the replies.
>
>
>
>>The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>>capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>>East including Israel.
>>
>>
>>The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
>>air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>
>
>
> So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
> at least 135 km. Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
> missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
> tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
> than short range ones? Israel clearly has superiority in the short
> range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
> and counter measures are very important. While Israel will know the
> exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
> and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
> won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
> because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.
>
>
>
>>The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
>>F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
>>Typhoon is there.
>
>
>
> The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
> relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
> happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
> important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
> superiority over its neighbors.
>
>
>
>
>>The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
>>Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
>>From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
>>Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
>>The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
>>and F-16Is though.
>>An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
>>better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
>>pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
>>from what I've read.
>>F-22 Raptors are VERY EXPENSIVE, I don't know if Israel can afford
>>them even with free US taxpayer money.
>>I'd think that Israel would probably go for the JSF in the future.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Israel is already part of the JSF project.
>
>
> Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
> hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
> in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.
>
> It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
> Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.


The real Asymmetry is in the quality of the pilots. I don't know the
Israeli training tempo, but I read a piece by Victor Hanson that said it
was comparable to the US training tempo, and that most dictatorial
states have a training regimen that is about 5% of the time the US
devotes to its pilots. In military training, marginal quantitative
difference can lead to huge qualitative differences.

The reality is, these airplanes are to be used on the local population
when they get fractious. In any combat with a highly qualified air
force like the IAF, even the fanciest airplane is little more than
expensive scrap metal if your pilots aren't trained.
--
Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human face, there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal there to assure us that the face enjoys free
health care and a high degree of literacy.\
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
John Derbyshire

http://www.aracnet.com/~reynard/blogbog.htm}

[Passerby]

I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full complements
of
those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their airforces
useless
without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile. According
to all reports
EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.


"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> > (Jack White) wrote
> >
>
> I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
> neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
> watch the replies.
>
>
> > The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> > capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> > East including Israel.
> >
> >
> > The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
> > air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>
>
> So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
> at least 135 km. Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
> missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
> tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
> than short range ones? Israel clearly has superiority in the short
> range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
> and counter measures are very important. While Israel will know the
> exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
> and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
> won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
> because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.
>
>
> > The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
> > F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
> > Typhoon is there.
>
>
> The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
> relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
> happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
> important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
> superiority over its neighbors.
>
>
>
> > The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
> > Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
> > From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
> > Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
> > The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
> > and F-16Is though.
> > An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
> > better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
> > pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
> > from what I've read.
> > F-22 Raptors are VERY EXPENSIVE, I don't know if Israel can afford
> > them even with free US taxpayer money.
> > I'd think that Israel would probably go for the JSF in the future.
> >
> >
>
>
> Israel is already part of the JSF project.
>
>
> Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
> hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
> in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.
>
> It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
> Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.

[phil hunt]

On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
>> (Jack White) wrote
>
>I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
>neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
>watch the replies.


[i]
>> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>> East including Israel.

Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
are, I haven't heard of it.

>> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
>> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.

It will have in the future; currently Meteor is still under
development.

>So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
>at least 135 km.

That's a theoretical range; what's a typical engagement range, and
what's the furthest range it's been successfully fired at?

Bear in mind that planes under attack aren't going to just sit
there. They could run away, hoping to outrange the missile. Or the
could manouvre. Or use electronic countermeasures. If the missile
depends on a radar from the firing aircraft illuminating the target,
the target aircraft can fire a missile of its own, to make the
firing aircraft turn away and stop illuminating (obviously this
won't work for fire-and-forget missiles). The target aircraft can
also fire flares to confuse IR-homing missiles, or trailing pod to
give a false radar image (the Typhoon does this; I'm not sure if
any other fighters do).

Some people have suggested that a defending aircraft could fire a
laser beam to confuse/destroy the sensors in a missile.

> Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
>missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
>tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
>than short range ones?

Clearly, if there was a long-range missile that was immune to all
those countermeasures, it would be very useful. Then again, the
ability to turn lead into gold woulds be useful too.

In the past, people removed guns from fighters, claiming
they'll never be used because all engagements would be long range.
This prediction turned out to be false, and the guns were put back
in. (incidently, the RAF's Typhoons won't have a gun, but the other
countries' variants will).

>Israel clearly has superiority in the short
>range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
>and counter measures are very important.

Good pilots are probably the single most important factor.

> While Israel will know the
>exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have

Why?

>and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
>won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
>because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.

I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.

>> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
>> F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
>> Typhoon is there.

This may or may not be the case. Typhoon is almost certainly a
better plane than the F-15 or F-16; it's more manouvrable, has a
better thrust-to-weight ratio, can supercruise, is partially
stealthed, and has better avionics making the pilot's job easier.
However, until it has seen combat, it's to early to say
definitievely what its capabilities are.

>The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
>relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
>Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
>its best technology to these Arab countries

Or unless the Europeans do.

> (and I doubt it will
>happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
>important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
>superiority over its neighbors.

I doubt if Israel's electronics industry is better than Europe's;
Europe's is certainly a lot bigger. And size counts: how many
models of anti-aircraft missile does Israel produce? Europe produces
more variety. So even if the best Israeli missile is better than a
typical European one, it might not be better than the best European
one.

>> The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
>> Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
>> From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
>> Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.

The JSF isn't designed to be a pure air superiority aircraft, it's,
as its name suggests, designed to be multi-role.

>> The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
>> and F-16Is though.
>> An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
>> better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
>> pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
>> from what I've read.

This may well be right; certainly the DERA study suggests it is.

>Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
>hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
>in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.

There are lots of hypotheticals. For example, if SA is buying
Eurofighters they will also probably buy an anti-runway cruise
missile in the Apache / SCALP / Storm Shadow family, which might
enable them to shut down Israeli airbases.

>It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
>Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.

My understanding is the Saudi army is rather small. Dunno about the
Egyptian army.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:38:25 +0100, Big Dave > wrote:
>Aaaah but isn't the AIM 54 being retired as the only plane that can carry it
>is the F14 which is also nearing it max flying hours so will also be
>retired?

Aparently, Iran (the only F-14 operator apart from the USA) is
building its own copy of the AIM 54.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:05:03 GMT, Passerby > wrote:
>I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full complements
>of
>those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their airforces
>useless
>without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile. According
>to all reports
>EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.

Which reports are these, then?

Do some of them actually refer to the aircraft by its correct name,
and not an old name that hasn't been current for years, by any
chance?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
>The Meteor is still a few years from deployment though, but when it
>arrives, it should handily outrange AMRAAM which is the longest spear
>in the IAF armoury (Derby is alleged to have a much shorter range).

Incidently, why is Israel naming this missile after an English city?

>>Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
>>missiles won't have those capabilities?
>
>Because there are no current projects publicly announced that have the
>capabilities of the Meteor. Could there be one in development? Maybe,
>but there's no evidence for it.

IIRC a successor to the Phoenix was planned, but was scrapped in
the 1990s.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

Steven DeMonnin > wrote:

> The real Asymmetry is in the quality of the pilots. I don't know the
> Israeli training tempo, but I read a piece by Victor Hanson that said it
> was comparable to the US training tempo, and that most dictatorial
> states have a training regimen that is about 5% of the time the US
> devotes to its pilots. In military training, marginal quantitative
> difference can lead to huge qualitative differences.

Not to mention ,of course, the ground troops maintaining the planes.

Those brand new Eurofighters are going to be combat-effective for a
month, maybe two, and if they go into a heavy training regimen, it'll be
shorter than that.

And since they'll be "new" planes, they're going to have the normal
teething problems, without a good crew to do the updates and fixes that
any plane suffers off of the assemby line.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:58:49 -0700, Steven DeMonnin > wrote:
>
>The real Asymmetry is in the quality of the pilots. I don't know the
>Israeli training tempo, but I read a piece by Victor Hanson that said it
>was comparable to the US training tempo, and that most dictatorial
>states have a training regimen that is about 5% of the time the US
>devotes to its pilots. In military training, marginal quantitative
>difference can lead to huge qualitative differences.

Presumably, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were prepared to pay large
amounts of money for Typhoons, they would also be prepared to pay
for pilot training. These days a lot can be donev with simulators;
the UK has the JOUST simulator hookup which links 8 simulators
together allowing multi-pilot simulated dogfights; presumably this
is useful in developing tactics.

>The reality is, these airplanes are to be used on the local population
>when they get fractious.

I doubt it. If Saudi Arabia just wanted to prevent rebellions, they
could have bought something a lot cheaper than the F-15.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

>On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
>>> (Jack White) wrote
>>>
>>
>>I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
>>neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
>>watch the replies.
>>
>>
>>> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>>> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>>> East including Israel.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
>>> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>>
>>
>>So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
>>at least 135 km.
>
>And is designed for shooting down non-manouvering bombers. It's also
>being withdrawn from service, and the Israelis never even had aircraft
>qualified for it, let alone any missiles.
>
>The Meteor is still a few years from deployment though, but when it
>arrives, it should handily outrange AMRAAM which is the longest spear
>in the IAF armoury (Derby is alleged to have a much shorter range).
>
>>Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
>>missiles won't have those capabilities?
>
>Because there are no current projects publicly announced that have the
>capabilities of the Meteor. Could there be one in development? Maybe,
>but there's no evidence for it.
>
>>Why do you think that in the
>>tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
>>than short range ones?
>
>Because you don't need to be in Israel's airspace to fire a missile!
>The simple fact is that if you can launch at 20 miles, and you
>opponent has to close to 10 miles, then he's already on the defensive
>and at a disadvantage.
>
>> Israel clearly has superiority in the short
>>range.
>
>Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM, which
>is a handy little performer itself.


Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

>>Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM, which
>>is a handy little performer itself.
>
>Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.

Indeed, although IIRC the 5 is basically a 4 with a staring array
(please correct me if my memory's going). ASRAAM already has the
staring array.

IIRC the ASRAAM has the longer range, and the Python goes for shorter
range but greater maneuverability.

Peter Kemp

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:14:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Steven DeMonnin > wrote:
>
>> The real Asymmetry is in the quality of the pilots. I don't know the
>> Israeli training tempo, but I read a piece by Victor Hanson that said it
>> was comparable to the US training tempo, and that most dictatorial
>> states have a training regimen that is about 5% of the time the US
>> devotes to its pilots. In military training, marginal quantitative
>> difference can lead to huge qualitative differences.
>
>Not to mention ,of course, the ground troops maintaining the planes.
>
>Those brand new Eurofighters are going to be combat-effective for a
>month, maybe two, and if they go into a heavy training regimen, it'll be
>shorter than that.
>
>And since they'll be "new" planes, they're going to have the normal
>teething problems, without a good crew to do the updates and fixes that
>any plane suffers off of the assemby line.

We're not talking some of the less able Arab nations, but Egypt, who
has no problems keeping it's F-16s at a fairly high availability, and
the Saudis, who also manage to keep their E-3s and F-15s in the air.

Peter Kemp

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> Presumably, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were prepared to pay large
> amounts of money for Typhoons, they would also be prepared to pay
> for pilot training.

Not from past history. The Saudis are notoriously bad at enforcing
training their pilots.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> We're not talking some of the less able Arab nations, but Egypt, who
> has no problems keeping it's F-16s at a fairly high availability, and
> the Saudis, who also manage to keep their E-3s and F-15s in the air.

Not according to, well, everything I've ever read, heard and seen. The
current mission-capable rate on the Saudi F-15s is supposed to be less
than 50%, and that's just birds they can get into the air, not what the
US calls "combat capable."

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Passerby
> writes
>I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full complements
>of
>those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their airforces
>useless
>without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile. According
>to all reports
>EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.

No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22. (Notice the
hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
mighty attack platform! Never mind that the P-47 was doing the same in
1943... that's progress for you). If you _really_ want to cripple the
Arabs, sell them Raptors.

Whether either is 'trash' will be a matter for squadron service to
prove.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Steven DeMonnin]

phil hunt wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:58:49 -0700, Steven DeMonnin > wrote:
>
>>The real Asymmetry is in the quality of the pilots. I don't know the
>>Israeli training tempo, but I read a piece by Victor Hanson that said it
>>was comparable to the US training tempo, and that most dictatorial
>>states have a training regimen that is about 5% of the time the US
>>devotes to its pilots. In military training, marginal quantitative
>>difference can lead to huge qualitative differences.
>
>
> Presumably, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were prepared to pay large
> amounts of money for Typhoons, they would also be prepared to pay
> for pilot training. These days a lot can be donev with simulators;
> the UK has the JOUST simulator hookup which links 8 simulators
> together allowing multi-pilot simulated dogfights; presumably this
> is useful in developing tactics.
>
>
>>The reality is, these airplanes are to be used on the local population
>>when they get fractious.
>
>
> I doubt it. If Saudi Arabia just wanted to prevent rebellions, they
> could have bought something a lot cheaper than the F-15.
>
>
You would think that. They spend the up front money, they should pay
for the training. It dosn't actually work that way.

That article I referenced (If I could find it, I would post it.) made
the point that dictitorial regeimes (not specificly middle eastern
regeimes, this applies to all regiems of this type) have a different
military with a different objective than the militaries of the
democratic states. The military is mostly used to keep the most volitle
part of the population (single unemployed males under 25) under close
supervision. They aren't interested in a military that actually shoots
at a forign enemy. The best trained and highest motived part of the
army is usually the praetorian gard. (like the Republlican Guard of Iraq)

An effective air force requires intense training and independent
thinkers. In most dictitorial regeims, independent thinkers have their
independent thinking apparatus blown out.

The history of all Israel's wars shows that the Arab leaders fear their
air forces more than they fear Israel's. This usually means that within
the first day of a way the IAF is busy shooting up the opposing
airforces on the ground, and the remainer of the war Israel has the
skies to itself.

This may also be the reason why regeims such as this devote so much of
their budget to SAM missles. A missle dosn't give back chat, and it is
the only way to stop the IAF after the air force gets blown up on the
tarmac.


--
Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human face, there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal there to assure us that the face enjoys free
health care and a high degree of literacy.\
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
John Derbyshire

http://www.aracnet.com/~reynard/blogbog.htm}

[Quant]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> >> (Jack White) wrote
> >
> >I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
> >neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
> >watch the replies.
>
>
>

thanks for your post

[i]
> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> >> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> >> East including Israel.
>
> Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
> are, I haven't heard of it.
>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2274194.stm

BAE Systems has denied a report that it is in talks with Saudi Arabia
about the sale of Typhoon Eurofighter jets.
The Observer newspaper said that the company was in talks with Saudi
Arabia about the sale of 50 jets in a deal worth at least £1.5bn
($2.3bn).

And the paper added that Saudi Arabia might make some of the payments
for the jets through oil shipments, similar to the al-Yamamah
oil-for-arms deal struck in the 1980s.




> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
> >> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>
> It will have in the future; currently Meteor is still under
> development.
>
> >So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
> >at least 135 km.
>
> That's a theoretical range; what's a typical engagement range, and
> what's the furthest range it's been successfully fired at?
>
> Bear in mind that planes under attack aren't going to just sit
> there. They could run away, hoping to outrange the missile. Or the
> could manouvre. Or use electronic countermeasures. If the missile
> depends on a radar from the firing aircraft illuminating the target,
> the target aircraft can fire a missile of its own, to make the
> firing aircraft turn away and stop illuminating (obviously this
> won't work for fire-and-forget missiles). The target aircraft can
> also fire flares to confuse IR-homing missiles, or trailing pod to
> give a false radar image (the Typhoon does this; I'm not sure if
> any other fighters do).
>
> Some people have suggested that a defending aircraft could fire a
> laser beam to confuse/destroy the sensors in a missile.
>

Elbit systems (Israel) already have such an operative system, but
people in this NG suggested that appropriate modification to the
missiles can neutralize this system. Therefore this system is more
appropriate to defend from more primitive missiles that terrorists.

http://www.elbit.co.il/news/arch/June2003a.html


> > Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
> >missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
> >tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
> >than short range ones?
>
> Clearly, if there was a long-range missile that was immune to all
> those countermeasures, it would be very useful. Then again, the
> ability to turn lead into gold woulds be useful too.
>
> In the past, people removed guns from fighters, claiming
> they'll never be used because all engagements would be long range.
> This prediction turned out to be false, and the guns were put back
> in. (incidently, the RAF's Typhoons won't have a gun, but the other
> countries' variants will).
>
> >Israel clearly has superiority in the short
> >range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
> >and counter measures are very important.
>
> Good pilots are probably the single most important factor.
>
> > While Israel will know the
> >exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
>
> Why?
>


Buying parts of systems through friendly countries - Austria for
example, and researching the system. Then developing appropriate
algorithms/devices to deal with this system effectively.


> >and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
> >won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
> >because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.
>
> I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
> aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.
>


Israel for example can develop a special decoy to deal with specific
system it knows the Arabs have. Israel could develop measures to
disrupt specific communications. On the late 70's Israel developed
UAV's especially to solve the SAM's problem - and in 1982 they proved
themselves.

The Arabs doesn't have an electronic industry at all. Not even a small
one.



> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
> >> F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
> >> Typhoon is there.
>
> This may or may not be the case. Typhoon is almost certainly a
> better plane than the F-15 or F-16; it's more manouvrable, has a
> better thrust-to-weight ratio, can supercruise, is partially
> stealthed, and has better avionics making the pilot's job easier.
> However, until it has seen combat, it's to early to say
> definitievely what its capabilities are.
>
> >The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
> >relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> >Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> >its best technology to these Arab countries
>
> Or unless the Europeans do.
>
> > (and I doubt it will
> >happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
> >important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
> >superiority over its neighbors.
>
> I doubt if Israel's electronics industry is better than Europe's;
> Europe's is certainly a lot bigger. And size counts: how many
> models of anti-aircraft missile does Israel produce?

Python 5 and Derby. The US is using Israel's ITALD. US and many
European countries use Israel's litening syustem. Elbit will develop
and produce the JSF HMD, etc. It's true that Israel's industry is
smaller but many of its products are the best in the world.

> Europe produces
> more variety. So even if the best Israeli missile is better than a
> typical European one, it might not be better than the best European
> one.
>

Europe doesn't develop measures especially to counter Israeli weapons.
Israel is devloping measures especially to counter weapons that Arabs
are buying. They can't buy everything.


> >> The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
> >> Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
> >> From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
> >> Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
>
> The JSF isn't designed to be a pure air superiority aircraft, it's,
> as its name suggests, designed to be multi-role.
>
> >> The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
> >> and F-16Is though.
> >> An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
> >> better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
> >> pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
> >> from what I've read.
>
> This may well be right; certainly the DERA study suggests it is.
>
> >Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
> >hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
> >in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.
>
> There are lots of hypotheticals. For example, if SA is buying
> Eurofighters they will also probably buy an anti-runway cruise
> missile in the Apache / SCALP / Storm Shadow family, which might
> enable them to shut down Israeli airbases.
>
> >It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
> >Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.
>
> My understanding is the Saudi army is rather small. Dunno about the
> Egyptian army.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.

Is there any independent assessment of how good it is? I mean, the
manufacturer's web site says it's good, but they would say that
wouldn't they.

Ditto for other missiles.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:14:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>Steven DeMonnin > wrote:
>
>> The real Asymmetry is in the quality of the pilots. I don't know the
>> Israeli training tempo, but I read a piece by Victor Hanson that said it
>> was comparable to the US training tempo, and that most dictatorial
>> states have a training regimen that is about 5% of the time the US
>> devotes to its pilots. In military training, marginal quantitative
>> difference can lead to huge qualitative differences.
>
>Not to mention ,of course, the ground troops maintaining the planes.
>
>Those brand new Eurofighters are going to be combat-effective for a
>month, maybe two, and if they go into a heavy training regimen, it'll be
>shorter than that.
>
>And since they'll be "new" planes, they're going to have the normal
>teething problems, without a good crew to do the updates and fixes that
>any plane suffers off of the assemby line.

If Israel buys a counter to the Typhoon -- say Typhoons themselves,
or F-35, or F/A-22, then they too will have the same teething
troubles.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:44:56 -0400, Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
>><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>>>Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM, which
>>>is a handy little performer itself.
>>
>>Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.
>
>Indeed, although IIRC the 5 is basically a 4 with a staring array
>(please correct me if my memory's going).

Yes. Python 5 is new guidance system, same everything else.

>ASRAAM already has the
>staring array.

Python 5 is said to have 100 degree off-boresight aquisition, and
lock on after launch which IIRC ASRAAM doesn't have.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:22:07 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> Presumably, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were prepared to pay large
>> amounts of money for Typhoons, they would also be prepared to pay
>> for pilot training.
>
>Not from past history. The Saudis are notoriously bad at enforcing
>training their pilots.

Any reason why? I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:31:02 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>
>No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22.

Pretty much anything's cheaper than the F/A-22. I wonder if it costs
more than its weight in gold.

>(Notice the
>hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
>mighty attack platform!

Indeed. Maybe it fooled a few congressmen.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On 13 Sep 2003 15:57:53 -0700, Quant > wrote:
>> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>> >> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>> >> East including Israel.
>>
>> Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
>> are, I haven't heard of it.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2274194.stm

That report is a year old.

>BAE Systems has denied a report that it is in talks with Saudi Arabia
>about the sale of Typhoon Eurofighter jets.

If they're denying it, it must be true! :-)

(Just like when the PM tells everyone a minister "has his full
support", you know the guy will shortly be sacked).

>The Observer newspaper said that the company was in talks with Saudi
>Arabia about the sale of 50 jets in a deal worth at least £1.5bn
>($2.3bn).

I think 50 Eurofighters would set the Saudis back considerably more
than that. Austria are paying EUR 62 m each, which works out at GBP
2.183 bn for 50. And then you have to add weapons, spares, training,
etc.

>And the paper added that Saudi Arabia might make some of the payments
>for the jets through oil shipments, similar to the al-Yamamah
>oil-for-arms deal struck in the 1980s.

Plausible.

>Elbit systems (Israel) already have such an operative system, but
>people in this NG suggested that appropriate modification to the
>missiles can neutralize this system.

You could home in on the laser beam, for example.

>> >and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
>> >won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
>> >because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.
>>
>> I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
>> aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.
>
>Israel for example can develop a special decoy to deal with specific
>system it knows the Arabs have. Israel could develop measures to
>disrupt specific communications.

The Arabs could re-write parts of the software, to make the systems
behave differently.

>The Arabs doesn't have an electronic industry at all. Not even a small
>one.

You don't need one to write software. I bet a lot of modern avionics
these days is FPGAs and other programmable chips which are kinda
like software (in the sense that you don't need a massive
capital-intensive industry to make changes).

>> I doubt if Israel's electronics industry is better than Europe's;
>> Europe's is certainly a lot bigger. And size counts: how many
>> models of anti-aircraft missile does Israel produce?
>
>Python 5 and Derby. The US is using Israel's ITALD. US and many
>European countries use Israel's litening syustem. Elbit will develop
>and produce the JSF HMD, etc. It's true that Israel's industry is
>smaller but many of its products are the best in the world.

Hmm. If Israel's aviation industry is so good, how come they
couldn't develop the Lavi, but Sweden, with a similar population
(and probably smaller development budget) could develop the Gripen?

I'm willing to beleive that Israel makes competent military kit. I'm
not willing to beleive that Israeli kit is consistently better than
the best European kit. Israelis are humans, not supermen.

>> Europe produces
>> more variety. So even if the best Israeli missile is better than a
>> typical European one, it might not be better than the best European
>> one.
>
>Europe doesn't develop measures especially to counter Israeli weapons.

That's true, and a good point. Typhoon (and much other European kit)
was designed to counter the USSR, specifically the MiG-29.

But the USSR doesn't exist any more. Defence contractors (*like
other businesses) make what people will buy. Al Yamammah was one of
the biggest defence contracts ever -- who says BAE or MBDA won't
make kit to counter israeli weapons in future?

>Israel is devloping measures especially to counter weapons that Arabs
>are buying.

Indeed true.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:35:52 -0700, Steven DeMonnin > wrote:
>>
>> I doubt it. If Saudi Arabia just wanted to prevent rebellions, they
>> could have bought something a lot cheaper than the F-15.
>
>That article I referenced (If I could find it, I would post it.) made
>the point that dictitorial regeimes (not specificly middle eastern
>regeimes, this applies to all regiems of this type) have a different
>military with a different objective than the militaries of the
>democratic states. The military is mostly used to keep the most volitle
> part of the population (single unemployed males under 25) under close
>supervision.

Given the small size of the Saudi army, I don't think that can be
true.

> They aren't interested in a military that actually shoots
>at a forign enemy.

There are counterexamples, e.g. Nazi Germany.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:14:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >And since they'll be "new" planes, they're going to have the normal
> >teething problems, without a good crew to do the updates and fixes that
> >any plane suffers off of the assemby line.
>
> If Israel buys a counter to the Typhoon -- say Typhoons themselves,
> or F-35, or F/A-22, then they too will have the same teething
> troubles.

But the Israelis actually have a decent cadre of flightline troops who
can fix and/or modify the planes when that happens. The Saudis, most
definitely, do *not*.

And a month down the road, or six months down the road, right when the
Israelis are getting their into decent shape, the Saudis (or the
Egyptians, or whoever) will be trying to figure out what systems to
ignore in order to call them "mission capable."

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:22:07 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> Presumably, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were prepared to pay large
> >> amounts of money for Typhoons, they would also be prepared to pay
> >> for pilot training.
> >
> >Not from past history. The Saudis are notoriously bad at enforcing
> >training their pilots.
>
> Any reason why? I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me.

Look, for example, at every other Arab military unit in the Middle East.

What makes you think the Saudi Air Force will suddenly be any different?

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Quant]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:22:07 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> > >In article >,
> > > (phil hunt) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Presumably, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were prepared to pay large
> > >> amounts of money for Typhoons, they would also be prepared to pay
> > >> for pilot training.
> > >
> > >Not from past history. The Saudis are notoriously bad at enforcing
> > >training their pilots.
> >
> > Any reason why? I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> Look, for example, at every other Arab military unit in the Middle East.
>


btw, the Jordanian pilots are said to be well trained and tough opponents.


> What makes you think the Saudi Air Force will suddenly be any different?

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 02:47:23 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:44:56 -0400, Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
>>><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>>Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM, which
>>>>is a handy little performer itself.
>>>
>>>Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.
>>
>>Indeed, although IIRC the 5 is basically a 4 with a staring array
>>(please correct me if my memory's going).
>
>Yes. Python 5 is new guidance system, same everything else.

Ta for confirming that.

>>ASRAAM already has the
>>staring array.
>
>Python 5 is said to have 100 degree off-boresight aquisition, and
>lock on after launch which IIRC ASRAAM doesn't have.

ASRAAM does have LOAL, and it's off boresight is 90 degrees. How much
difference the extra 10 degrees would make is not something I could
estimate, but presumably with LOAL you could still "fire over the
shoulder" and have a chance of it still getting a kill (as you could
with the Python 4/5).

Peter Kemp

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:23:55 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>> We're not talking some of the less able Arab nations, but Egypt, who
>> has no problems keeping it's F-16s at a fairly high availability, and
>> the Saudis, who also manage to keep their E-3s and F-15s in the air.
>
>Not according to, well, everything I've ever read, heard and seen. The
>current mission-capable rate on the Saudi F-15s is supposed to be less
>than 50%, and that's just birds they can get into the air, not what the
>US calls "combat capable."

Cite?

Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
lack of spares etc.

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:38:25 +0100, Big Dave >
wrote:
> >Aaaah but isn't the AIM 54 being retired as the only plane that can carry
it
> >is the F14 which is also nearing it max flying hours so will also be
> >retired?
>
> Aparently, Iran (the only F-14 operator apart from the USA) is
> building its own copy of the AIM 54.
>
> --
> A: top posting
>
> Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
>

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:43:50 -0400, > wrote:
>Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
>lack of spares etc.

Don you have a cite for that? And for the general servicability of
aircraft in the Iranian Air Force? The impression I had was that
Iran was having some success in making its own spare parts and/or
buying new components, e.g from China.

On a more general note, why was there a fashion for swing-wing
aircraft in the 60s and 70s -- F-14, F-111, Tornado, MiG-23, etc --
and why did they go out of fashion?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

(Quant) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:

> > Look, for example, at every other Arab military unit in the Middle East.
>
> btw, the Jordanian pilots are said to be well trained and tough opponents.

....by the Syrians and the Egyptians.

Not by anyone *good*.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:31:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Passerby
> writes
>>I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full complements
>>of
>>those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their airforces
>>useless
>>without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile. According
>>to all reports
>>EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.
>
>No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22. (Notice the
>hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
>mighty attack platform! Never mind that the P-47 was doing the same in
>1943... that's progress for you). If you _really_ want to cripple the
>Arabs, sell them Raptors.
>
>Whether either is 'trash' will be a matter for squadron service to
>prove.

Well, it has the RCS of a steel barn door, with or without outboard
stores. And "cheaper" is generally not "better" when it comes to
weapon systems. The Raptor could eat the Eurobird for breakfast.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:23:55 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >
> >> We're not talking some of the less able Arab nations, but Egypt, who
> >> has no problems keeping it's F-16s at a fairly high availability, and
> >> the Saudis, who also manage to keep their E-3s and F-15s in the air.
> >
> >Not according to, well, everything I've ever read, heard and seen. The
> >current mission-capable rate on the Saudi F-15s is supposed to be less
> >than 50%, and that's just birds they can get into the air, not what the
> >US calls "combat capable."
>
> Cite?

Years of hanging around guys who have worked with the Saudis. A couple
of old friends went to work training their techs. The general view is
that they just plain don't have any good flightline techs, except for a
handful of expatriates.

Saudi Arabia is kinda like a guy who buys a top-line Mercedes, never
reads the owner's manual, doesn't change the oil, and lets their cousin
Bob do the tuneups...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[TJ]

> wrote in message
...
> Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
> lack of spares etc.
>


Iran's F-14 are still operational and still generate a healthy sortie rate.
If they are grounded then try telling that to Coalition forces stationed in
the Gulf who have observed shadowing by Iranian F-14s even in 2003. In
addition to their operational F-14's the Iranians also generate a healthy
F-4 Phantom sortie rate. If you pick up past copies of Air Forces Monthly
you will see various photographs of F-14 exhibited in Iran and also
undergoing indepth maintenance. Sorry, but your claim that Iranian F-14 have
been grounded for years is simply untrue.

TJ

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" wrote
> Peter Kemp wrote
> >The Meteor is still a few years from deployment though, but when it
> >arrives, it should handily outrange AMRAAM which is the longest
spear
> >in the IAF armoury (Derby is alleged to have a much shorter range).
>
> Incidently, why is Israel naming this missile after an English city?
>
> >>Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
> >>missiles won't have those capabilities?
> >
> >Because there are no current projects publicly announced that have
the
> >capabilities of the Meteor. Could there be one in development?
Maybe,
> >but there's no evidence for it.
>
> IIRC a successor to the Phoenix was planned, but was scrapped in
> the 1990s.

Yep, the USAF isn't convinced there's a real mission for AAMs with
that range.

It's going to be interesting watching Meteor's schedule slip to the
right. Here's why. Meteor's main claim to fame is very loooong range,
courtesy of rocket-ramjet propulsion. What comes with is a
built-from-scratch active AAM seeker. As anyone who's paid attention
knows, the reason AMRAAM took so long to enter service was the
difficulty in engineering that seeker to fit into a 7 inch airframe.
AMRAAM's seeker, with the best RADAR seeker designers in the world
working on it, took many more years to develop than planned. Since
I've seen nothing about special emphasis in Meteor development being
placed on risk reduction in the seeker, I expect a series of schedule
slips due to vague reasons that will push IOC out about ten years.

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" > wrote
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:44:56 -0400, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
> >><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >
> >>>Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM,
which
> >>>is a handy little performer itself.
> >>
> >>Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.
> >
> >Indeed, although IIRC the 5 is basically a 4 with a staring array
> >(please correct me if my memory's going).
>
> Yes. Python 5 is new guidance system, same everything else.
>
> >ASRAAM already has the
> >staring array.
>
> Python 5 is said to have 100 degree off-boresight aquisition, and
> lock on after launch which IIRC ASRAAM doesn't have.

I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:31:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22. (Notice the
>>hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
>>mighty attack platform! Never mind that the P-47 was doing the same in
>>1943... that's progress for you). If you _really_ want to cripple the
>>Arabs, sell them Raptors.
>>
>>Whether either is 'trash' will be a matter for squadron service to
>>prove.
>
>Well, it has the RCS of a steel barn door, with or without outboard
>stores.

Have you seen the plots, Al, or just LockMart propaganda? What aspect
and frequency are we discussing?

>And "cheaper" is generally not "better" when it comes to
>weapon systems. The Raptor could eat the Eurobird for breakfast.

Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
much better.

On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
Raptors...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Nele_VII]

-----Original Message-----
From: >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,soc.culture.israel
Date: 14. September 2003. 16:43
Subject: Re: Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East


>Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
>lack of spares etc.

Ever heard of "Iran-Contra" and Mr. "I cannot recall, your honor" Oliver
North (8->) ?

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message >...
> Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
> lack of spares etc.

Are you sure of that? ISTR that they still manage to keep a few flying
these days, according to reports in some of the trade magazines. One
US source indicates about 25 of them may remain operational
(www.afa.org/magazine/Dec2002/1202iran.asp).

Also see:


www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml

www.rferl.org/iran-report/1999/09/36-130999.html

Your claim sounds more hopeful than accurate...and why the top
posting?

Brooks

>
> --
> "I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
> R.J. Goldman
>
> http://www.usidfvets.com
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:38:25 +0100, Big Dave >
> wrote:
> > >Aaaah but isn't the AIM 54 being retired as the only plane that can carry
> it
> > >is the F14 which is also nearing it max flying hours so will also be
> > >retired?
> >
> > Aparently, Iran (the only F-14 operator apart from the USA) is
> > building its own copy of the AIM 54.
> >
> > --
> > A: top posting
> >
> > Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
> >

check with Janes.........

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:43:50 -0400,
> wrote:
> >Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due
to
> >lack of spares etc.
>
> Don you have a cite for that? And for the general servicability of
> aircraft in the Iranian Air Force? The impression I had was that
> Iran was having some success in making its own spare parts and/or
> buying new components, e.g from China.
>
> On a more general note, why was there a fashion for swing-wing
> aircraft in the 60s and 70s -- F-14, F-111, Tornado, MiG-23, etc --
> and why did they go out of fashion?
>
> --
> A: top posting
>
> Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
> much better.

The Raptor *might be* outnumbered, if everyone in Europe follows through
with their complete purchasing plans.

And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
completely different class. Having a neatokeen Eurofighter won't help,
if the other side can see you from four times as far away as you can see
them. In a head to head fight, the Raptor will be killing Typhoons
while the Typhoons would still be trying to get a target lock.

The Typhoon's radar is also a problem. Since the Typhoon wasn't
designed to be a stealth fighter, the radar they picked isn't a
low-detection type (like the Raptor's). The Raptor will often be
*acquiring* Typhoons before the Typhoon even knows it's being looked at.

> On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
> Raptors...

Nope. The US plans on buying 339 Raptors (and with the changes over the
last two years, will probably have to buy more), while England only
currently plans to buy 232 Typhoons.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Quant]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 02:47:23 +0100, (phil hunt)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:44:56 -0400, Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:56:58 -0400, Peter Kemp
> >>><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
> >>>>Python 4 is indeed supposed to be very good. Now look up ASRAAM, which
> >>>>is a handy little performer itself.
> >>>
> >>>Let's not forget the recently announced Python 5.
> >>
> >>Indeed, although IIRC the 5 is basically a 4 with a staring array
> >>(please correct me if my memory's going).
> >
> >Yes. Python 5 is new guidance system, same everything else.
>
> Ta for confirming that.
>
> >>ASRAAM already has the
> >>staring array.
> >
> >Python 5 is said to have 100 degree off-boresight aquisition, and
> >lock on after launch which IIRC ASRAAM doesn't have.
>
> ASRAAM does have LOAL, and it's off boresight is 90 degrees. How much
> difference the extra 10 degrees would make is not something I could
> estimate, but presumably with LOAL you could still "fire over the
> shoulder" and have a chance of it still getting a kill (as you could
> with the Python 4/5).
>
> Peter Kemp


Python 5 is a _full sphere_ missile

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news/news-120603.htm

[Peter Kemp]

On 14 Sep 2003 12:57:14 -0700, (Quant) wrote:

>Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message >...
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 02:47:23 +0100, (phil hunt)
>> wrote:
>> >Python 5 is said to have 100 degree off-boresight aquisition, and
>> >lock on after launch which IIRC ASRAAM doesn't have.
>>
>> ASRAAM does have LOAL, and it's off boresight is 90 degrees. How much
>> difference the extra 10 degrees would make is not something I could
>> estimate, but presumably with LOAL you could still "fire over the
>> shoulder" and have a chance of it still getting a kill (as you could
>> with the Python 4/5).
>>
>Python 5 is a _full sphere_ missile
>
>http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news/news-120603.htm

Only due to the LOAL feature (which ASRAAM also has). The
off-boresight angle is *not* 180 degree before anyone gets confused.

Peter Kemp

[baffet]

[snip]

> >The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
> >relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> >Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> >its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
> >happen).
>
> Both Israel the Arab nations use US early warning systems, including
> E-2s, and in the case of SA, E-3s (which the Israelis *don't* have.
>

What about IAI Phalcon 707, "The world's most advanced AEWC&C system"
according to Federation of American Scientists?

> Peter Kemp

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
>> much better.
>
>The Raptor *might be* outnumbered, if everyone in Europe follows through
>with their complete purchasing plans.
>
>And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
>completely different class.

Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
substantiated.

>Having a neatokeen Eurofighter won't help,
>if the other side can see you from four times as far away as you can see
>them.

Again, source for this claim?

>In a head to head fight, the Raptor will be killing Typhoons
>while the Typhoons would still be trying to get a target lock.

Once again, is this based on analyis or on a sales brochure?

>The Typhoon's radar is also a problem. Since the Typhoon wasn't
>designed to be a stealth fighter, the radar they picked isn't a
>low-detection type (like the Raptor's). The Raptor will often be
>*acquiring* Typhoons before the Typhoon even knows it's being looked at.

Radar is only one sensor. A good fighter uses much more than one radar.

>> On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
>> Raptors...
>
>Nope. The US plans on buying 339 Raptors (and with the changes over the
>last two years, will probably have to buy more), while England only
>currently plans to buy 232 Typhoons.

The US was going to buy 750+ Raptors. Now it's down to 339 and still
falling. We've signed a contract, the US hasn't.

The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn expensive.
Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Peter Kemp]

On 14 Sep 2003 14:58:02 -0700, (baffet) wrote:

>[snip]
>
>> >The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
>> >relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
>> >Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
>> >its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
>> >happen).
>>
>> Both Israel the Arab nations use US early warning systems, including
>> E-2s, and in the case of SA, E-3s (which the Israelis *don't* have.
>>
>
>What about IAI Phalcon 707, "The world's most advanced AEWC&C system"
>according to Federation of American Scientists?

Well, the FAS is a nice resource, but has many flaws, and AFAIK the
Israelis have not built any Phalcons for their own use, and are merely
trying to flog them around the world.

Peter Kemp

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:25:20 -0400, Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>>
>>Python 5 is said to have 100 degree off-boresight aquisition, and
>>lock on after launch which IIRC ASRAAM doesn't have.
>
>ASRAAM does have LOAL, and it's off boresight is 90 degrees. How much
>difference the extra 10 degrees would make is not something I could
>estimate,

Not a lot, I would imagine. With 90 degrees, the pilot only has to
get which half of the sky the target is in.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400, > wrote:
>check with Janes.........

Can you bev more specific?

BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
against Usenet conventionds.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:22:42 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>Yep, the USAF isn't convinced there's a real mission for AAMs with
>that range.

A and B are at war. A and B operate the same fighter, but A has 100
km range missiles, and B only has 20 km.

Some A fighters intercept some B aircraft on a bombing mission
(assume they are flying herad-on courses). A fires AAMs at 60 km.
If B doesn't know the missiles are launched, they won't take evasive
action, and are likely to be hit. If they do know, the fact that
missiles are firing towards them will have a large effect on their
mental state, making them behave cautiously. Probably they'll turn
and run -- but certainly they are likely to be less threat to A's
aircraft than if the missiles weren't flying.

Now consider they meet, both sides on an air superiority mission.
Again, the fact that A gets its missiles off first gives them a big
advantage in air-to-air combat.

If this argument is wrong, what's wrong with it?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >
> >> Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
> >> much better.
> >
> >The Raptor *might be* outnumbered, if everyone in Europe follows through
> >with their complete purchasing plans.
> >
> >And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
> >completely different class.
>
> Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
> substantiated.

Here's a better one: the Eurofighter has *never* been claimed to be a
full stealth fighter (except in a few brochures, where they stretch the
definition of "stealth" to include a smaller airframe and smokeless
engines). It has a somewhat reduced radar cross-section (about a
quarter of an F-16 from head-on, which isn't really saying much), but
it's nothing like the full stealth plane the Raptor was designed to be.
Just *looking* at the two planes makes that pretty bloody obvious.

> >Having a neatokeen Eurofighter won't help, if the other side can see
> >you from four times as far away as you can see them.
>
> Again, source for this claim?

Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
read up on it. An RCS of a meter or so, versus an RCS the size of a
bird (or less, they're very vague about how small the RCS of the F-22
is). Note also that the only aspect they really claim as being very low
RCS for the Typhoon is the head-on one, not the sides or from the rear.

> >In a head to head fight, the Raptor will be killing Typhoons
> >while the Typhoons would still be trying to get a target lock.
>
> Once again, is this based on analyis or on a sales brochure?

Stealth versus non-stealth. When you can't target someone else, and
they can still target you, you're screwed.

> >The Typhoon's radar is also a problem. Since the Typhoon wasn't
> >designed to be a stealth fighter, the radar they picked isn't a
> >low-detection type (like the Raptor's). The Raptor will often be
> >*acquiring* Typhoons before the Typhoon even knows it's being looked at.
>
> Radar is only one sensor. A good fighter uses much more than one radar.

Yes, they also use the Eyeball Mk1 (the Raptor has some camouflage work
done in its paint job which makes it a bitch to see at even medium
range), infrared (the Raptor has IR-dispersal tech built into the
exhaust), and emissions (the F-22 has a good emission-control design).
Reduced emissions also makes any ECM you use immensely more effective,
since you can use much lower power levels and have less chance of a
passive homing system getting you.

The Eurofighter has, well, more composites than older planes, and a
little bit of stealth design in the fuselage. And then they hang all of
the weapons on the outside and give it a few ECM bits. Not good enough.

> >> On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
> >> Raptors...
> >
> >Nope. The US plans on buying 339 Raptors (and with the changes over the
> >last two years, will probably have to buy more), while England only
> >currently plans to buy 232 Typhoons.
>
> The US was going to buy 750+ Raptors. Now it's down to 339 and still
> falling. We've signed a contract, the US hasn't.

Maybe so, but we're certainly going to buy them, and the European
countries are having money problems for the much cheaper and less
effective Eurofighters.

> The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn expensive.
> Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
> it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.

There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:29:46 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
>> much better.
>
>The Raptor *might be* outnumbered, if everyone in Europe follows through
>with their complete purchasing plans.

For this comparison to be meaningful implies a war between the USA
and Europe, which is unlikely. More meaningfdul is how
cost-effective the planes are. An F-22 costs the same as 2.5
Typhoons or 6 Gripens. The F-22 is likely a very capable plane; but
it is that much better?

>And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
>completely different class. Having a neatokeen Eurofighter won't help,
>if the other side can see you from four times as far away as you can see
>them. In a head to head fight, the Raptor will be killing Typhoons
>while the Typhoons would still be trying to get a target lock.
>
>The Typhoon's radar is also a problem. Since the Typhoon wasn't
>designed to be a stealth fighter, the radar they picked isn't a
>low-detection type (like the Raptor's). The Raptor will often be
>*acquiring* Typhoons before the Typhoon even knows it's being looked at.

Given that the signal level at the target aircraft will be billions
(or more) of times stronger than the signal that gets back to the
radar, I suspect that's unlikely.

>> On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
>> Raptors...
>
>Nope. The US plans on buying 339 Raptors (and with the changes over the
>last two years, will probably have to buy more),

According to http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/aircraft09.htm,
276 are being purchased.

>while England only
>currently plans to buy 232 Typhoons.

England is buying none. The UK is buying 232. Total orders for the
Typhoon are 638 (including the Austrian order but not the Greek
one).

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On 14 Sep 2003 14:58:02 -0700, baffet > wrote:
>>
>> Both Israel the Arab nations use US early warning systems, including
>> E-2s, and in the case of SA, E-3s (which the Israelis *don't* have.
>
>What about IAI Phalcon 707, "The world's most advanced AEWC&C system"
>according to Federation of American Scientists?

I would point out that the FAS website often sounds like it is just
regurgitating manufacturers literature.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[AL]

Yes, the Typhoon project left much to be desired (10 years behind
schedule, non stealthy airframe and doubtful future development) but it
can't be that bad.

Future weapons systems,eg Meteor are still a few years away. The
Europeans (Brits included) can't do anything without quarrelling first,
so don't hold your breath.

Note even though it can fire the AMRAAM, it is doubtful that the US will
allow the release of codes for a non NATO country ( Middle East or
Singapore).



Passerby wrote:

>I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full complements
>of
>those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their airforces
>useless
>without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile. According
>to all reports
>EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.
>
>
>"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
(Jack White) wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
>>neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
>>watch the replies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
>>>capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
>>>East including Israel.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
>>>air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>>>
>>>
>>So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
>>at least 135 km. Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
>>missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
>>tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
>>than short range ones? Israel clearly has superiority in the short
>>range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
>>and counter measures are very important. While Israel will know the
>>exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
>>and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
>>won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
>>because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
>>>F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
>>>Typhoon is there.
>>>
>>>
>>The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
>>relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
>>Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
>>its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
>>happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
>>important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
>>superiority over its neighbors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
>>>Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
>>>From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
>>>Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
>>>The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
>>>and F-16Is though.
>>>An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
>>>better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
>>>pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
>>>from what I've read.
>>>F-22 Raptors are VERY EXPENSIVE, I don't know if Israel can afford
>>>them even with free US taxpayer money.
>>>I'd think that Israel would probably go for the JSF in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Israel is already part of the JSF project.
>>
>>
>>Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
>>hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
>>in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.
>>
>>It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
>>Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
AL
New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
http://www.alfredivy.per.sg

who cares,

As I said read Janes, they have it all,

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400,
> wrote:
> >check with Janes.........
>
> Can you bev more specific?
>
> BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
> against Usenet conventionds.
>
> --
> A: top posting
>
> Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
>

the Pakis did not fly against the IAF at any time. the story stating it was
nothing more then some chest puffing BS......

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

[Tom Cooper]

> wrote in message
...
> who cares,
>
> As I said read Janes, they have it all,

As a matter of fact, if at all, the Jane's has the least useful information
about the Iranian Air Force: their recently published book of "World Air
Forces" is very poor to this topic.

To keep the long story short: no, it wasn't the "Irangate" nor Oliver North,
but many other factors which kept the Iranian F-14-fleet afloat, in working
order, and extremely useful and dangerous. Approx 60 airframes remain
serviceable: while a number is circled through storage, so to better
distribute the number of hours flown per airframe, and also always have an
attrition reserve in peace, the IACI (Iranian Aircraft Industries) and other
Iranian companies, as well as the so-called "Self-Sufficiency Jihad Team" of
the IRIAF - meanwhile developed the capability to produce no less but 95% of
spare parts for their Tomcats. Consequently, the fleet not only massively
participated in the IPGW against Iraq (scoring at least 130 kills against
Iraqi MiG-21/23/25s, Mirage F.1EQs, Su-20/22s, and Tu-22s), but is still
very much active and operational.

As a matter of fact, just last year the Iranians started production of a
reverse-engineered AIM-54, which even the USN considers equal to its latest
AIM-54Cs.

Nothing of this can be found in Jane's, of course: their reporting about
Iran in the recent years was simply sad.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:23:55 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > > Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We're not talking some of the less able Arab nations, but Egypt, who
> > >> has no problems keeping it's F-16s at a fairly high availability, and
> > >> the Saudis, who also manage to keep their E-3s and F-15s in the air.
> > >
> > >Not according to, well, everything I've ever read, heard and seen. The
> > >current mission-capable rate on the Saudi F-15s is supposed to be less
> > >than 50%, and that's just birds they can get into the air, not what the
> > >US calls "combat capable."
> >
> > Cite?
>
> Years of hanging around guys who have worked with the Saudis. A couple
> of old friends went to work training their techs. The general view is
> that they just plain don't have any good flightline techs, except for a
> handful of expatriates.
>
> Saudi Arabia is kinda like a guy who buys a top-line Mercedes, never
> reads the owner's manual, doesn't change the oil, and lets their cousin
> Bob do the tuneups...

Hm, interesting to hear something of this kind: not that I would say the
situation is "completely" different, but there are people ("authoritative
experts", and those "who know") who complain that the Saudis are flying
their jets "too much", and then others who say they are also crashing them
too much - even when there is absolutely no evidence for either.

And then, there are people who said that Iranians can't keep their F-14s
operational without the US help.... from what I can recall, those who said
this were also US technicians - and also higher ranks - working in Iran in
the 1970s...

I guess, somebody should finally go there and find out the truth. ;-))

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> (Quant) wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > > Look, for example, at every other Arab military unit in the Middle
East.
> >
> > btw, the Jordanian pilots are said to be well trained and tough
opponents.
>
> ...by the Syrians and the Egyptians.
>
> Not by anyone *good*.

Who is "anyone", Chad?

I find it estranging that you put yourself into a position of representing
anybody but you here, and then, based on "educated guessing" about "what we
all know" about the Arab air forces, you conclude that the Saudis have a
poor air force "too"....

How much do you actually know about their air force, if you don't mind me
asking?

I mean: do you know the sellection process for their pilots? How many hours
Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian pilots get per month, or annually? What is their
training sylabdus looking like? Do you at least know where do they learn to
fly?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[L'acrobat]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
...

> I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
> Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
> with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
> seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.

It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles because
of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding for
F-22

[TJ]

> wrote in message
.. .
> the Pakis did not fly against the IAF at any time. the story stating it
was
> nothing more then some chest puffing BS......

You have already informed the group that Iranian F-14s have been grounded
for years. Pakistani Air Force pilots did indeed fly combat missions against
Israel. The Pakistani Air Force recognised those pilots along with the
various Arab nations that they flew with. There is more than one Pakistani
combat pilot who was honoured with bravery medals, from Syria for example,
for participating in combat. Are all those Pakistani combat vetrans of those
Arab-Israeli wars simply lying in their recounts of participation? Take your
blinkers off! There is far too much research been done and interviews
conducted to verify Pakistani pilot participation.

TJ

[baffet]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message >...
> On 14 Sep 2003 14:58:02 -0700, (baffet) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
> >> >relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> >> >Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> >> >its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
> >> >happen).
> >>
> >> Both Israel the Arab nations use US early warning systems, including
> >> E-2s, and in the case of SA, E-3s (which the Israelis *don't* have.
> >>
> >
> >What about IAI Phalcon 707, "The world's most advanced AEWC&C system"
> >according to Federation of American Scientists?
>
> Well, the FAS is a nice resource, but has many flaws, and AFAIK the
> Israelis have not built any Phalcons for their own use, and are merely
> trying to flog them around the world.
>

As far as we know indeed. The Israelis tend to hide their military
equipment and technologies, from the simplest gun to spy satellites to
nuclear weapons. The arabs, on the other hand, show off the best shiny
equipment their oil can buy.

It's unlikely Israel will design and develop such an expensive system
and not use it.

> Peter Kemp

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message >...
> who cares,

Most do.

>
> As I said read Janes, they have it all,

Translation: "I got caught in a falsehood, and knowing I can't support
it with real evidence, I'll try to bluff by dragging in Janes..."

>
> --
> "I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"

That laughing you are hearing is from the gallery of folks who realize
that your statement regarding Iranian F-14's having been grounded for
years is utter bovine excrement.

Brooks

> R.J. Goldman
>
> http://www.usidfvets.com
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400,
> > wrote:
> > >check with Janes.........
> >
> > Can you bev more specific?
> >
> > BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
> > against Usenet conventionds.
> >
> > --
> > A: top posting
> >
> > Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
> >

[Keith Willshaw]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
> > Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
> > with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
> > seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.
>
> It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles
because
> of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding for
> F-22
>
>

Huh ?

How would that work ?

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tom Cooper" > wrote:

> I find it estranging that you put yourself into a position of representing
> anybody but you here, and then, based on "educated guessing" about "what we
> all know" about the Arab air forces, you conclude that the Saudis have a
> poor air force "too"....
>
> How much do you actually know about their air force, if you don't mind me
> asking?

Read my other posts. Nobody outside of the Saudi press thinks the Saudi
air force is any good.

Since you're the expert, give us some of your sources for claiming that
they're any different from any *other* military in the Arab world.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:29:51 -0400, > wrote:
>who cares,

*plonk*

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On 15 Sep 2003 05:31:50 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> wrote in message >...
>> who cares,
>
>Most do.
>
>>
>> As I said read Janes, they have it all,
>
>Translation: "I got caught in a falsehood, and knowing I can't support
>it with real evidence, I'll try to bluff by dragging in Janes..."

rgoldman is a bull****ter. Furthermore, out of either rudeness or
stupidity, he won't format his posts so others can easily read them.
Consequently, I won't be reading anythinmg more of his.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Nele_VII]

Tom Cooper wrote in message ...
>
> wrote in message
...
>> who cares,
>>
>> As I said read Janes, they have it all,
>
>As a matter of fact, if at all, the Jane's has the least useful information
>about the Iranian Air Force: their recently published book of "World Air
>Forces" is very poor to this topic.
>
>To keep the long story short: no, it wasn't the "Irangate" nor Oliver
North,
>but many other factors which kept the Iranian F-14-fleet afloat, in working
>order, and extremely useful and dangerous. Approx 60 airframes remain
>serviceable: while a number is circled through storage, so to better
>distribute the number of hours flown per airframe, and also always have an
>attrition reserve in peace, the IACI (Iranian Aircraft Industries) and
other
>Iranian companies, as well as the so-called "Self-Sufficiency Jihad Team"
of
>the IRIAF - meanwhile developed the capability to produce no less but 95%
of
>spare parts for their Tomcats. Consequently, the fleet not only massively
>participated in the IPGW against Iraq (scoring at least 130 kills against
>Iraqi MiG-21/23/25s, Mirage F.1EQs, Su-20/22s, and Tu-22s), but is still
>very much active and operational.

Hm. How was it from Iraqi side? I've read Somewhere that Mig 21Bis and
MiGs-23ML(?) took heavy toll of Iranian AF (mainly F-5s and F-4s, but also
got some F-14 in a dogfight).

>
>As a matter of fact, just last year the Iranians started production of a
>reverse-engineered AIM-54, which even the USN considers equal to its latest
>AIM-54Cs.

Hmm... how it was effective against 3m head-on RCS of MiG-21? During tests
of AIM-54A, one -missed- the drone because its 5m-RCS reflector failed...

Cheers,

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:02:12 +1000, L'acrobat > wrote:
>
>"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
>> Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
>> with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
>> seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.
>
>It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles because
>of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding for
>F-22

Why? I'd have thought the opposite would apply. The F-22 is
stealthed, which means it can remain undetected faster than
unstealthed opponents. If it can fire long-range missiles, wouldn't
that complement its air-to-air capability?

BTW, is it rigfht that the F-22 missile bay is too small to hold
Meteor? Might that be a reason?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
>> substantiated.
>
>Here's a better one: the Eurofighter has *never* been claimed to be a
>full stealth fighter (except in a few brochures, where they stretch the
>definition of "stealth" to include a smaller airframe and smokeless
>engines). It has a somewhat reduced radar cross-section (about a
>quarter of an F-16 from head-on, which isn't really saying much),

Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.

>but
>it's nothing like the full stealth plane the Raptor was designed to be.

Over what aspects?

>Just *looking* at the two planes makes that pretty bloody obvious.

"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
the details.

>> Again, source for this claim?
>
>Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
>read up on it.

I get paid for knowing about it.

>An RCS of a meter or so, versus an RCS the size of a
>bird (or less, they're very vague about how small the RCS of the F-22
>is).

With good reason. Over what aspects, at what frequency, with what
variation? (You won't get a proper RCS from public sources)

>Note also that the only aspect they really claim as being very low
>RCS for the Typhoon is the head-on one, not the sides or from the rear.

Note that the Raptor crew are a little coy about that themselves. (2D
vectoring nozzles are not stealthy, for instance)

>> Once again, is this based on analyis or on a sales brochure?
>
>Stealth versus non-stealth. When you can't target someone else, and
>they can still target you, you're screwed.

However, life isn't that binary.

>> Radar is only one sensor. A good fighter uses much more than one radar.
>
>Yes, they also use the Eyeball Mk1 (the Raptor has some camouflage work
>done in its paint job which makes it a bitch to see at even medium
>range),

Yes, the idea of "camouflage" is not new.

>infrared (the Raptor has IR-dispersal tech built into the
>exhaust),

You might want to double-check that: those engines not only have
vectoring thrust but afterburners. That's getting to be a _real_
challenge to build effective IR suppression into.

>and emissions (the F-22 has a good emission-control design).
>Reduced emissions also makes any ECM you use immensely more effective,
>since you can use much lower power levels and have less chance of a
>passive homing system getting you.

Again, EMCON is not new. Meanwhile, designing for serious stealth
significantly limits your options for sensors (active and passive) and
for ECM: the aerials for the system are by nature good reflectors, so
they have to be parked and/or hidden while not in use (meaning you've
either got low RCS or working ESM, but not both: meaning also that you
have to be careful about your radar dish providing flashes)

The Raptor is a damn good aircraft, but even it has to obey the laws of
physics.

>The Eurofighter has, well, more composites than older planes, and a
>little bit of stealth design in the fuselage.

And then a major rework to reduce RCS. We've done the "little bit of
stealth" for the Tornado fleet - Typhoon got a much more significant
reduction.

>And then they hang all of
>the weapons on the outside

Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

>and give it a few ECM bits.

"A few"? You're definitely reading too many LockMart sales brochures.

>> The US was going to buy 750+ Raptors. Now it's down to 339 and still
>> falling. We've signed a contract, the US hasn't.
>
>Maybe so, but we're certainly going to buy them, and the European
>countries are having money problems for the much cheaper and less
>effective Eurofighters.

Like I said - the RAF is signed up. How many has the USAF committed for?

>> The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn expensive.
>> Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
>> it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.
>
>There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."

Trouble is, you can buy two Typhoons for every Raptor. We looked very
seriously at trying to buy into the F-22 program back in 1995: the
trouble was even at the price quoted then (and assuming the US would
sell a full-spec Raptor in the right time frame) the individual
superiority lost out to force strength: too many Red raids got through
without interception because there just weren't enough Blue Raptors
available.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
> > Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
> > with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
> > seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.
>
> It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles because
> of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding for
> F-22

Sounds fishy, as the AMRAAM, which will be the F/A-22's primary
armament, is already BVR. Why would a longer range WVR missile argue
against the F-22 (which has plenty of better justified arguments
against it)?

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:38:45 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
>> I find it estranging that you put yourself into a position of representing
>> anybody but you here, and then, based on "educated guessing" about "what we
>> all know" about the Arab air forces, you conclude that the Saudis have a
>> poor air force "too"....
>>
>> How much do you actually know about their air force, if you don't mind me
>> asking?
>
>Read my other posts. Nobody outside of the Saudi press thinks the Saudi
>air force is any good.

Is this a climbdown from your original claim that all Arab military
units are no good?[1]

>Since you're the expert,

Tom clearly comes across as more of an expert than you, since he
uses sources and facts, and not just his prejudices.

give us some of your sources for claiming that
>they're any different from any *other* military in the Arab world.

[1]: Ah I see not.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
> >> substantiated.
> >
> >Here's a better one: the Eurofighter has *never* been claimed to be a
> >full stealth fighter (except in a few brochures, where they stretch the
> >definition of "stealth" to include a smaller airframe and smokeless
> >engines). It has a somewhat reduced radar cross-section (about a
> >quarter of an F-16 from head-on, which isn't really saying much),
>
> Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.

The only claims I see are from various Eurofighter sites, which
variously compare it to the F-16 or the Tornado. Basically, it's about
1/4 ot the frontal RCS of most standard fighters.

> >but it's nothing like the full stealth plane the Raptor was designed
> >to be.
>
> Over what aspects?

Over almost all aspects. You can see a lot of this just by looking at
the structure of the planes. The Eurofighter is a basic F-16/F-5
replacement, with some blending and a lot of composites, but not
anywhere near ehough of the full blending and special treatments that
you need for a real stealth plane.

> >Just *looking* at the two planes makes that pretty bloody obvious.
>
> "Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
> the details.

No, it's usually in the gross structure. Sure, you can screw up a
stealth plane by missing things like antennas and such, but that's a
two-edged sword. Carrying missiles internally versus externally, for
example.

> >Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
> >read up on it.
>
> I get paid for knowing about it.

Then why are you in such complete denial of how stealth works? I'm
serious... if you know about planes and stealth, this is
kindergarten-level stuff.

> >An RCS of a meter or so, versus an RCS the size of a
> >bird (or less, they're very vague about how small the RCS of the F-22
> >is).
>
> With good reason. Over what aspects, at what frequency, with what
> variation? (You won't get a proper RCS from public sources)

Until you come up with some of those reasons, you're just hoping that
the Raptor will be, in some unnamed way, worse than the Eurofighter.

> >Note also that the only aspect they really claim as being very low
> >RCS for the Typhoon is the head-on one, not the sides or from the rear.
>
> Note that the Raptor crew are a little coy about that themselves. (2D
> vectoring nozzles are not stealthy, for instance)

You gain a lot when you mask them with external plates of radar
absorbing material. The aft aspect is probably the worst aspect on the
plane, and it's certainly better than the unmasked nozzles on the
Eurofighter. If you can manage to get a tail-on shot at the F-22 for
free, you deserve the kill.

> >> Once again, is this based on analyis or on a sales brochure?
> >
> >Stealth versus non-stealth. When you can't target someone else, and
> >they can still target you, you're screwed.
>
> However, life isn't that binary.

But it's certainly the way to bet.

> >> Radar is only one sensor. A good fighter uses much more than one radar.
> >
> >Yes, they also use the Eyeball Mk1 (the Raptor has some camouflage work
> >done in its paint job which makes it a bitch to see at even medium
> >range),
>
> Yes, the idea of "camouflage" is not new.

But advanced camouflage is. Once again, read up in it.

> >infrared (the Raptor has IR-dispersal tech built into the
> >exhaust),
>
> You might want to double-check that: those engines not only have
> vectoring thrust but afterburners. That's getting to be a _real_
> challenge to build effective IR suppression into.

Considering that the F-22 won't need afterburners until past Mach 1.2,
that's not a big worry. Supercruise is good for more than fuel economy.
If they're throwing on afterburner, they probably have to worry about
little bits of high-speed metal coming at them at a few thousand rounds
a minute from other planes.

> >and emissions (the F-22 has a good emission-control design).
> >Reduced emissions also makes any ECM you use immensely more effective,
> >since you can use much lower power levels and have less chance of a
> >passive homing system getting you.
>
> Again, EMCON is not new. Meanwhile, designing for serious stealth
> significantly limits your options for sensors (active and passive) and
> for ECM: the aerials for the system are by nature good reflectors, so
> they have to be parked and/or hidden while not in use (meaning you've
> either got low RCS or working ESM, but not both: meaning also that you
> have to be careful about your radar dish providing flashes)

"Dish?" The F-22 doesn't have a "dish." Does any modern fighter even
*have* a dish any more?

And there are some very nice ways to make antennas to lower that sort of
problem. Remembering, of course, that the US has been working on such
tech since the Carter administration (and succeeding quite nicely, from
the results we see in the Nighthawk and B-2).

> The Raptor is a damn good aircraft, but even it has to obey the laws of
> physics.

And once you understand those laws, you get a lot of wriggle room.

> >The Eurofighter has, well, more composites than older planes, and a
> >little bit of stealth design in the fuselage.
>
> And then a major rework to reduce RCS. We've done the "little bit of
> stealth" for the Tornado fleet - Typhoon got a much more significant
> reduction.

And while the makers are claiming "stealthy," they're not, by any
stretch, making a stealth plane. They really mean "somewhat stealthier."

> >And then they hang all of the weapons on the outside
>
> Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

Only for basic loadouts, and only really sufficient if all of your
missiles are stealthy, too. Cruciform tails on missiles are very much
*not* a stealth feature. As you said, the Devil is in the details, and
semi-conformal weapons are pretty big details. That's why the head-on
aspect of the Eurofighter is emphasied, but the lower and side aspects
are very definitely *not*.

Then, of course, if they want a more advanced loadout (like a couple of
bombs or extra missiles), they have to hang them off of pylons. Very
*not* stealthy.

> >and give it a few ECM bits.
>
> "A few"? You're definitely reading too many LockMart sales brochures.

Most of what you'd call "ECM" on most planes is integrated into the rest
of the avionics suite. Considering the mission, it's a fairly ECM-free
plane. Passive instead of active.

You have to remember that a lot of active ECM is *bad* for a stealthy
airframe. Small amounts, applied well.

One might also point out that you've been reading the Eurofighter
brochures a bit too much...

> >> The US was going to buy 750+ Raptors. Now it's down to 339 and still
> >> falling. We've signed a contract, the US hasn't.
> >
> >Maybe so, but we're certainly going to buy them, and the European
> >countries are having money problems for the much cheaper and less
> >effective Eurofighters.
>
> Like I said - the RAF is signed up. How many has the USAF committed for?

22 for the first production run, more as the money comes for later runs.
We're recovering from the big budget cuts of the 1980s and 1990s, and
it's taking a while to get back into an acquisition cycle.

And then, a couple of years from now, when half of the Eurofighter
orders get cut back for one reason or another, the numbers won't seem so
bad.

> Trouble is, you can buy two Typhoons for every Raptor. We looked very
> seriously at trying to buy into the F-22 program back in 1995: the
> trouble was even at the price quoted then (and assuming the US would
> sell a full-spec Raptor in the right time frame) the individual
> superiority lost out to force strength: too many Red raids got through
> without interception because there just weren't enough Blue Raptors
> available.

....and because you misstated the effeciveness of the American-built
planes. Every once in a while, one government or another tell the US
that our planes, or tanks, or whatever, just don't measure up against
other equipment.

And then us poor, sad Americans proceed to blow the crap out of whatever
the "new" threat was, and they start looking for excuses...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:34 +0800, AL > wrote:
>
>Note even though it can fire the AMRAAM, it is doubtful that the US will
>allow the release of codes for a non NATO country ( Middle East or
>Singapore).

What codes would be necessary?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Scott Ferrin]

>I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
>Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
>with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
>seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.
>


I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better than
previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher as a
result. That for all practical puropses the -9X is a BVR missile.
Not doubting your assertion about the ASRAAM but the thing is with
AMRAAM almost always being carried with it why would you need the
extra range? I guess they figured the saved $$$ was worth giving it
up else they'd have picked that Raytheon entry with the 6" airframe
and rotating seeker. (My favorite)

[L'acrobat]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
> > > Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
> > > with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
> > > seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.
> >
> > It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles
> because
> > of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding
for
> > F-22
> >
> >
>
> Huh ?
>
> How would that work ?

The argument is that if you can kill from very long range (beyond that of
the enemy) you don't need stealth to get in close for a kill.

[L'acrobat]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
> > > Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
> > > with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
> > > seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.
> >
> > It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles
because
> > of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding
for
> > F-22
>
> Sounds fishy, as the AMRAAM, which will be the F/A-22's primary
> armament, is already BVR. Why would a longer range WVR missile argue
> against the F-22 (which has plenty of better justified arguments
> against it)?

The comment was made in light of the "The USAF seems to see little utility
in long range, which is odd." part of the quote.

[John Cook]

latest newsbyte:-

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/september/09_16_1.html



"LONDON [MENL] -- Saudi Arabia has advanced in negotiations for the
purchase and upgrade of fighter-jets from Britain.

British industry sources said the Saudi kingdom has been negotiating a
huge folo-up order to refurbish Riyad's fleet of Tornado fighter-jets.
They said the order could include 100 new and upgraded aircraft in a
$4.5 billion deal with BAe Systems.

"The deal calls for a review of Saudi Arabia's Tornado fleet," an
industry source said. "Those aircraft deemed as suitable would be
upgraded. Older model jets would be replaced with new advanced
aircraft."

The new aircraft, the sources said, could include the Eurofighter,
which is also manufactured by BAe. Last year, the kingdom was
presented with a proposal to purchase 50 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft
in a $2.25 billion deal. "


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-

Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> Tom clearly comes across as more of an expert than you, since he
> uses sources and facts, and not just his prejudices.

Really? Which sources and facts has he come up with in this case? I
mentioned knowing some guys who have dealt with the Saudis, and he
merely questioned that and asked for more info, giving none of his own
in counter.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tom Cooper]

"Nele_VII" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Cooper wrote in message ...
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> who cares,
> >>
> >> As I said read Janes, they have it all,
> >
> >As a matter of fact, if at all, the Jane's has the least useful
information
> >about the Iranian Air Force: their recently published book of "World Air
> >Forces" is very poor to this topic.
> >
> >To keep the long story short: no, it wasn't the "Irangate" nor Oliver
> North,
> >but many other factors which kept the Iranian F-14-fleet afloat, in
working
> >order, and extremely useful and dangerous. Approx 60 airframes remain
> >serviceable: while a number is circled through storage, so to better
> >distribute the number of hours flown per airframe, and also always have
an
> >attrition reserve in peace, the IACI (Iranian Aircraft Industries) and
> other
> >Iranian companies, as well as the so-called "Self-Sufficiency Jihad Team"
> of
> >the IRIAF - meanwhile developed the capability to produce no less but 95%
> of
> >spare parts for their Tomcats. Consequently, the fleet not only massively
> >participated in the IPGW against Iraq (scoring at least 130 kills against
> >Iraqi MiG-21/23/25s, Mirage F.1EQs, Su-20/22s, and Tu-22s), but is still
> >very much active and operational.
>
> Hm. How was it from Iraqi side? I've read Somewhere that Mig 21Bis and
> MiGs-23ML(?) took heavy toll of Iranian AF (mainly F-5s and F-4s, but also
> got some F-14 in a dogfight).

98% of the Iraqi (and corresponding Western) claims about kills against
Iranian F-14s are wrong. Plain wrong. Nothing else. If we were to trust the
Iraqi claims, their fighters shot down something like 150 Iranian Tomcats
during the war alone. The problem with Western claims is only that the
FBIS - on which reporting most of the Western claims for Iraqi F-14-kills
are based - haven't forwarded all of the Iraqi claims....

In fact no Iraqi MiG-21s or MiG-23s ever scored a kill against any F-14. The
closest either type came to doing this was in early October 1980, when
pieces of exploding MiG-21 hit the Tomcat that shot it down (by a
Sidewinder), disabled the left engine and almost dismembered the left wing
(the F-14A in question was safely recovered, nevertheless, and later
repaired...). In another case several rounds 23mm from a MiG-23BN hit the
tail of an F-14A: that Tomcat was safely recovered too.

On the contrary, both types - regardless the version (and this includes
Soviet-flown MiG-27s) - were shot down in large numbers by IRIAF F-14s, and
by 1984 were not playing any important role in air-to-air war any more (i.e.
both were used almost exclusively for air-to-ground tasks).

> >
> >As a matter of fact, just last year the Iranians started production of a
> >reverse-engineered AIM-54, which even the USN considers equal to its
latest
> >AIM-54Cs.
>
> Hmm... how it was effective against 3m head-on RCS of MiG-21? During tests
> of AIM-54A, one -missed- the drone because its 5m-RCS reflector failed...

No problem either, and regardles the range. The second kill scored by AIM-54
ever was against an Iraqi MiG-21RF, escorted by two MiG-23MS. The Phoenix
blew the 21 after travelling over 60kms...(the first kill was against a
MiG-23MS, on 13 September 1980). The shortest known range at which an AIM-54
destroyed the MiG-21 was only some 24km or so (close enough for the crew to
clearly see the giant fireball, caused by the fuel and bombs of the MiG).

In combat the problem with the AIM-54A was not the RCS of the target
(remember that these were created to down cruise missiles too), but rather
the reliability of the fusing: quite a few hit their target without the
detonation of the warhead. In the case of the MiG-21s this would make no
difference (;-))), but in three cases where MiG-25s were hit, only parts of
the fin and horizontal stabilizers were torn away (which did not make much
of a difference: two of these three Foxbats were lost nevertheless).

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > Tom clearly comes across as more of an expert than you, since he
> > uses sources and facts, and not just his prejudices.
>
> Really? Which sources and facts has he come up with in this case? I
> mentioned knowing some guys who have dealt with the Saudis, and he
> merely questioned that and asked for more info, giving none of his own
> in counter.

Very fine, Chad.

I actually asked you for your sources, as you claim you're talking "for
everybody". I.e. you said "everybody knows" (that Arab air forces are poor).
To this you come back with a counter-question.

But, never mind. You asked for "my" sources. Together with Dr. David
Nicolle, I authored the book "Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat", which
is to be published in Osprey's "Combat Aircraft" series next year. The book
is based on years-long research with the help of many sources within
different Arab air forces (foremost Egyptian, Syrian, Algerian, Libyan, and
Iraqi): I haven't counted, but we interviewed in extension of 100 active and
retired pilots that not only flew MiGs, but did so in combat against the
Israelis and the Iranians in several wars. Additionally, for the other books
I co-authored (regardless if already published, or not yet), I interviewed
also plenty of Indian, Pakistani, and Iraqi MiG- and Mirage-pilots too.

I would, nevertheless, still not call myself an "expert": I'm not
interested in any titles, but in research and publishing, and know all too
well how much is still unknown and how much is left to be found out about
all the possible air wars - especially those fought in the Middle East since
1948, to ever even come to the idea to call myself an "expert".

So much about this. Having, hopefully, cleared this, would you now be so
kind to answer my questions?

Specifically, I asked you how much do you actually know about their (Saudi)
air force, so to find out if you really can say you know what are you
talking about, as you seem sooooo sure about your statements?

Also, I asked if you know the sellection process for their pilots? How many
hours Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian pilots get per month, or annually? What is
their training sylabdus looking like? Do you at least know where do they
learn to
fly?

Finally, and if you don't mind, I'd like to ask if you know what exactly is
most of the "mechanician's work" on the EF-2000 looking like?

I'm asking this because I have a strong feeling you're not the best informed
to this topic either.

Thanks in advance,

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> >> (Jack White) wrote
> >
> >I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
> >neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
> >watch the replies.
>
>
>[i]
> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> >> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> >> East including Israel.
>
> Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
> are, I haven't heard of it.

I'd like to join the opinion: even if I have heard a lots of rumors and
reports about negotiations, the deal wasn't signed yet, and there is no 100%
certainity that anything will be ordered even if something would be signed.
Norway and Greece "decided for EF-2000" too, but haven't ordered any. The
Austrians have also decided for EF-2000, but ordered some only after almost
a year of postponnement...

> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
> >> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
>
> It will have in the future; currently Meteor is still under
> development.
>
> >So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
> >at least 135 km.
>
> That's a theoretical range; what's a typical engagement range, and
> what's the furthest range it's been successfully fired at?

Known are following details about the combat use of the AIM-54:
- the longest shot in training ever: 212km (scored in January 1979, in Iran,
against a target drone)
- the longest shot to kill in combat: approx 140km
- average engagement ranges: between 20 and 70km
- the shorterst shot to kill in combat: 7.5km

>
> > While Israel will know the
> >exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
>
> Why?

Excellent question: except the Israelis would get any sensitive infos via
espionage, there is absolutely no guarantee for such statements. Quite on
the contrary: given the security regarding the EF-2000's software, the
likelyhood that anything would be revealed early is very, very low. Remember
that even if their propaganda machinery tries its best to convince us of
this, the Israelis are no "mighty supermen in everything they do"....

> I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
> aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.

Errr, one remark here: doing modifications on the EF-2000 in the field will
be very problematic. As a matter of fact, the EADS did everything possible
to avoid the situation with the Tornado IDS/GR.Mks, where meanwhile even
aircraft of different units within the same air force have - in part -
completely different equipment, software etc....

> >> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
> >> F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
> >> Typhoon is there.
>
> This may or may not be the case. Typhoon is almost certainly a
> better plane than the F-15 or F-16; it's more manouvrable, has a
> better thrust-to-weight ratio, can supercruise, is partially
> stealthed, and has better avionics making the pilot's job easier.
> However, until it has seen combat, it's to early to say
> definitievely what its capabilities are.

That's truth.

> > Israel is
> >relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> >Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> >its best technology to these Arab countries
>
> Or unless the Europeans do.

IMHO, this is the "largest" problem here: the Europeans are seriously
negotiating with the Saudis for sale of advanced combat aircraft to SA - and
without a direct US involvement in the deal. This was not the case ever
since Hunters were sold to the RSAF, in the mid-1960s (even the sale of
Lightnings to RSAF and KAF was actually a US-sponsored deal, organized in
order the British to earn money so they could buy the planned F-111K - which
never materialized). For understandable reasons, the USA (and even less so
Israel) are not interested in this deal becoming a reality.

> >> The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
> >> Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
> >> From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
> >> Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
>
> The JSF isn't designed to be a pure air superiority aircraft, it's,
> as its name suggests, designed to be multi-role.

"Made in USA" makes nothing "automatically better" than "Made in EU" or
anywhere else. There are exceptions, of course (F-22 is one), but this
doesn't mean that one can generalize and declare the JSF a "better air
superiority fighter than the EF-2000". Nobody can know this, yet, as neither
is in active service.

The matter nobody mentioned here, however, is the fact that the Israelis are
already negotiating a purchase of 50 F-22s from 2007 or so... Consequently,
it is simply so that "both sides" are planning to continue their arms-race.
I.e. no real reasons to worry about...

Frankly, when the USA are selling 80 F-16C/D Block 60 to UAE, then there are
apparently no reasons for concern in Israel or the USA. There are such,
however, when Eurofighters could eventually be sold to SA. How comes this?

> >It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
> >Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.

Why alway think in such a one-sided way? Isn't the Israeli military an even
larger threat to all of its neighours? From what I remember, the Arabs were
aggressors against Israel only two times: in 1948 and 1973. The Israelis, on
the contrary, are more than well-known (actually "famous") for their
aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc., etc.) and their "externals"
(1968, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1985 etc.), and are the only ones involved there
still holding areas that do not belong to them by any international
regulations (in turn giving the Arabs the reason to continue the conflict).

In total war-fighting capability the Israeli military is clearly and wastly
superior to any Arab military - even to most of them combined.

Given this alone, who is then a threat for who there?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better than
>previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher as a
>result.

That sounds very plausible.

> That for all practical puropses the -9X is a BVR missile.

Do you have actual figures, for range, max speed, acceleration?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:09:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> Tom clearly comes across as more of an expert than you, since he
>> uses sources and facts, and not just his prejudices.
>
>Really? Which sources and facts has he come up with in this case? I
>mentioned knowing some guys who have dealt with the Saudis, and he
>merely questioned that and asked for more info, giving none of his own
>in counter.

I would answer this, but Tom seems to have already done so.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:43:03 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
>
>No problem either, and regardles the range. The second kill scored by AIM-54
>ever was against an Iraqi MiG-21RF, escorted by two MiG-23MS. The Phoenix
>blew the 21 after travelling over 60kms

Was this using active radar homing, or semi-active?


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Quant]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > >> (Jack White) wrote
> > >
> > >I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
> > >neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
> > >watch the replies.
> >
> >
> >[i]
> > >> The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
> > >> capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
> > >> East including Israel.
> >
> > Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
> > are, I haven't heard of it.
>
> I'd like to join the opinion: even if I have heard a lots of rumors and
> reports about negotiations, the deal wasn't signed yet, and there is no 100%
> certainity that anything will be ordered even if something would be signed.
> Norway and Greece "decided for EF-2000" too, but haven't ordered any. The
> Austrians have also decided for EF-2000, but ordered some only after almost
> a year of postponnement...
>
> > >> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
> > >> air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.
> >
> > It will have in the future; currently Meteor is still under
> > development.
> >
> > >So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
> > >at least 135 km.
> >
> > That's a theoretical range; what's a typical engagement range, and
> > what's the furthest range it's been successfully fired at?
>
> Known are following details about the combat use of the AIM-54:
> - the longest shot in training ever: 212km (scored in January 1979, in Iran,
> against a target drone)
> - the longest shot to kill in combat: approx 140km
> - average engagement ranges: between 20 and 70km
> - the shorterst shot to kill in combat: 7.5km
>
> >
> > > While Israel will know the
> > >exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
> >
> > Why?
>
> Excellent question: except the Israelis would get any sensitive infos via
> espionage, there is absolutely no guarantee for such statements. Quite on
> the contrary: given the security regarding the EF-2000's software, the
> likelyhood that anything would be revealed early is very, very low. Remember
> that even if their propaganda machinery tries its best to convince us of
> this, the Israelis are no "mighty supermen in everything they do"....
>
> > I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
> > aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.
>
> Errr, one remark here: doing modifications on the EF-2000 in the field will
> be very problematic. As a matter of fact, the EADS did everything possible
> to avoid the situation with the Tornado IDS/GR.Mks, where meanwhile even
> aircraft of different units within the same air force have - in part -
> completely different equipment, software etc....
>
> > >> The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
> > >> F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
> > >> Typhoon is there.
> >
> > This may or may not be the case. Typhoon is almost certainly a
> > better plane than the F-15 or F-16; it's more manouvrable, has a
> > better thrust-to-weight ratio, can supercruise, is partially
> > stealthed, and has better avionics making the pilot's job easier.
> > However, until it has seen combat, it's to early to say
> > definitievely what its capabilities are.
>
> That's truth.
>
> > > Israel is
> > >relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
> > >Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
> > >its best technology to these Arab countries
> >
> > Or unless the Europeans do.
>
> IMHO, this is the "largest" problem here: the Europeans are seriously
> negotiating with the Saudis for sale of advanced combat aircraft to SA - and
> without a direct US involvement in the deal. This was not the case ever
> since Hunters were sold to the RSAF, in the mid-1960s (even the sale of
> Lightnings to RSAF and KAF was actually a US-sponsored deal, organized in
> order the British to earn money so they could buy the planned F-111K - which
> never materialized). For understandable reasons, the USA (and even less so
> Israel) are not interested in this deal becoming a reality.
>
> > >> The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
> > >> Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
> > >> From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
> > >> Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
> >
> > The JSF isn't designed to be a pure air superiority aircraft, it's,
> > as its name suggests, designed to be multi-role.
>
> "Made in USA" makes nothing "automatically better" than "Made in EU" or
> anywhere else. There are exceptions, of course (F-22 is one), but this
> doesn't mean that one can generalize and declare the JSF a "better air
> superiority fighter than the EF-2000". Nobody can know this, yet, as neither
> is in active service.
>
> The matter nobody mentioned here, however, is the fact that the Israelis are
> already negotiating a purchase of 50 F-22s from 2007 or so... Consequently,
> it is simply so that "both sides" are planning to continue their arms-race.
> I.e. no real reasons to worry about...
>
> Frankly, when the USA are selling 80 F-16C/D Block 60 to UAE, then there are
> apparently no reasons for concern in Israel or the USA. There are such,
> however, when Eurofighters could eventually be sold to SA. How comes this?
>
> > >It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
> > >Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.
>
> Why alway think in such a one-sided way? Isn't the Israeli military an even
> larger threat to all of its neighours? From what I remember, the Arabs were
> aggressors against Israel only two times: in 1948 and 1973.


Not True.
The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
terrible".
thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...

Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.

from:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate with its
neighbors. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10,
1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with
Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement.
Nasser answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to
deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never
recognize the Jewish State.(1)

The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a
separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab
Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two
separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order
to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if
the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution
of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue
of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very
existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she
represents.(2)

Meanwhile, Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above
the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew
more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became
increasingly bellicose: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil
covered in sand," he said on March 8, 1965. "We shall enter it with
its soil saturated in blood."(3)

Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' aspiration:
"...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In
other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The
immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim:
the eradication of Israel."(4)

Provocation
While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab
terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted
against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first
four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.(5)

Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights
provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli
planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet
Union-which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria
and Egypt-gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli
military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli
denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving
into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian
troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since
1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the
attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised,
Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the
withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18,
1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force
to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not
complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall
apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the
extermination of Zionist existence.(6)

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister
Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression,
but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the
Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its
finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that
the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.(7)

The Blockade
On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping
and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only
supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main
supplier, Iran.

In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized
the Jewish State's right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957,
at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to
transit the Strait. Moreover, the blockade violated the Convention on
the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN
Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.(8)

President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal
and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test
it. After the war, he acknowledged the closure of the Strait of Tiran
was the casus belli (June 19, 1967):

If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than
any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that
the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime
passage must be preserved for all nations.(9)

Escalation
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force
Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said
defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are
ready for war."(10)

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective
will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he
said on May 27.(11) The following day, he added: "We will not accept
any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the
establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war
with Israel is in effect since 1948."(12)

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30.
Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the
borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us
are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab
nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the
Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have
reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.(13)

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The
existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our
opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since
1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."(14) On June 4,
Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces.
Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000
tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.(15)

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The
country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it
allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel
had no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel
needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion,
Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. On
June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.




> The Israelis, on
> the contrary, are more than well-known (actually "famous") for their
> aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc., etc.) and their "externals"
> (1968, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1985 etc.), and are the only ones involved there
> still holding areas that do not belong to them by any international
> regulations (in turn giving the Arabs the reason to continue the conflict).
>
> In total war-fighting capability the Israeli military is clearly and wastly
> superior to any Arab military - even to most of them combined.
>
> Given this alone, who is then a threat for who there?
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:02:28 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:31:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>>No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22. (Notice the
>>>hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
>>>mighty attack platform! Never mind that the P-47 was doing the same in
>>>1943... that's progress for you). If you _really_ want to cripple the
>>>Arabs, sell them Raptors.
>>>
>>>Whether either is 'trash' will be a matter for squadron service to
>>>prove.
>>
>>Well, it has the RCS of a steel barn door, with or without outboard
>>stores.
>
>Have you seen the plots, Al, or just LockMart propaganda? What aspect
>and frequency are we discussing?
>
No, I have not seen the plots, but looking at, for instance the
forward aspect, the inlets and turbine blades are going to light up a
radar at quite a range.

>>And "cheaper" is generally not "better" when it comes to
>>weapon systems. The Raptor could eat the Eurobird for breakfast.
>
>Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
>much better.
>
>On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
>Raptors...

They will need them. Of course (I believe) the RAF will also get the
JSF, which will give them a stealthy platform.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:28:04 +0200, "Nele_VII"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Minyard >
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
>Date: 14. September 2003. 17:51
>Subject: Re: Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East
>
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:31:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>
>>>In message >, Passerby
> writes
>>>>I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full
>complements
>>>>of
>>>>those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their
>airforces
>>>>useless
>>>>without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile.
>According
>>>>to all reports
>>>>EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.
>>>
>>>No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22. (Notice the
>>>hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
>>>mighty attack platform! Never mind that the P-47 was doing the same in
>>>1943... that's progress for you). If you _really_ want to cripple the
>>>Arabs, sell them Raptors.
>>>
>>>Whether either is 'trash' will be a matter for squadron service to
>>>prove.
>>
>>Well, it has the RCS of a steel barn door, with or without outboard
>>stores. And "cheaper" is generally not "better" when it comes to
>>weapon systems. The Raptor could eat the Eurobird for breakfast.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>I beg to differ. MiG-31 has a RCS of a two 18-wheelers but it doesn't stop
>it to splash a
>low level cruise missile from 150+ Km distance.
>
>Nele
>
>NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
>
>
In a fight with a Raptor the Mig would be dead meat. It would never
even see the Raptor.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.
>
>The only claims I see are from various Eurofighter sites, which
>variously compare it to the F-16 or the Tornado. Basically, it's about
>1/4 ot the frontal RCS of most standard fighters.

Too vague to be useful, then.

>> Over what aspects?
>
>Over almost all aspects. You can see a lot of this just by looking at
>the structure of the planes. The Eurofighter is a basic F-16/F-5
>replacement, with some blending and a lot of composites, but not
>anywhere near ehough of the full blending and special treatments that
>you need for a real stealth plane.

Okay, there's the disagreement. You're looking for "real stealth", we're
looking for significant RCS reduction. Invisibility gets expensive fast:
there are other ways to improve your odds.

>> "Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
>> the details.
>
>No, it's usually in the gross structure.

We're reading different textbooks and using different trials results,
then.

>> I get paid for knowing about it.
>
>Then why are you in such complete denial of how stealth works? I'm
>serious... if you know about planes and stealth, this is
>kindergarten-level stuff.

Depends if your mantra is making the aircraft invisible, or making it
harder to detect, tricky to track and a lot more difficult to hit.

>> With good reason. Over what aspects, at what frequency, with what
>> variation? (You won't get a proper RCS from public sources)
>
>Until you come up with some of those reasons, you're just hoping that
>the Raptor will be, in some unnamed way, worse than the Eurofighter.

Can you take those words out of my mouth, please?

One of the typical fallacies Raptor enthusiasts fall into is the idea
that the F-22 is going to fight the Typhoon and that those results are
significant. Might be interesting, but they're not important.

What's important is fleet performance against the expected threat, and
that's a different issue altogether.

>> However, life isn't that binary.
>
>But it's certainly the way to bet.

Again, it's relevant if you're expecting the F-22 to fight Typhoons.
Performance against other threats is a more important metric.

>> Yes, the idea of "camouflage" is not new.
>
>But advanced camouflage is. Once again, read up in it.

I'd be more interested in a demonstration. Which Raptors is this
"advanced camouflage" flying on?

>> You might want to double-check that: those engines not only have
>> vectoring thrust but afterburners. That's getting to be a _real_
>> challenge to build effective IR suppression into.
>
>Considering that the F-22 won't need afterburners until past Mach 1.2,
>that's not a big worry.

Tell that to whoever's building them. Looking at the engines in land
testing, where do you put the suppressors and where are they getting
their input air from?

>> Again, EMCON is not new. Meanwhile, designing for serious stealth
>> significantly limits your options for sensors (active and passive) and
>> for ECM: the aerials for the system are by nature good reflectors, so
>> they have to be parked and/or hidden while not in use (meaning you've
>> either got low RCS or working ESM, but not both: meaning also that you
>> have to be careful about your radar dish providing flashes)
>
>"Dish?" The F-22 doesn't have a "dish." Does any modern fighter even
>*have* a dish any more?

Dish. Aerial. Antenna. Plate. That emitter-thingy gizmo in the pointy
end. (That blasts out kilowatts of coherent microwaves)

>And there are some very nice ways to make antennas to lower that sort of
>problem. Remembering, of course, that the US has been working on such
>tech since the Carter administration (and succeeding quite nicely, from
>the results we see in the Nighthawk and B-2).

The Nighthawk doesn't have a radar (or even a threat receiver); the B-2
is a very intermittent radar user and has more structure to hide its
emitter-thingy gizmos inside.

>> And then a major rework to reduce RCS. We've done the "little bit of
>> stealth" for the Tornado fleet - Typhoon got a much more significant
>> reduction.
>
>And while the makers are claiming "stealthy," they're not, by any
>stretch, making a stealth plane. They really mean "somewhat stealthier."

Yep. Invisibility isn't the goal, survivability is.

>> Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.
>
>Only for basic loadouts,

How much ordnance can the "F/A-22" carry without RCS enhancement?

>Then, of course, if they want a more advanced loadout (like a couple of
>bombs or extra missiles), they have to hang them off of pylons. Very
>*not* stealthy.

Same as the F/A-22, then.

>> "A few"? You're definitely reading too many LockMart sales brochures.
>
>Most of what you'd call "ECM" on most planes is integrated into the rest
>of the avionics suite. Considering the mission, it's a fairly ECM-free
>plane. Passive instead of active.
>
>You have to remember that a lot of active ECM is *bad* for a stealthy
>airframe. Small amounts, applied well.

On the other hand, good ECM is more effective on a low-RCS platform. The
goal is completing the mission and surviving: how it's done is
secondary.

>> Trouble is, you can buy two Typhoons for every Raptor. We looked very
>> seriously at trying to buy into the F-22 program back in 1995: the
>> trouble was even at the price quoted then (and assuming the US would
>> sell a full-spec Raptor in the right time frame) the individual
>> superiority lost out to force strength: too many Red raids got through
>> without interception because there just weren't enough Blue Raptors
>> available.
>
>...and because you misstated the effeciveness of the American-built
>planes.

You're kidding, right?

>Every once in a while, one government or another tell the US
>that our planes, or tanks, or whatever, just don't measure up against
>other equipment.

Considering that the F-22 was found to be the most effective individual
aircraft by a significant margin, I'm finding this claim hard to
support.

Trouble was, even at 1995 prices, you couldn't buy and support enough
Raptors to match an affordable Typhoon force overall: more-than-halving
the force level meant too many gaps between superfighters. It was the
best aircraft that could be flown, it was just too expensive to be
bought in sufficient numbers.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:02:28 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>Have you seen the plots, Al, or just LockMart propaganda? What aspect
>>and frequency are we discussing?
>>
>No, I have not seen the plots, but looking at, for instance the
>forward aspect, the inlets and turbine blades are going to light up a
>radar at quite a range.

You mean before or after the redesign to eliminate just that hotspot?

>>Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
>>much better.
>>
>>On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
>>Raptors...
>
>They will need them.

Why? Are we expecting to fight F-22s?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Tom Cooper]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>...
> > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > > >> (Jack White) wrote
> Not True.
> The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
> are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
> terrible".
> thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...

> Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.

Oh, of course, that was "completely new" to me....

Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive historical lesson about the backgrounds
of the Six Day War. Certainly badly needed - especially in the light of the
fact that what you posted is not the least changing the fact that Israel
committed far more aggressions against its "neighbours" plus simply ignored
every single related UN resolution so far then the Arabs will ever manage
(not that the Arabs are sheeps in the coral either, but that was the
point)....

BTW, which time do we have? May 1967 or September 2003? Has Egypt blocked
the Tyran Straits just few days back, or should it this time be the talk
about the Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s?

(I need these answers to understand the theat for Israel emerging from
eventual Saudi-British negotiations for Eurofighters, so thanks in advance
for an answer that will be similarly comprehensive as your last one)

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:43:03 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
> >
> >No problem either, and regardles the range. The second kill scored by
AIM-54
> >ever was against an Iraqi MiG-21RF, escorted by two MiG-23MS. The Phoenix
> >blew the 21 after travelling over 60kms
>
> Was this using active radar homing, or semi-active?

The AIM-54A is an ARH in the terminal flight phase, so it was always the ARH
(this capability was also the "ace up the sleeve", as there was actually no
advance warning about the attack for the target in almost 90% of the cases).

On the other side, when fired against a target over a shorter range (and
this was also the case several times) it will go active as soon as launched.
So for a number of kills the AIM-54 acted like a kind of an oversized
AIM-120.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:45 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>
>>I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better than
>>previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher as a
>>result.
>
>That sounds very plausible.
>
>> That for all practical puropses the -9X is a BVR missile.
>
>Do you have actual figures, for range, max speed, acceleration?


Nope. I've read a 22 mile range though, take it for what it's worth.
BTW here's a link to a video clip of some AIM_9X launches.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes

> >Considering that the F-22 won't need afterburners until past Mach 1.2,
> >that's not a big worry.
>
> Tell that to whoever's building them. Looking at the engines in land
> testing, where do you put the suppressors and where are they getting
> their input air from?

You've been telling me about all of this stuff that the Eurofighter
supposedly does as well or better than the Raptor, and you obviously
haven't even done the basic background work.

Before you try and debate the differences between these planes, you need
to go out, read up on the Raptor, find out how stealth works, and get
back to us. Look at photographs of the plane, find out some of the
specs, and stop expecting me to dig it all out and quote it for you.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:00:06 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>In article >,
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>> Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.
>>
>>The only claims I see are from various Eurofighter sites, which
>>variously compare it to the F-16 or the Tornado. Basically, it's about
>>1/4 ot the frontal RCS of most standard fighters.
>
>Too vague to be useful, then.

It's some use. 1/4 would mean detection range is decreased by 30%


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:23:57 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
>
>I'd like to join the opinion: even if I have heard a lots of rumors and
>reports about negotiations, the deal wasn't signed yet, and there is no 100%
>certainity that anything will be ordered even if something would be signed.
>Norway and Greece "decided for EF-2000" too, but haven't ordered any. The
>Austrians have also decided for EF-2000, but ordered some only after almost
>a year of postponnement...

The Austrian and Greek delays have been due to budgetary problems, I
think. I don't see any reason why Greece won't buy Typhoons.

>> That's a theoretical range; what's a typical engagement range, and
>> what's the furthest range it's been successfully fired at?
>
>Known are following details about the combat use of the AIM-54:
>- the longest shot in training ever: 212km (scored in January 1979, in Iran,
>against a target drone)
>- the longest shot to kill in combat: approx 140km
>- average engagement ranges: between 20 and 70km
>- the shorterst shot to kill in combat: 7.5km

Thanks.

>> I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
>> aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.
>
>Errr, one remark here: doing modifications on the EF-2000 in the field will
>be very problematic. As a matter of fact, the EADS did everything possible
>to avoid the situation with the Tornado IDS/GR.Mks, where meanwhile even
>aircraft of different units within the same air force have - in part -
>completely different equipment, software etc....

If I was spending millions on fighter aircraft (or on anything)
else, I'd insist I had the source code to the software, so I had the
abilty to alter it. Not only that, there's also security
considerations: if one doesn't have the source code (and even if one
does) there always the possibility that a backdoor's been put in it
-- the original supplier could broadcast a predefined code, which is
picked up by the aircrafts' radars, and makes them work less
efficiently.

>> Or unless the Europeans do.
>
>IMHO, this is the "largest" problem here: the Europeans are seriously
>negotiating with the Saudis for sale of advanced combat aircraft to SA - and
>without a direct US involvement in the deal.

What about al-Yamamah?

> This was not the case ever
>since Hunters were sold to the RSAF, in the mid-1960s (even the sale of
>Lightnings to RSAF and KAF was actually a US-sponsored deal, organized in
>order the British to earn money so they could buy the planned F-111K - which
>never materialized). For understandable reasons, the USA (and even less so
>Israel) are not interested in this deal becoming a reality.

For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

If the UK has a non-poodle leader (that rules out Blair) then it
won't bow down to US objections to its export policies.

>The matter nobody mentioned here, however, is the fact that the Israelis are
>already negotiating a purchase of 50 F-22s from 2007 or so... Consequently,
>it is simply so that "both sides" are planning to continue their arms-race.

I'm all in favour of arms races if they help British industry.

>I.e. no real reasons to worry about...
>
>Frankly, when the USA are selling 80 F-16C/D Block 60 to UAE, then there are
>apparently no reasons for concern in Israel or the USA. There are such,
>however, when Eurofighters could eventually be sold to SA. How comes this?

I wonder how much defence contractors donated to the Bush campaign?

>In total war-fighting capability the Israeli military is clearly and wastly
>superior to any Arab military - even to most of them combined.

Indeed.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Quant]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "Quant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > > > >> (Jack White) wrote
> > Not True.
> > The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
> > are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
> > terrible".
> > thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...
>
> > Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.
>
> Oh, of course, that was "completely new" to me....
>
> Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive historical lesson about the backgrounds
> of the Six Day War. Certainly badly needed


So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?


Your wrote:
"
From what I remember, the Arabs were aggressors against Israel only
two times: in 1948 and 1973.
The Israelis, on the contrary, are more than well-known (actually
"famous") for their aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc.,
etc.)
"


1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
1967.
2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
were not the aggressors.

I'll appreciate your answer to this specific point, in light of the
facts I posted.



> - especially in the light of the
> fact that what you posted is not the least changing the fact that Israel
> committed far more aggressions against its "neighbours" plus simply ignored
> every single related UN resolution so far then the Arabs will ever manage
> (not that the Arabs are sheeps in the coral either, but that was the
> point)....
>


I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.

If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.


> BTW, which time do we have? May 1967 or September 2003?


It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
regarding that war.


> Has Egypt blocked
> the Tyran Straits just few days back, or should it this time be the talk
> about the Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s?
>
> (I need these answers to understand the theat for Israel emerging from
> eventual Saudi-British negotiations for Eurofighters, so thanks in advance
> for an answer that will be similarly comprehensive as your last one)
>


1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.
2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
then the answer is no.
3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
Israel.
4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
is why I started this thread. To get more information.

[Tom Cooper]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > > > > >> (Jack White) wrote
>
>
> So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
> said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?

Because it was Israel who planted the "news" about the concentration of
Israeli units, preparing to strike Syria, into the Soviet intel system. The
Egyptian actions - starting with the blockade of the Tyran - was a reaction
to this, prompted by Moscow informing Cairo about the "Israeli intention to
attack Syria".

> 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> 1967.
> 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

I don't see this as a "no choice war". Not right from the start. Once Nasser
blocked Tyran and started threating with destruction of Israel, yes, there
was not much other choice but to start a war. The question is only which
kind: had the whole Sinai to be occupied in order to re-open the Tyran?

Even more so before that there was other choice: before the war there was
still a possibility of negotiation and that is what even Washington urged
Aba Ebban and the others to do.

> I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
> were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
> important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
> created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
> were not the aggressors.

Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
first".

In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.

> I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
> the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.

If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
why were all these things done?

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
anything but an aggressor in 1967.

> If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
> war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
> picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.

I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
this regards.

> It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
> it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
> regarding that war.

Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.

The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.

> 1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
> wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
> choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.

I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.

> 2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
> Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
> then the answer is no.

To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.

> 3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
> Israel.

Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
"defence purposes"...

So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any more: I'm getting sick of such and
similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.

> 4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
> to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
> is why I started this thread. To get more information.

Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
in fighting against Israel?

Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
indicate the same.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:23:57 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
> >
> >I'd like to join the opinion: even if I have heard a lots of rumors and
> >reports about negotiations, the deal wasn't signed yet, and there is no
100%
> >certainity that anything will be ordered even if something would be
signed.
> >Norway and Greece "decided for EF-2000" too, but haven't ordered any. The
> >Austrians have also decided for EF-2000, but ordered some only after
almost
> >a year of postponnement...
>
> The Austrian and Greek delays have been due to budgetary problems, I
> think. I don't see any reason why Greece won't buy Typhoons.

Phil, there is always a similar explanation when a gov wants to find a way
out.

Here in Austria, we spend EUR 40 million a day for stuff that is not needed,
and structures too old and unable to modernize. And still, a majority of the
population is against the EF-2000s, because these should be "unaffordable"
and "too expensive".... The Norwegians don't lack money, but want to save
more for their "future generations", which will have to live with the fact
that their country is not an oil exporter any more. And the Greeks, well,
that's really a special story....

> >> I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
> >> aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.
> >
> >Errr, one remark here: doing modifications on the EF-2000 in the field
will
> >be very problematic. As a matter of fact, the EADS did everything
possible
> >to avoid the situation with the Tornado IDS/GR.Mks, where meanwhile even
> >aircraft of different units within the same air force have - in part -
> >completely different equipment, software etc....
>
> If I was spending millions on fighter aircraft (or on anything)
> else, I'd insist I had the source code to the software, so I had the
> abilty to alter it. Not only that, there's also security
> considerations: if one doesn't have the source code (and even if one
> does) there always the possibility that a backdoor's been put in it
> -- the original supplier could broadcast a predefined code, which is
> picked up by the aircrafts' radars, and makes them work less
> efficiently.

Well, that's the difference between the US producers, and the EADS: the last
will have little problems in supplying the full technical and software
documentations to their clients. The US are frequently reluctant to do so.
In the case of the EF-2000 this will be ultimately important to do, as
otherwise the plane would be useless for the end-user.

> >> Or unless the Europeans do.
> >
> >IMHO, this is the "largest" problem here: the Europeans are seriously
> >negotiating with the Saudis for sale of advanced combat aircraft to SA -
and
> >without a direct US involvement in the deal.
>
> What about al-Yamamah?

Who cares about the past?

Call this al-Yamamah III if you like. That's the way the Saudis think.

> > This was not the case ever
> >since Hunters were sold to the RSAF, in the mid-1960s (even the sale of
> >Lightnings to RSAF and KAF was actually a US-sponsored deal, organized in
> >order the British to earn money so they could buy the planned F-111K -
which
> >never materialized). For understandable reasons, the USA (and even less
so
> >Israel) are not interested in this deal becoming a reality.
>
> For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

For all the possible reasons: as first, the Saudis might for the first time
since the WWII buy combat aircraft without the USA having even a slightest
word to say or decide about their decision. The Saudis might get a "full
standard" fighter and not a downgraded "something", like F-15S. The Saudis
will be paying billions of bucks to the Europeans, and not to the USA - and
do this as long as the EF-2000s might be in their service. The USA will have
absolutely no control over these assets in Saudi hands, and thus not be able
to prevent their _eventual_ use against US allies in the area etc., etc.,
etc....

> >The matter nobody mentioned here, however, is the fact that the Israelis
are
> >already negotiating a purchase of 50 F-22s from 2007 or so...
Consequently,
> >it is simply so that "both sides" are planning to continue their
arms-race.
>
> I'm all in favour of arms races if they help British industry.

Well, from what I can understand this is not really the wish of the British
public....

> >I.e. no real reasons to worry about...
> >
> >Frankly, when the USA are selling 80 F-16C/D Block 60 to UAE, then there
are
> >apparently no reasons for concern in Israel or the USA. There are such,
> >however, when Eurofighters could eventually be sold to SA. How comes
this?
>
> I wonder how much defence contractors donated to the Bush campaign?

Regardless the sum, it's your bet.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Alex Walton]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:40:37 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>You've been telling me about all of this stuff that the Eurofighter
>supposedly does as well or better than the Raptor, and you obviously
>haven't even done the basic background work.
>
>Before you try and debate the differences between these planes, you need
>to go out, read up on the Raptor, find out how stealth works, and get
>back to us. Look at photographs of the plane, find out some of the
>specs, and stop expecting me to dig it all out and quote it for you.

Seems you've been missing the point throughout this whole debate. No
one, including Paul, has claimed that Typhoon is equal to or better
than F-22 on a plane to plane basis.

The claim is that on a fleet wide basis the same amount of money's
worth of Typhoons will make a greater contribution against expected
threats than Raptors. Obviously this will not be equal numbers as the
Raptor (as a weapon system) is significantly more expensive than
Typhoon.

Your obsession with stealth is ignoring many other operational
aspects.

Alex Walton
----
Royal Navy & Fleet Air Arm pages:
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/navy.html
----

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

(Quant) writes:

> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
>> "Quant" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
>> > > . ..
>> > > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
>> > > > >> (Jack White) wrote
>> > Not True.
>> > The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
>> > are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
>> > terrible".
>> > thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...
>>
>> > Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.
>>
>> Oh, of course, that was "completely new" to me....
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive historical lesson about the backgrounds
>> of the Six Day War. Certainly badly needed
>
>
> So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
> said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?
>
>
> Your wrote:
> "
> From what I remember, the Arabs were aggressors against Israel only
> two times: in 1948 and 1973.
> The Israelis, on the contrary, are more than well-known (actually
> "famous") for their aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc.,
> etc.)
> "
>
>
> 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> 1967.
> 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
waged an aggressive war.... Gee!

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
...
> (Quant) writes:

> >
> > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > 1967.
> > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
>
> Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
> same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
> waged an aggressive war.... Gee!
>

Bull

Japan had lots of choices that would have avoided war in 1941,
they werent prepared to quit invading other countries but
that was a matter of choice. There were no armies ranged
along their borders threatening invasion and genocide,
rather they had invaded Manchuria, China and
French IndoChina killing millions of civilians in the process.

They then decided to attack the US and British to pave the way
for their invasions of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

If the Israelis attack the USN in Bahrain preparatory to an
invasion of Saudi Arabia that will be analagous to Pearl Harbor,
the 6 day war was not.

Keith

[Quant]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:45 +0100, (phil hunt)
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
> >>
> >>I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better than
> >>previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher as a
> >>result.
> >
> >That sounds very plausible.
> >
> >> That for all practical puropses the -9X is a BVR missile.
> >
> >Do you have actual figures, for range, max speed, acceleration?
>
>
> Nope. I've read a 22 mile range though, take it for what it's worth.
> BTW here's a link to a video clip of some AIM_9X launches.
>
> http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/


The extre-range is a free bonus for all the LOAL missiles.

When you have LOAL, the missile doesn't neet to fly directly to the
target (resulting in curvature trajectory). Instead, you can guide it
the target in a shorter path.

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:11:24 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
>>
>> The Austrian and Greek delays have been due to budgetary problems, I
>> think. I don't see any reason why Greece won't buy Typhoons.
>
>Phil, there is always a similar explanation when a gov wants to find a way
>out.
>
>Here in Austria, we spend EUR 40 million a day for stuff that is not needed,
>and structures too old and unable to modernize.

I would imagine all govmts waste money, as do all large
organisations in general -- what point are you trying to make?

>And still, a majority of the
>population is against the EF-2000s, because these should be "unaffordable"
>and "too expensive"....

The same could be argued for any Austrian military expenditure; so
it's up to the Austrian people to decide what sort of military
posture they want, and then spending money accordingly. If Austria
wants to have an air force, Eurofighter is not a bad choice as far
as value for money goes.

>The Norwegians don't lack money, but want to save
>more for their "future generations", which will have to live with the fact
>that their country is not an oil exporter any more. And the Greeks, well,
>that's really a special story....

Greece has been historically in adversity with Turkey.

>> If I was spending millions on fighter aircraft (or on anything)
>> else, I'd insist I had the source code to the software, so I had the
>> abilty to alter it. Not only that, there's also security
>> considerations: if one doesn't have the source code (and even if one
>> does) there always the possibility that a backdoor's been put in it
>> -- the original supplier could broadcast a predefined code, which is
>> picked up by the aircrafts' radars, and makes them work less
>> efficiently.
>
>Well, that's the difference between the US producers, and the EADS: the last
>will have little problems in supplying the full technical and software
>documentations to their clients. The US are frequently reluctant to do so.

Then no-one with any sense will buy from them. Note that in
mass-market software, this is already happening: many countries[1]
are moving away from Microsoft Windows towards Linux because they
don't want the US govmt to spy on them, or to be dependent on forign
technology.


[1]: e.g. Germany, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Thailand, China, Japan,
South Korea.

>In the case of the EF-2000 this will be ultimately important to do, as
>otherwise the plane would be useless for the end-user.

So Eurofighter will supply the relevent information, yes?

>> >IMHO, this is the "largest" problem here: the Europeans are seriously
>> >negotiating with the Saudis for sale of advanced combat aircraft to SA -
>> >and
>> >without a direct US involvement in the deal.
>>
>> What about al-Yamamah?
>
>Who cares about the past?

My point being that that was a British contract to export arms to
Saudi; it's happened in the past, which is an indication that it
is plausible it'll happen in future.

>> For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?
>
>For all the possible reasons: as first, the Saudis might for the first time
>since the WWII buy combat aircraft without the USA having even a slightest
>word to say or decide about their decision. The Saudis might get a "full
>standard" fighter and not a downgraded "something", like F-15S.

Clearly it'd be in the Saudis interests to do this.

>The Saudis
>will be paying billions of bucks to the Europeans, and not to the USA - and
>do this as long as the EF-2000s might be in their service. The USA will have
>absolutely no control over these assets in Saudi hands, and thus not be able
>to prevent their _eventual_ use against US allies in the area etc., etc.,
>etc....

Which is, of course, a selling point for the European arms industry.

>> I'm all in favour of arms races if they help British industry.
>
>Well, from what I can understand this is not really the wish of the British
>public....

Depends how the question is put to them. Phrase it in terms of
employment: should thousands of skilled British workers be put on
the dole, blighting whole communities for generations, or should the
govmt support the retention of jobs -- and it's decent well paid
jobs we're talking about, not ****ty little McJobs or working in a
call center. Put like that, I'm sure how the British public would
respond.

Not only that, doing otherwise is demeaning. The USA would never
accept a British veto of US arms shipments, so why should we of
theirs? I'm all in favour of Britian being an ally with the USA, but
I'll never support Britain being subordinate.

>> I wonder how much defence contractors donated to the Bush campaign?
>
>Regardless the sum, it's your bet.

Not sure what you're getting at.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "Quant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > > . ..
> > > > > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > > > > > >> (Jack White) wrote
> >
> >
> > So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
> > said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?
>
> Because it was Israel who planted the "news" about the concentration of
> Israeli units, preparing to strike Syria, into the Soviet intel system. The
> Egyptian actions - starting with the blockade of the Tyran - was a reaction
> to this, prompted by Moscow informing Cairo about the "Israeli intention to
> attack Syria".
>
> > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > 1967.
> > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
>
> I don't see this as a "no choice war". Not right from the start. Once Nasser
> blocked Tyran and started threating with destruction of Israel, yes, there
> was not much other choice but to start a war. The question is only which
> kind: had the whole Sinai to be occupied in order to re-open the Tyran?
>
> Even more so before that there was other choice: before the war there was
> still a possibility of negotiation and that is what even Washington urged
> Aba Ebban and the others to do.

A bit of research via Google will reveal some interesting later
acknowledgements by key Israelis that support your statements:

"Nevertheless, Israel's leaders did not regard Nasser's acts as
threatening. As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli
government, said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was
invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the
annexation of new Arab territory." "

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm

"Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "

www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm

Even Begin agreed that both the 56 and 67 wars were "wars of choice"
on Israel's part, and that it initiated the combat:

"It was 12 years ago when Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in
public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,"
meaning Israel started the wars. Begin's admission came in a speech
delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense
College. His purpose was to defuse mounting criticism of Israel's
invasion of Lebanon, which had begun two months earlier on June 5 and
was clearly one of Israel's wars of "choice." The others were in 1956
and 1967...[Begin Begin quote] "Our other wars were not without an
alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to
war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a
danger to the existence of the state...In June 1967, we again had a
choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do
not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest
with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of
self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of
National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the
initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the
security of Israel and the future of the nation."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm

Unfortunately, conventional wisdom, as exhibited by continual Israeli
pronouncements and the meager coverage provided by a main-line media
that prefers to stick with the original "Israel was forced into war"
concept, means that many today still cling to the old notion that
Israel had no choice in its wars with its neighbors that have netted
them the land originally mandated to the Palestinians, along with a
chunk of Syrian territory.

Brooks


>
> > I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
> > were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
> > important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
> > created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
> > were not the aggressors.
>
> Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
> use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
> Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
> first".
>
> In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
> that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
> everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
> considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
> Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
> enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
> movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.
>
> > I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
> > the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.
>
> If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
> was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
> If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
> why were all these things done?
>
> Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
> nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
> anything but an aggressor in 1967.
>
> > If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
> > war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
> > picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.
>
> I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
> this regards.
>
> > It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
> > it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
> > regarding that war.
>
> Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
> Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
> if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
> brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
> of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
> you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
> question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.
>
> The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
> threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.
>
> > 1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
> > wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
> > choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.
>
> I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.
>
> > 2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
> > Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
> > then the answer is no.
>
> To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
> political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
> largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
> paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.
>
> > 3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
> > Israel.
>
> Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
> every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
> Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
> threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
> threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
> screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
> all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
> F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
> international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
> "defence purposes"...
>
> So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
> times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any more: I'm getting sick of such and
> similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
> any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
> politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.
>
> > 4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
> > to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
> > is why I started this thread. To get more information.
>
> Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
> Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
> in fighting against Israel?
>
> Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
> at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
> providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
> it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
> peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
> other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
> have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
> Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
> indicate the same.
>
> Tom Cooper
> Co-Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> and,
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:11:24 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:

>
> Then no-one with any sense will buy from them. Note that in
> mass-market software, this is already happening: many countries[1]
> are moving away from Microsoft Windows towards Linux because they
> don't want the US govmt to spy on them, or to be dependent on forign
> technology.
>
>
> [1]: e.g. Germany, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Thailand, China, Japan,
> South Korea.

Nonsense

I work for a software company that has versions of its product
available on various flavours of Unix including Linux as well
as Windows. We havent made a new Unix sale in 5 years,
the overwhelming demand is for NT/Win2k/XP versions
and that includes clients in Germany, China, Japan and
South Korea.

For specialist applications some organisations withing those
countries may well choose Linux, we use it for our web
servers but I'll bet that 90%+ of the PC's on desks in
those nations are running Windows

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:43:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:11:24 GMT, Tom Cooper > wrote:
>
>>
>> Then no-one with any sense will buy from them. Note that in
>> mass-market software, this is already happening: many countries[1]
>> are moving away from Microsoft Windows towards Linux because they
>> don't want the US govmt to spy on them, or to be dependent on forign
>> technology.
>>
>>
>> [1]: e.g. Germany, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Thailand, China, Japan,
>> South Korea.
>
>Nonsense
>
>I work for a software company that has versions of its product
>available on various flavours of Unix including Linux as well
>as Windows. We havent made a new Unix sale in 5 years,
>the overwhelming demand is for NT/Win2k/XP versions
>and that includes clients in Germany, China, Japan and
>South Korea.

So the fact that people don't apparently want to use the Unix
version of *one particular software package*, is somehow meant to
indicate that the govmts of these countries haven't set up
initiatives to switch some or all of computers in govmt use to
Linux?

If that's the state of your logic, I hope they don't employ you as
a programmer! BTW, the last car I owned was made by an American
company; this proves that no companies outside the USA manufacture
motor vehicles.

>For specialist applications some organisations withing those
>countries may well choose Linux, we use it for our web
>servers but I'll bet that 90%+ of the PC's on desks in
>those nations are running Windows

Yes, you're probably right -- after all, if no-one was using
Windows, then there would be no desire to switch from Windows. The
question is, what will they be using in 5 or 10 years time?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alex Walton > wrote:

> Seems you've been missing the point throughout this whole debate. No
> one, including Paul, has claimed that Typhoon is equal to or better
> than F-22 on a plane to plane basis.
>
> The claim is that on a fleet wide basis the same amount of money's
> worth of Typhoons will make a greater contribution against expected
> threats than Raptors. Obviously this will not be equal numbers as the
> Raptor (as a weapon system) is significantly more expensive than
> Typhoon.
>
> Your obsession with stealth is ignoring many other operational
> aspects.

The two big advantages the Eurofighter will have is that it's cheaper
and easier to maintain. Secondary advantage is that it can haul more
weapons for ground attack roles, if you strap them onto external pylons.

Being able to carry a bunch of weapons isn't that much of an advantage,
if the other side can see you coming from twice or four times as far
away.

In every other aspect of warfare, being able to see and shoot at the
other side well before they can see you is a huge advantage. Why is
that suddenly different for one or two types of arircraft?

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:00:06 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlyn
>ch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Too vague to be useful, then.
>
>It's some use. 1/4 would mean detection range is decreased by 30%

At what frequency and over what extent? Is this a narrow little null, an
averaged plot, or actually a nasty nose flash?

You're just not going to get *useful* RCS data in the public domain.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, phil hunt
> > writes
> >On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:00:06 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlyn
> >ch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>Too vague to be useful, then.
> >
> >It's some use. 1/4 would mean detection range is decreased by 30%
>
> At what frequency and over what extent? Is this a narrow little null, an
> averaged plot, or actually a nasty nose flash?

Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges). By
keeping in mind that you're limited in the frequency ranges you have to
deal with for long and short range radars, it's reasonably easy to
handle everything.

The big problems on aircraft are the intakes and exhausts. By using RAM
in the intake, along with moderate intake duct work, you can minimize
that aspect pretty nicely (by 1/4, for example - this was late-stage
design "add on" for the Eurofighter). To get a bigger reduction on the
intakes, you have to do some fairly radical ducting and materials work,
or design the aircraft around the problem (this makes the plane much
bigger internally, and is part of the reason the Raptor is so bulky for
its mass).

> You're just not going to get *useful* RCS data in the public domain.

But it shows you where to bet. Having an overall RCS of 1/100 of a
"typical" fighter, but with a few spikes and odd flashes, makes the job
incredibly easier, especially when it comes to breaking lock on incoming
missiles (or in not being acquired in the first place).

Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*, and manage to not get shot down
(except for one case when they got nailed in a low-level raid by
visually-sighted AAA). And it's practically obsolete, in most "stealth"
respects. The F-22 may have a couple of weaknesses (the aforementioned
intake and exhaust), but even those are relative.

Dogfighting is cool, but the missile is currently reigning supreme. And
when the other guy can fire six shots before you even have a good idea
where he's at, you're not going to come out ahead of the game.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Scott Ferrin]

>"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
>the details.

That's true BUT RAM ingredients aside all that shaping and stuff is
pretty much open and using those criteria the Eurofighter comes up
short in MANY ways. In Ben Rich's book "Shunk Works" he mentioned
that during the developement of Have Blue there was an incident where
ONE screw was protruding an eight of an inch and it made the
difference between not being detected to having the RCS blown to ****
and being easily detectable. One screw an eight of an inch. Just
speaking from looking at the two aircraft visually and comparing
surfaces, discontinuaties and edges, there is no comparison.

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:43:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >

>
> So the fact that people don't apparently want to use the Unix
> version of *one particular software package*, is somehow meant to
> indicate that the govmts of these countries haven't set up
> initiatives to switch some or all of computers in govmt use to
> Linux?
>

Erm no

We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.

> If that's the state of your logic, I hope they don't employ you as
> a programmer! BTW, the last car I owned was made by an American
> company; this proves that no companies outside the USA manufacture
> motor vehicles.
>

I am only commenting on the reality of our customers
preferences, personally I prefer Unix but the reality is
most end users dont, Dell had it as an option on their
PC's for a a while, they dropped it from the Desktop range
due to lack of interest

> >For specialist applications some organisations withing those
> >countries may well choose Linux, we use it for our web
> >servers but I'll bet that 90%+ of the PC's on desks in
> >those nations are running Windows
>
> Yes, you're probably right -- after all, if no-one was using
> Windows, then there would be no desire to switch from Windows. The
> question is, what will they be using in 5 or 10 years time?
>

If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
developments. The fact that the French Government backed
Linux would hardly be a confidence builder.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
>>the details.
>
>That's true BUT RAM ingredients aside all that shaping and stuff is
>pretty much open and using those criteria the Eurofighter comes up
>short in MANY ways.

Depends what it's claiming, doesn't it?

This is one of the problems - if you say that 'reduced RCS' means
'invisibility' then the US wasted a _lot_ of money on signature
reduction for the DDG-51s. But if you mean "confuses anyone trying to
analyse the returns and form a track from them and identify what they're
looking at" then they got their money's worth.

>In Ben Rich's book "Shunk Works" he mentioned
>that during the developement of Have Blue there was an incident where
>ONE screw was protruding an eight of an inch and it made the
>difference between not being detected to having the RCS blown to ****
>and being easily detectable. One screw an eight of an inch.

After ten years of hard squadron service, you're promising the F-22 will
still be immune to such errors? Meanwhile, the Typhoon has less to lose.

Again, "reduced RCS" is useful because it makes your ECM much more
effective and is easier to keep. Invisibility is glorious while it
lasts... but harder to achieve and maintain.

> Just
>speaking from looking at the two aircraft visually and comparing
>surfaces, discontinuaties and edges, there is no comparison.

Compared to each other? Or compared to the threat?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[TJ]

"Chad Irby" wrote:

> Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
> heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*, and manage to not get shot down
> (except for one case when they got nailed in a low-level raid by
> visually-sighted AAA). And it's practically obsolete, in most "stealth"
> respects. The F-22 may have a couple of weaknesses (the aforementioned
> intake and exhaust), but even those are relative.


The F-117, serial 82-806, was not flying a low-level mission. It was on
egress from Serbia when it was shot down. The claim of the F-117 goes to the
3rd Division of the 250th Rocket Brigade and its SA-3 Goa missiles. The
250th Rocket Brigade AD received the National Hero Medal, the highest
military medal for their service during the war. Here are some of the
interesting parts of the "For Free Sky" documentary that was shown on
Serbian TV to mark the first anniversary of the conflict during 2000. These
are the interviews given by the Air Force staff for the occasion coupled
with some information given by the commander of the 250th AD brigade that
operated the Neva-M system (SA-3). Apparently all the SA-3 missiles had
girls names stenciled on them! Tanja, Ivana and Natalija have been
identified as fired missiles.

During 2001 a further interview with a 250th Rocket Brigade battalion
commander, Lt. Col. Bosko Dotlic, highlighted that an SA-3 named Natalija
downed the F-117.

From the 2000 documentary "For Free Sky" Colonel Zoltan Dani explained:

"When whole crew were on their positions and when the new wave was on, the
target was detected on azimuth 195 suddenly appearing and that was an very
important reference upon which we concluded that it may be a new target.
Crew done the rest routinely, since we are well trained. The speed was that
counts. Practically the F-117 was downed in less than 18 seconds"

Dragan Matich (standing in front of Neva missiles):

"In the war I have been tracking officer on 4 missile launches among them
the biggest success was the downing of the F-117 and F-16"

Further evidence is on display at the Yugoslav Aeronautical Museum, Belgrade
International Airport where the remnants of the SA-3 missile and missile
booster used to shoot down the F-117A can be found.

Serbian TV video of 82-806 shows the tell tale fragmentation damage to the
wings and tail that comes from SAM warhead damage. This was initially
commented on as being from AAA damage, but the fragmentation warhead
consists of tungsten balls which would cause similar damage as indicated on
the video. There is not one mention from any of the interviews or 250th
Rocket Brigade commemorative websites of anything other than an SA-3 being
responsible. The only unit accredited was the 250th Rocket Brigade for both
the USAF F-16CG lost on the 2nd May and the F-117A.


TJ

[Scott Ferrin]

>>But advanced camouflage is. Once again, read up in it.
>
>I'd be more interested in a demonstration. Which Raptors is this
>"advanced camouflage" flying on?


I think what he's referring to is one of two things. (Keeping in mind
I'm not in the industry and all I've read is what's been made public
and what I can see with my own eyes). The first is I've read that
the paint scheme is designed to make it difficult for IR seekers that
look for edges to find them. The second (and this is just something
I've noticed) is that haven't you ever noticed the paint on the F-22
just looks. .. strange? In many pictures it almost looks like bare
metal. I've been looking through a bunch of pictures and Raptor 01
was painted with "normal" paint and the rest appear to be painted with
the other kind. I'm not saying just because it's different that it's
something special or anything BUTthere is definitely something unusual
about it. First of all it's reflective unlike the paint on other
fighters (and yeah I know everything relfects which is why we can see
it- that's not what I'm talking about.) It's not like glossy paint
reflective but more like burnished metal reflective. Secondly,
unless they frequently repaint Raptor 002 it *appears* to do something
funny when it comes to color. I'm not saying it actively matches it's
surroundings. But maybe it has an affinity for picking up the color
of the light that hits it. Who knows? I've posted several photos of
002 in various lighting conditions to show what I mean. In photo one
you could almost convince yourself the far vertical stab is made of
glass and you can see through it. Pictures 1 and 8 show what I'm
talking about to best effect. Pictures 5,6,7 show it flying with
Raptor 01 which has *normal* paint. Now I'm not one to think the
Raptor is made of parts from Roswell or anything like that, I've just
noticed that the paint seems unusual. Or am I on crack?


http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/1.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/2.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/3_(002_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/4.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/5(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/6(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/7(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/8(This_one_is_006).jpg


(for some reason that "(" is causing the whole name not to show in the
link. Just do a copy past into your browser)



>
>>> You might want to double-check that: those engines not only have
>>> vectoring thrust but afterburners. That's getting to be a _real_
>>> challenge to build effective IR suppression into.

Part of it is their cross-section and that ^ poking to the rear will
cause the exhaust to mix with the surrounding air quicker. Which
isn't to say it would be invisible but that it would dissipate quicker
than a convenctional round nozzle.






>Dish. Aerial. Antenna. Plate. That emitter-thingy gizmo in the pointy
>end. (That blasts out kilowatts of coherent microwaves)
>
>>And there are some very nice ways to make antennas to lower that sort of
>>problem. Remembering, of course, that the US has been working on such
>>tech since the Carter administration (and succeeding quite nicely, from
>>the results we see in the Nighthawk and B-2).


Not to mention radomes that are transparent at only certain
frequencies. That with the LPI and low side lobes of an AESA radar
go a long ways toward making it more difficult to detect.


(after that it was difficult to follow who said what :-) )

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:38:14 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>>"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
>>>the details.
>>
>>That's true BUT RAM ingredients aside all that shaping and stuff is
>>pretty much open and using those criteria the Eurofighter comes up
>>short in MANY ways.
>
>Depends what it's claiming, doesn't it?
>
>This is one of the problems - if you say that 'reduced RCS' means
>'invisibility' then the US wasted a _lot_ of money on signature
>reduction for the DDG-51s. But if you mean "confuses anyone trying to
>analyse the returns and form a track from them and identify what they're
>looking at" then they got their money's worth.
>
>>In Ben Rich's book "Shunk Works" he mentioned
>>that during the developement of Have Blue there was an incident where
>>ONE screw was protruding an eight of an inch and it made the
>>difference between not being detected to having the RCS blown to ****
>>and being easily detectable. One screw an eight of an inch.
>
>After ten years of hard squadron service, you're promising the F-22 will
>still be immune to such errors? Meanwhile, the Typhoon has less to lose.
>
>Again, "reduced RCS" is useful because it makes your ECM much more
>effective and is easier to keep. Invisibility is glorious while it
>lasts... but harder to achieve and maintain.
>
>> Just
>>speaking from looking at the two aircraft visually and comparing
>>surfaces, discontinuaties and edges, there is no comparison.
>
>Compared to each other? Or compared to the threat?



I think when it's said that the Eurofighter is stealthy most people
equate that to mean the manufacturers are implying it's stealthy like
an F-22 not stealthy like a Super Hornet (which would be a more
accurate comparison).

[Paul Austin]

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
> >>
> >>I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better
than
> >>previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher
as a
> >>result.
> >
> >That sounds very plausible.

Unfortunately, the USAF specified that the AIM-9X use the same motor,
warhead and fuze at the current AIM-9M with TVC added to roughly the
same planform. I don't expect much different kinematics in the AIM-9X.
IIRC, Raytheon proposed an optional 6 inch motor but the USAF
declined.

[Paul Austin]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Chad
Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're
using.
> >
> >The only claims I see are from various Eurofighter sites, which
> >variously compare it to the F-16 or the Tornado. Basically, it's
about
> >1/4 ot the frontal RCS of most standard fighters.
>
> Too vague to be useful, then.
>
> >> Over what aspects?
> >
> >Over almost all aspects. You can see a lot of this just by looking
at
> >the structure of the planes. The Eurofighter is a basic F-16/F-5
> >replacement, with some blending and a lot of composites, but not
> >anywhere near ehough of the full blending and special treatments
that
> >you need for a real stealth plane.
>
> Okay, there's the disagreement. You're looking for "real stealth",
we're
> looking for significant RCS reduction. Invisibility gets expensive
fast:
> there are other ways to improve your odds.
>
....
> >
> >Then why are you in such complete denial of how stealth works? I'm
> >serious... if you know about planes and stealth, this is
> >kindergarten-level stuff.
>
> Depends if your mantra is making the aircraft invisible, or making
it
> harder to detect, tricky to track and a lot more difficult to hit.

Paul, this is silly. As you say, F-22s are highly unlikely to do
battle with EUian Typhoons in this universe at least.

That said, you know as well as I that detection range is a 4th root
function of RCS. That means that small changes in RCS make_very_small
changes in detection range. While no-one is publishing "official" RCS
measurements, Typhoon is likely to have an RCS on the same order as an
F-18E/F while the F-22 has been described by official sources to be in
the F-117 range. The difference in detection ranges between the two is
likely to be at least a factor of 10, militarily important especially
when each type, now retasked to air-to-mud, has to deal with things
like SA-10/20s.

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
>general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
>good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
>gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges).

To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.

>Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
>heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*,

Oh? Did Serbia and Iraq have modern AA systems? I think not.

>and manage to not get shot down
>(except for one case when they got nailed in a low-level raid by
>visually-sighted AAA). And it's practically obsolete, in most "stealth"
>respects. The F-22 may have a couple of weaknesses (the aforementioned
>intake and exhaust), but even those are relative.

How detectable is the F-117 (and F-22) using visual or IR sensors?

A quick BOTE calculation suggests that with clear air conditions, a
F-22 would in principle be detectable at 100 km with the sort of
digital equipment you can buy in a high street shop (a 10 m wide
object would produce an image 10 pixels across, assuming a 1000 mm
lens and a focal plane with 100 pixels/mm) though I'm sure in real
life conditions wouldn't be good enough to spot it in daylight.
Spotting the exhaust at night might be easier, especially for IR
sensors.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>Erm no
>
>We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
>But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
>for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.

There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
and open source software more important.

For an increasing number of application spheres -- note I'm not
claiming for everything -- open source is the best solution for the
job. Web servers being a good example.

>> If that's the state of your logic, I hope they don't employ you as
>> a programmer! BTW, the last car I owned was made by an American
>> company; this proves that no companies outside the USA manufacture
>> motor vehicles.
>
>I am only commenting on the reality of our customers
>preferences, personally I prefer Unix but the reality is
>most end users dont,

Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
with Microsoft.

>Dell had it as an option on their
>PC's for a a while, they dropped it from the Desktop range
>due to lack of interest

Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
(those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.

Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
anywhere else.

>If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
>governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
>developments.

But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:51:53 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>Now I'm not one to think the
>Raptor is made of parts from Roswell or anything like that, I've just
>noticed that the paint seems unusual. Or am I on crack?
>
>http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/1.jpg
>http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/8(This_one_is_006).jpg

There certainly appears to be something going on. It reminds me of
the camoflage used on ships in WW1 and WW2.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Quant) writes:
>
> > >
> > > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > > 1967.
> > > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
> >
> > Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
> > same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
> > waged an aggressive war.... Gee!
> >
>
> Bull
>
> Japan had lots of choices that would have avoided war in 1941,
> they werent prepared to quit invading other countries but
> that was a matter of choice. There were no armies ranged
> along their borders threatening invasion and genocide,
> rather they had invaded Manchuria, China and
> French IndoChina killing millions of civilians in the process.
>
> They then decided to attack the US and British to pave the way
> for their invasions of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.
>
> If the Israelis attack the USN in Bahrain preparatory to an
> invasion of Saudi Arabia that will be analagous to Pearl Harbor,
> the 6 day war was not.

Menachem Begin, Ben-Gurion, and Rabin, along with at least one other
prominent Israeli cabinet minister at the time, apparently disagree
with you if you are claiming that Israel had no choice in 67. There
was no immenent threat of direct conflict with Egypt.

"Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "

www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm

Begin: "Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November
1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to
destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence
of the state...In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
decided to attack him."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm

Brooks


>
> Keith

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:37:15 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>Paul, this is silly. As you say, F-22s are highly unlikely to do
>battle with EUian Typhoons in this universe at least.

Masybe. OTOH, F-4s have fought F-14s. If both planes are widely
exported, then maybe they'll have lots of operators in 20 years
time, and lots of potential clashes.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:37:15 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>That said, you know as well as I that detection range is a 4th root
>function of RCS. That means that small changes in RCS make_very_small
>changes in detection range. While no-one is publishing "official" RCS
>measurements, Typhoon is likely to have an RCS on the same order as an
>F-18E/F while the F-22 has been described by official sources to be in
>the F-117 range. The difference in detection ranges between the two is
>likely to be at least a factor of 10, militarily important especially
>when each type, now retasked to air-to-mud, has to deal with things
>like SA-10/20s.

Best to use UAVs for bombing.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:14:00 -0400, "Paul Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" wrote
>> (phil hunt) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better
>than
>> >>previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher
>as a
>> >>result.
>> >
>> >That sounds very plausible.
>
>Unfortunately, the USAF specified that the AIM-9X use the same motor,
>warhead and fuze at the current AIM-9M with TVC added to roughly the
>same planform. I don't expect much different kinematics in the AIM-9X.

It's been WIDELY reported that the -9X is significantly better. For
one thing you don't have those huge tail fins and canards (drag and
weight) nor those rollerons (mroe drag and weight). I don't know how
tail control compares to canard control as far as efficiency goes but
judging by the fact that one of the advantages touted of AMRAAM over
Sparrow and 9X over 9M,L, etc. was that they WERE tail controlled,
would seem to indicate an advantage. Come to think of it I've seen
the same advantage mentioned in regards to ESSM over -7.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> >Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
> >general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
> >good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
> >gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges).
>
> To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.

What sort of formula are you using for this? I don't consider 40 miles
"long" when we're looking at airborne missiles with ranges of over 100
miles. 40 miles is "medium." At 100 miles that's still a couple of
miles of extra time before acquiring, and you're probably really looking
at closer to ten miles at long range.

> >Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
> >heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*,
>
> Oh? Did Serbia and Iraq have modern AA systems? I think not.

The phrase you're looking for is "golden BB." But with the number of
missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies. And since
you're claiming that stealth isn't that important, we should have lost
them on a regular basis. We didn't.

> How detectable is the F-117 (and F-22) using visual or IR sensors?

With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
distance. If you're in a plane, you're not going to be using image
magnification to find the other guy, unless you know right where he's
coming from in the first place. Even with that, you have camouflage for
the human optical frequencies, and pure IR is not very useful for very
long ranges.

> A quick BOTE calculation suggests that with clear air conditions, a
> F-22 would in principle be detectable at 100 km with the sort of
> digital equipment you can buy in a high street shop (a 10 m wide
> object would produce an image 10 pixels across, assuming a 1000 mm
> lens and a focal plane with 100 pixels/mm) though I'm sure in real
> life conditions wouldn't be good enough to spot it in daylight.
> Spotting the exhaust at night might be easier, especially for IR
> sensors.

"Detecting" versus "acquiring and identifying," I'm afraid. Narrowing
down the field of view enough to make visual ID makes for a lot less
coverage per sweep. If you know where the target is, it gets fairly
easy, but you have to look in the right direction first, and hope
there's no clouds or haze in the way.

And if you can manage to "detect" a 10 pixel object, you still have to
figure out what the heck it is. I just took a photo of an F-22 (from
below, against a high-contrast light background - pretty much the ideal
ID angle) and shrank it to a 10 by 10 image. It looks like someone
squashed a very tiny bug. You can't even tell that it's an aircraft,
much less what sort of plane it is. With lower-contrast photos, it's
just one 10 x 10 pixel gray blob.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Quant]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > "Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > (Quant) writes:
>
> > > >
> > > > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > > > 1967.
> > > > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > > > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > > > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
> > >
> > > Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
> > > same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
> > > waged an aggressive war.... Gee!
> > >
> >
> > Bull
> >
> > Japan had lots of choices that would have avoided war in 1941,
> > they werent prepared to quit invading other countries but
> > that was a matter of choice. There were no armies ranged
> > along their borders threatening invasion and genocide,
> > rather they had invaded Manchuria, China and
> > French IndoChina killing millions of civilians in the process.
> >
> > They then decided to attack the US and British to pave the way
> > for their invasions of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.
> >
> > If the Israelis attack the USN in Bahrain preparatory to an
> > invasion of Saudi Arabia that will be analagous to Pearl Harbor,
> > the 6 day war was not.
>
> Menachem Begin, Ben-Gurion, and Rabin, along with at least one other
> prominent Israeli cabinet minister at the time, apparently disagree
> with you if you are claiming that Israel had no choice in 67. There
> was no immenent threat of direct conflict with Egypt.
>
> "Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
> much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
> Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "
>
> www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm
>
> Begin: "Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November
> 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to
> destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence
> of the state...In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army
> concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
> really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
> decided to attack him."
>
> http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm
>
> Brooks
>
>
> >
> > Keith



Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
"washington-report".

One only needs to enter their site in order to realize that their
reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
minister (Sahaf).

http://www.wrmea.com

Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?

Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
that I just disproved. So don't bother...

[Quant]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> (Jack White) wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
> > > said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?
> >
> > Because it was Israel who planted the "news" about the concentration of
> > Israeli units, preparing to strike Syria, into the Soviet intel system. The
> > Egyptian actions - starting with the blockade of the Tyran - was a reaction
> > to this, prompted by Moscow informing Cairo about the "Israeli intention to
> > attack Syria".
> >
> > > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > > 1967.
> > > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
> >
> > I don't see this as a "no choice war". Not right from the start. Once Nasser
> > blocked Tyran and started threating with destruction of Israel, yes, there
> > was not much other choice but to start a war. The question is only which
> > kind: had the whole Sinai to be occupied in order to re-open the Tyran?
> >
> > Even more so before that there was other choice: before the war there was
> > still a possibility of negotiation and that is what even Washington urged
> > Aba Ebban and the others to do.
>
> A bit of research via Google will reveal some interesting later
> acknowledgements by key Israelis that support your statements:
>
> "Nevertheless, Israel's leaders did not regard Nasser's acts as
> threatening. As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli
> government, said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was
> invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the
> annexation of new Arab territory." "
>
> Source: http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm
>
> "Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
> much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
> Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "
>
> www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm
>
> Even Begin agreed that both the 56 and 67 wars were "wars of choice"
> on Israel's part, and that it initiated the combat:
>
> "It was 12 years ago when Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in
> public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,"
> meaning Israel started the wars. Begin's admission came in a speech
> delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense
> College. His purpose was to defuse mounting criticism of Israel's
> invasion of Lebanon, which had begun two months earlier on June 5 and
> was clearly one of Israel's wars of "choice." The others were in 1956
> and 1967...[Begin Begin quote] "Our other wars were not without an
> alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to
> war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a
> danger to the existence of the state...In June 1967, we again had a
> choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do
> not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest
> with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of
> self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of
> National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the
> initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the
> security of Israel and the future of the nation."
>
> http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm
>
> Unfortunately, conventional wisdom, as exhibited by continual Israeli
> pronouncements and the meager coverage provided by a main-line media
> that prefers to stick with the original "Israel was forced into war"
> concept, means that many today still cling to the old notion that
> Israel had no choice in its wars with its neighbors that have netted
> them the land originally mandated to the Palestinians, along with a
> chunk of Syrian territory.
>
> Brooks
>
>


Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
"washington-report".

One only needs to enter their main page in order to realize that their
reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
minister (Sahaf).

http://www.wrmea.com

Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?

Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
that I just disproved. So don't bother...




> >
> > > I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
> > > were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
> > > important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
> > > created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
> > > were not the aggressors.
> >
> > Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
> > use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
> > Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
> > first".
> >
> > In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
> > that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
> > everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
> > considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
> > Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
> > enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
> > movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.
> >
> > > I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
> > > the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.
> >
> > If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
> > was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
> > If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
> > why were all these things done?
> >
> > Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
> > nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
> > anything but an aggressor in 1967.
> >
> > > If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
> > > war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
> > > picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.
> >
> > I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
> > this regards.
> >
> > > It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
> > > it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
> > > regarding that war.
> >
> > Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
> > Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
> > if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
> > brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
> > of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
> > you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
> > question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.
> >
> > The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
> > threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.
> >
> > > 1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
> > > wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
> > > choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.
> >
> > I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.
> >
> > > 2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
> > > Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
> > > then the answer is no.
> >
> > To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
> > political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
> > largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
> > paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.
> >
> > > 3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
> > > Israel.
> >
> > Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
> > every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
> > Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
> > threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
> > threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
> > screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
> > all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
> > F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
> > international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
> > "defence purposes"...
> >
> > So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
> > times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any more: I'm getting sick of such and
> > similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
> > any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
> > politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.
> >
> > > 4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
> > > to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
> > > is why I started this thread. To get more information.
> >
> > Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
> > Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
> > in fighting against Israel?
> >
> > Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
> > at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
> > providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
> > it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
> > peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
> > other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
> > have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
> > Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
> > indicate the same.
> >
> > Tom Cooper
> > Co-Author:
> > Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> > http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> > and,
> > Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> > http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >Erm no
> >
> >We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
> >But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
> >for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.
>
> There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
> anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
> and open source software more important.
>

Oh come on , what percentage of PC users even own a C++
compiler let lone know how to use it ?

> For an increasing number of application spheres -- note I'm not
> claiming for everything -- open source is the best solution for the
> job. Web servers being a good example.
>

I'll grant you that for server aplications UNIX is clearly superior

> >> If that's the state of your logic, I hope they don't employ you as
> >> a programmer! BTW, the last car I owned was made by an American
> >> company; this proves that no companies outside the USA manufacture
> >> motor vehicles.
> >
> >I am only commenting on the reality of our customers
> >preferences, personally I prefer Unix but the reality is
> >most end users dont,
>
> Have most end users even used Linux?

No, which is rather the point.

> I contend that for many tasks
> -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,

But they lack the market share

> without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
> with Microsoft.
>
> >Dell had it as an option on their
> >PC's for a a while, they dropped it from the Desktop range
> >due to lack of interest
>
> Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
> It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
> (those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
> enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
> also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
> don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.
>

Microsoft have at least as good a selection of foreign fonts
and character sets as any implementation of Unix I've seen


> Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
> Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
> anywhere else.
>

Actually thats where third party software is most succesful

> >If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
> >governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
> >developments.
>
> But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.
>

Its even easier to go bust ignoring what your customers
demand, we can sell em Unix versions tomorrow, we
still support it for existing customers and they are on the
price book but I dont expect to sell any.

Keith

[Stephen Harding]

phil hunt wrote:

> Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
> -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
> without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
> with Microsoft.

Linux is a great OS. I really prefer Unix (Solaris/Linux) to a Windows
platform.

But I think a lot of the caution amongst business in using Linux is the
view of it being "hacker software" with no one "in charge". Business
needs someone always available to help solve OS problems and the view
is that isn't there with Linux. Asking a newsgroup isn't the same as
having MS available a telephone call away. Not certain what Linux
tech support actually is though.

MS is trashed by many a programmer, but I think they do make reasonably
good products (although their concepts of system security seem almost
a non-concern at times). It's plenty good enough for most users.

Attribute it to my increasing anti-European attitudes, but I think the
Euro move away from MS is primarily intended to undercut US economic
power. It's one of the "quiet agenda items" on the EU plate IMHO,
although God knows MS's licensing and ownership demands can be infuriating!


SMH

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" wrote
> Paul Austin wrote:
> >
> >That said, you know as well as I that detection range is a 4th root
> >function of RCS. That means that small changes in RCS
make_very_small
> >changes in detection range. While no-one is publishing "official"
RCS
> >measurements, Typhoon is likely to have an RCS on the same order as
an
> >F-18E/F while the F-22 has been described by official sources to be
in
> >the F-117 range. The difference in detection ranges between the two
is
> >likely to be at least a factor of 10, militarily important
especially
> >when each type, now retasked to air-to-mud, has to deal with things
> >like SA-10/20s.
>
> Best to use UAVs for bombing.

That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term. Especially with
SEAD, time lines are short between detection (either way) and the time
to take the shot. UAVs make the man more distance in the
sense-decide-act loop and give REMFs more opportunity/requirement to
review shoot decisions "to prevent collateral damage". Higher feels
comfortable with a manned platform making the final "shooter"
decision. It will take a lot of hands-on experience before the command
chain feels comfortable with UCAVs roaming the battlefield looking for
something to kill on their own recognizance.

Doctrine for UAV and UCAV use is still in early days. The USAF sees a
gaggle of strike UCAVs operating in company with and under the control
of a manned two seat platform (F-15E currently). The USN sees UCAVs
primarily as sensor platforms. The Typhoon/F-22/F-35 generation is
likely to be the last manned fighter/attack aircraft generation but
even so, military operators are a long way from settling on doctrine
for UAV use. After all, UAVs are not yet cleared to operate in
national controlled airspace.

If anything, UCAV use in autonomous air to air roles would be easier
from a collateral damage standpoint. The only reason you don't hear
about it is that the air forces don't no how want Killer Robot
Fighters roaming the sky and killing-them-by mistake. Bomb the
occasional own-side ground pounder or civilian? That's a risk of war.

[Paul Austin]

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
> "Paul Austin" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" wrote
> >> (phil hunt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much
better
> >than
> >> >>previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly
higher
> >as a
> >> >>result.
> >> >
> >> >That sounds very plausible.
> >
> >Unfortunately, the USAF specified that the AIM-9X use the same
motor,
> >warhead and fuze at the current AIM-9M with TVC added to roughly
the
> >same planform. I don't expect much different kinematics in the
AIM-9X.
>
> It's been WIDELY reported that the -9X is significantly better.
For
> one thing you don't have those huge tail fins and canards (drag and
> weight) nor those rollerons (mroe drag and weight). I don't know
how
> tail control compares to canard control as far as efficiency goes
but
> judging by the fact that one of the advantages touted of AMRAAM over
> Sparrow and 9X over 9M,L, etc. was that they WERE tail controlled,
> would seem to indicate an advantage. Come to think of it I've seen
> the same advantage mentioned in regards to ESSM over -7.

Widely reported where? If you look at the Raytheon site
http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ you'll see that the canard
configuration is similar to the AIM-9M. The tail fins are smaller but
the TVC vanes are a loss element in terms of total impulse. Some
improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable. ASRAAM
and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers not
tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse can
be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.

[Scott Ferrin]

>Widely reported where?

This is going to sound like a copout but I read a LOT. It could have
been any number of places but I know I've seen it numerous times and I
RARELY rely on company propaganda for information. Usually company
sites are good for photos or videos (except for the exceptionally lame
Northrop Grumman site).




> If you look at the Raytheon site
>http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ you'll see that the canard
>configuration is similar to the AIM-9M.

The canards are much smaller and fixed.



>Some
>improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable. ASRAAM
>and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
>technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers not
>tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse can
>be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.

IIRC all the rest of the entries for which the -9x as-is was selected
had bigger motors too.

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:24:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >
>> >Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
>> >general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
>> >good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
>> >gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges).
>>
>> To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.
>
>What sort of formula are you using for this?

acquisition_range = k * rcs^0.25

where (k) is a constant. Basically it's the inverse-square law, both
from the radar to the target, then from the target back to the radar
again.

So for every 1% you increase the RCS, you increase acquisition range
by 0.25%

> I don't consider 40 miles
>"long" when we're looking at airborne missiles with ranges of over 100
>miles. 40 miles is "medium." At 100 miles that's still a couple of
>miles of extra time before acquiring,

2.5 miles

>> >Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
>> >heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*,
>>
>> Oh? Did Serbia and Iraq have modern AA systems? I think not.
>
>The phrase you're looking for is "golden BB."

Never heard of it.

>But with the number of
>missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies.

Don't understand you.

>And since
>you're claiming that stealth isn't that important,

I don't recall ever making that claim -- perhaps you could vremind
me where I did.

>we should have lost
>them on a regular basis. We didn't.
>
>> How detectable is the F-117 (and F-22) using visual or IR sensors?
>
>With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
>distance.

What do you mean by "safe distance"?

>If you're in a plane, you're not going to be using image
>magnification to find the other guy, unless you know right where he's
>coming from in the first place.

I more had in mind an observer on the ground.

> Even with that, you have camouflage for
>the human optical frequencies,


>and pure IR is not very useful for very
>long ranges.

Why not? Is is more or less useful than visual? Does it make a
difference whether it is day or night? And what do you mean by "lonh
ranges"?

>> A quick BOTE calculation suggests that with clear air conditions, a
>> F-22 would in principle be detectable at 100 km with the sort of
>> digital equipment you can buy in a high street shop (a 10 m wide
>> object would produce an image 10 pixels across, assuming a 1000 mm
>> lens and a focal plane with 100 pixels/mm) though I'm sure in real
>> life conditions wouldn't be good enough to spot it in daylight.
>> Spotting the exhaust at night might be easier, especially for IR
>> sensors.
>
>"Detecting" versus "acquiring and identifying," I'm afraid.

I don't think so. Once something hase been detected, finding its
exact position should be relatively easy. If we are using visual
sensors, we could have several point towards it and use parallax to
get the exact position. (Here I'm only considering using passive
sensors in an air defence system, since they are immune to
anti-radar missiles and anti-radar stealth. (Obviously they are not
immune to making the aircraft smaller, but there are practical
constraints to doing that).)

Once the position is got, the defenses can fire a missile to
intercept, using ground-controlled mid-course guidance, and active
radar (or IR) terminal homing.

Identifying is fairly easy. Either use IFF or the known positions of
friendly aircraft to know whether it's hostile. If you know it's
hostile, use the size of sensor returns to guess more or less what
it is (cruise missile/ small fighter/ big fighter/ AEW), though the
precise nature isn't very important, since in all cases the response
would be the same.

> Narrowing
>down the field of view enough to make visual ID makes for a lot less
>coverage per sweep. If you know where the target is, it gets fairly
>easy, but you have to look in the right direction first, and hope
>there's no clouds or haze in the way.

Yes.

>And if you can manage to "detect" a 10 pixel object, you still have to
>figure out what the heck it is.

Why? You only have to detect whether it's hostile or not.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:47:44 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >
>> >Erm no
>> >
>> >We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
>> >But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
>> >for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.
>>
>> There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
>> anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
>> and open source software more important.
>
>Oh come on , what percentage of PC users even own a C++
>compiler let lone know how to use it ?

Firstly you don't need to have (I don't use the word "own" because
if its a proprietary C++ compiler, you never own it in any
meaningful way) a C++ compiler to use open sourcve software, since
for many packages they are either asvailable with the distribution
on CDROM/DVDROM, or can be downloaded in compiled form.

For example, I am composing this message on an open-source text
editor which is running as part of an open-source nntp reader; I
didn't have to compile either program.

Secondly, when someone (e.g. a network administrator) does have to
compile, it's usually no more complicated than:

../configure
make
make install

These commands are easy to learn, and the same for the vast majority
of open source packages written in C/C++. For packages written in
scripting languages (Perl, Python), or web applications (PHP), no
compilation is necessary. For Java packages, distribution is
typically using Java's JAR format: you just put the .jar file in the
relevant directory.

>> I contend that for many tasks
>> -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
>> word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
>
>But they lack the market share

For now.

The world's most populous country is going for Linux in a big way.
How much market share will open-soruce apps have in 2010?

>> Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
>> It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
>> (those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
>> enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
>> also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
>> don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.
>
>Microsoft have at least as good a selection of foreign fonts
>and character sets as any implementation of Unix I've seen

Perhaps. Though there is at least one language I'm aware of (Farsi)
for which the quality of MS character sets is poor enough to
incentivize people to create Linux/X11 character sets for. I'm sure
there are other languages/charsets for which this is true.

And it's not jsut the characters, it's the words. If you speak a
less-well-known language, then MS won't supply a version of Windows
or Office using commands, emnu items etc in your language. And
there's nothing you can do about it -- in the Microsoft would, you
get what Billy**** says you can have, and if you dson't like it,
tough.

In the Linux world, it's different. If the KDE or GNOME front ends
don't have support for your preferred language, you can just write
them yourself.

>> Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
>> Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
>> anywhere else.
>
>Actually thats where third party software is most succesful

Yes, running on the Microsoft OS. That's really the only area that
Linux is inferior right now. On the PC I'm using to write this, I
use Linux for everything except playing games, when I switch over to
Win98.

>> >If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
>> >governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
>> >developments.
>>
>> But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.
>
>Its even easier to go bust ignoring what your customers
>demand,

I don't see govmts going bust, that's not really a consideration for
them.

>we can sell em Unix versions tomorrow, we
>still support it for existing customers and they are on the
>price book but I dont expect to sell any.

So what sort of products are we talking about here?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:55:33 -0400, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
>> -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
>> word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
>> without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
>> with Microsoft.
>
>Linux is a great OS. I really prefer Unix (Solaris/Linux) to a Windows
>platform.
>
>But I think a lot of the caution amongst business in using Linux is the
>view of it being "hacker software" with no one "in charge".

That's true to some extent, but it's a lot less true than it used to
be.

>Business
>needs someone always available to help solve OS problems and the view
>is that isn't there with Linux. Asking a newsgroup isn't the same as
>having MS available a telephone call away.

No, it's better, in my experience anyway.

When I have a computer problem, if I can't fix it, I use
Google (both on web and groups) to see if anyone's had the same
problem. That usually turns up a fix. If it doesn't, I read the
manual (sign of desperation!) If that doesn't work, I ask on relvant
ngs and/or mailing lists. After doing all this, i will typically
have an answer, if an answer exists.

When I telephone helplines, I usually get someone assumeing I'm too
thick to describe the symptoms of my problem correctly (which is
probably true for many callers), or when stuiff from two suppliers
is concerned, each blames the other's products. If it's MS, the
usual advice is "reboot", or "upgrade to the latest version", oh and
I think they charge something like $99 per incident, whether they
can fix your problem or not.

>Not certain what Linux
>tech support actually is though.

You can actually buy support contracts for Linux.

>MS is trashed by many a programmer, but I think they do make reasonably
>good products (although their concepts of system security seem almost
>a non-concern at times). It's plenty good enough for most users.
>
>Attribute it to my increasing anti-European attitudes, but I think the
>Euro move away from MS is primarily intended to undercut US economic
>power.

To some extent. But I think undercutting American spying
capabilities is probably a more common motive -- the German security
ministry funds open-source encryption software partly for this
reason. MS is perceived as having secret backdoors that the USA
could use to spy on computers, and that's one of the main reasons
the Chinese govmt is going over to Linux for all its own computers
(the other is a desire to use local products).

Of course, this isn't a reason why lots of Americans are
increasingly using Linux. In the USA, as elsewhere, Linux+Apache is
the most common web server platform.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:25:39 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>"phil hunt" wrote
>> Best to use UAVs for bombing.
>
>That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term.

It's happening already. What do you think cruise missiles are? Or
fire-and-forget AT missiles like Brimstone?

The only difference is that if you have your UAV carrying a
laser-guided bomb (instead of being the bomb), you can re-use it.

>Especially with
>SEAD, time lines are short between detection (either way) and the time
>to take the shot. UAVs make the man more distance in the
>sense-decide-act loop and give REMFs more opportunity/requirement to
>review shoot decisions "to prevent collateral damage". Higher feels
>comfortable with a manned platform making the final "shooter"
>decision. It will take a lot of hands-on experience before the command
>chain feels comfortable with UCAVs roaming the battlefield looking for
>something to kill on their own recognizance.

That's true.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:47:44 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Erm no
> >> >
> >> >We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
> >> >But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
> >> >for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.
> >>
> >> There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
> >> anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
> >> and open source software more important.
> >
> >Oh come on , what percentage of PC users even own a C++
> >compiler let lone know how to use it ?
>
> Firstly you don't need to have (I don't use the word "own" because
> if its a proprietary C++ compiler, you never own it in any
> meaningful way) a C++ compiler to use open sourcve software, since
> for many packages they are either asvailable with the distribution
> on CDROM/DVDROM, or can be downloaded in compiled form.
>
> For example, I am composing this message on an open-source text
> editor which is running as part of an open-source nntp reader; I
> didn't have to compile either program.
>
> Secondly, when someone (e.g. a network administrator) does have to
> compile, it's usually no more complicated than:
>
> ./configure
> make
> make install
>

All of which negates the point of open source which is to
be able to make changes. Frankly all Joe Blow wants
is to be able to pop his CD in the drive and hit
the OK Button when its asks if he wants to install it.

> These commands are easy to learn, and the same for the vast majority
> of open source packages written in C/C++. For packages written in
> scripting languages (Perl, Python), or web applications (PHP), no
> compilation is necessary. For Java packages, distribution is
> typically using Java's JAR format: you just put the .jar file in the
> relevant directory.
>

Java is however horribly resource intense and its garbage
collecting strategy is quirky to say the least


> >> I contend that for many tasks
> >> -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> >> word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
> >
> >But they lack the market share
>
> For now.
>
> The world's most populous country is going for Linux in a big way.
> How much market share will open-soruce apps have in 2010?
>

That depends on whether or not they software writers ever get
paid for their work, that market is notorious for piracy.

> >> Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
> >> It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
> >> (those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
> >> enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
> >> also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
> >> don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.
> >
> >Microsoft have at least as good a selection of foreign fonts
> >and character sets as any implementation of Unix I've seen
>
> Perhaps. Though there is at least one language I'm aware of (Farsi)
> for which the quality of MS character sets is poor enough to
> incentivize people to create Linux/X11 character sets for. I'm sure
> there are other languages/charsets for which this is true.
>
> And it's not jsut the characters, it's the words. If you speak a
> less-well-known language, then MS won't supply a version of Windows
> or Office using commands, emnu items etc in your language. And
> there's nothing you can do about it -- in the Microsoft would, you
> get what Billy**** says you can have, and if you dson't like it,
> tough.
>

True to a large degree for Windows but certainly not so for Office

With MS Office you can write add-ins that replace
all the menus with your own in your own language, make
your own buttons with bitmaps and add new functions.

The object model is fully documented and you can even
hook into the events and methods and write your own handlers.
Been there, done that.

If you dont want to use a compiler you can do it with
VBA, done that too. We use Excel as a front end to a
whole group of analysis programs just because its
so easy to interface and the object model is so well
defined.

> In the Linux world, it's different. If the KDE or GNOME front ends
> don't have support for your preferred language, you can just write
> them yourself.
>

Take a look at COM Add-ins for Office some time

> >> Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
> >> Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
> >> anywhere else.
> >
> >Actually thats where third party software is most succesful
>
> Yes, running on the Microsoft OS. That's really the only area that
> Linux is inferior right now. On the PC I'm using to write this, I
> use Linux for everything except playing games, when I switch over to
> Win98.
>
> >> >If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
> >> >governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
> >> >developments.
> >>
> >> But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.
> >
> >Its even easier to go bust ignoring what your customers
> >demand,
>
> I don't see govmts going bust, that's not really a consideration for
> them.
>

Governments arent the main customers for software.
We sell in France , Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
the USA, UK etc etc,few if any of the licenses we sell
are to national governments. A few are to nationalised
indusries like EdF but thats a minority and they are
switching from Unix to Win2K


> >we can sell em Unix versions tomorrow, we
> >still support it for existing customers and they are on the
> >price book but I dont expect to sell any.
>
> So what sort of products are we talking about here?
>

Process Simulation, Equipment Design , Supply Chain
Management, Conceptual Design, Collaborative Engineering
etc etc

http://www.aspentech.com/

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:55:33 -0400, Stephen Harding >
wrote:
> >phil hunt wrote:
> >
> >> Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
> >> -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> >> word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
> >> without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
> >> with Microsoft.
> >
> >Linux is a great OS. I really prefer Unix (Solaris/Linux) to a Windows
> >platform.
> >
> >But I think a lot of the caution amongst business in using Linux is the
> >view of it being "hacker software" with no one "in charge".
>
> That's true to some extent, but it's a lot less true than it used to
> be.
>
> >Business
> >needs someone always available to help solve OS problems and the view
> >is that isn't there with Linux. Asking a newsgroup isn't the same as
> >having MS available a telephone call away.
>
> No, it's better, in my experience anyway.
>
> When I have a computer problem, if I can't fix it, I use
> Google (both on web and groups) to see if anyone's had the same
> problem. That usually turns up a fix. If it doesn't, I read the
> manual (sign of desperation!) If that doesn't work, I ask on relvant
> ngs and/or mailing lists. After doing all this, i will typically
> have an answer, if an answer exists.
>

all of the above are available for MS Products too and the Microsoft
knowledgebase while flawed is a useful resource.

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:24:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
> >> >general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
> >> >good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
> >> >gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges).
> >>
> >> To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.
> >
> >What sort of formula are you using for this?
>
> acquisition_range = k * rcs^0.25
>
> So for every 1% you increase the RCS, you increase acquisition range
> by 0.25%

Okay, I'll go with this. Sounds like a good bottom range.

> > At 100 miles that's still a couple of miles of extra time before
> > acquiring,
>
> 2.5 miles

Okay, a couple and a half. Noting, of course, that the F-22 has an RCS
in the 0.01 meter^2 range over most aspects...

> >The phrase you're looking for is "golden BB."
>
> Never heard of it.

It's what a civilian would call a "lucky shot."

> >But with the number of
> >missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies.
>
> Don't understand you.

Lots of missiles and radar = "heavily defended."

> >And since you're claiming that stealth isn't that important,
>
> I don't recall ever making that claim -- perhaps you could vremind
> me where I did.

By trying to show that it's not that effective, and imagining odd ways
of detecting a plane with non-radar techniques that won't work.

> >With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
> >distance.
>
> What do you mean by "safe distance"?

Far enough away so they won't kill you.

> >If you're in a plane, you're not going to be using image
> >magnification to find the other guy, unless you know right where he's
> >coming from in the first place.
>
> I more had in mind an observer on the ground.

"Hey, a plane just flew over!"

"Great, where is it?"

"Uhhh... it went west..."

> >and pure IR is not very useful for very long ranges.
>
> Why not? Is is more or less useful than visual? Does it make a
> difference whether it is day or night? And what do you mean by "lonh
> ranges"?

See the comment I made about long range above. Call it 100 miles, like
I mentioned earlier in the post. IR isn't good in atmosphere without a
*big* detector, for long ranges, for the same reasons as visual sighting.

> I don't think so. Once something hase been detected, finding its
> exact position should be relatively easy.

Exactly. But you have problems with detecting first, then with
identifying the target without having to resort to radiating or active
measures.

> If we are using visual sensors, we could have several point towards
> it and use parallax to get the exact position.

Each of which would then have to find the very tiny object. That's
covered below.

> (Here I'm only considering using passive sensors in an air defence
> system, since they are immune to anti-radar missiles and anti-radar
> stealth. (Obviously they are not immune to making the aircraft
> smaller, but there are practical constraints to doing that).)

You also lose them for 1/2 of the day (pure optical sensors are not too
good at night), on cloudy days, if there's smoke in the way, if the
sun's behind the target... and you need a *lot* of them. With the
curvature of the Earth in the equation, you're going to need a linked
ground observer station every 20 miles or so - at *best*.

> Once the position is got, the defenses can fire a missile to
> intercept, using ground-controlled mid-course guidance, and active
> radar (or IR) terminal homing.

All of which are vulnerable to spoofing or jamming. Oops.

> Identifying is fairly easy. Either use IFF or the known positions of
> friendly aircraft to know whether it's hostile. If you know it's
> hostile, use the size of sensor returns to guess more or less what
> it is (cruise missile/ small fighter/ big fighter/ AEW), though the
> precise nature isn't very important, since in all cases the response
> would be the same.

So the other guys pop up a plane or two and get you to actively ID them,
or you target them with a long-range radar (that doesn't work because
they're too stealthy), because some guy saw something the couldn't
really identify... and then they kill you between reloads, because the
other "Wild Weasel" plane is at 50,000 feet, above the clouds, unseen by
your ground observers, watching where the missiles came from. Later
that night, they kill your launchers.

> > Narrowing down the field of view enough to make visual ID makes for
> > a lot less coverage per sweep. If you know where the target is, it
> > gets fairly easy, but you have to look in the right direction
> > first, and hope there's no clouds or haze in the way.
>
> Yes.

....and *that's* why people don't use visual acquisition and targeting.
A system with a useful "uptime" of a couple of hours a day is a loser in
so many respects...

> >And if you can manage to "detect" a 10 pixel object, you still have to
> >figure out what the heck it is.
>
> Why? You only have to detect whether it's hostile or not.

And you don't even know what it is...

All the enemy has to do is toss up a few low-end decoys, and you spend a
half hour picking out the one that will kill you. If he wants you
crippled, he drops a few incendiaries on the surrounding terrain, and
you're blind for hours.

They used to have civilian ground observers in WWII, you know. They
stopped using them because it really doesn't work that well.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:25:39 -0400, Paul Austin >
> wrote:
> >"phil hunt" wrote
> >> Best to use UAVs for bombing.
> >
> >That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term.
>
> It's happening already. What do you think cruise missiles are? Or
> fire-and-forget AT missiles like Brimstone?

Really useful against targets with known positions, and pretty useless
when you're out hunting for others? And completely bloody useless if
the other side has actual fighter planes in the air and you don't?

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[BackToNormal]

Keith Willshaw > wrote:

> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..

> > I contend that for many tasks
> > -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> > word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
>
> But they lack the market share

So does Ferarri.

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Keith Willshaw]

"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
. nz...
> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
> > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
>
> > > I contend that for many tasks
> > > -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> > > word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
> >
> > But they lack the market share
>
> So does Ferarri.
>

Actually Ferrari has a good share of the luxury sports car
market.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > (Quant) writes:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > > > > 1967.
> > > > > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > > > > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > > > > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
> > > >
> > > > Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
> > > > same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
> > > > waged an aggressive war.... Gee!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bull
> > >
> > > Japan had lots of choices that would have avoided war in 1941,
> > > they werent prepared to quit invading other countries but
> > > that was a matter of choice. There were no armies ranged
> > > along their borders threatening invasion and genocide,
> > > rather they had invaded Manchuria, China and
> > > French IndoChina killing millions of civilians in the process.
> > >
> > > They then decided to attack the US and British to pave the way
> > > for their invasions of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.
> > >
> > > If the Israelis attack the USN in Bahrain preparatory to an
> > > invasion of Saudi Arabia that will be analagous to Pearl Harbor,
> > > the 6 day war was not.
> >
> > Menachem Begin, Ben-Gurion, and Rabin, along with at least one other
> > prominent Israeli cabinet minister at the time, apparently disagree
> > with you if you are claiming that Israel had no choice in 67. There
> > was no immenent threat of direct conflict with Egypt.
> >
> > "Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
> > much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
> > Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "
> >
> > www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm
> >
> > Begin: "Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November
> > 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to
> > destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence
> > of the state...In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army
> > concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
> > really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
> > decided to attack him."
> >
> > http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Keith
>
>
>
> Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
> "washington-report".

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. WRMEA is NOT a
"Palestinian" organization. The current chairman of the trust is
Reverend Dr. L. Humphrey Walz, former associate executive of the
Presbyterian synod of the Northeast (or are you gonna claim that all
Presbyterians are Palestinian?).

>
> One only needs to enter their site in order to realize that their
> reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
> minister (Sahaf).
>
> http://www.wrmea.com
>
> Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
> neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?

Are you actually claiming that these quotes are inaccurate? That Begin
did *not* make thse statements? Maybe if you read them from different
sources...

"In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in
the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to
attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack
him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
February 28, 1968 )

I guess you are going to claim that the NYT (not exactly known as an
anti-Israel outlet last I heard) and Le Monde are "Palestinian" as
well?

>
> Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
> you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
> that I just disproved. So don't bother...

LOL! Sorry, but snipping is not my game, until it gets to the point of
rants. Now, are you gonna put up or shut up? Did the NYT and Le Monde
make up those quotes?

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > > On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> (Jack White) wrote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
> > > > said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?
> > >
> > > Because it was Israel who planted the "news" about the concentration of
> > > Israeli units, preparing to strike Syria, into the Soviet intel system. The
> > > Egyptian actions - starting with the blockade of the Tyran - was a reaction
> > > to this, prompted by Moscow informing Cairo about the "Israeli intention to
> > > attack Syria".
> > >
> > > > 1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
> > > > 1967.
> > > > 2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
> > > > war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
> > > > annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?
> > >
> > > I don't see this as a "no choice war". Not right from the start. Once Nasser
> > > blocked Tyran and started threating with destruction of Israel, yes, there
> > > was not much other choice but to start a war. The question is only which
> > > kind: had the whole Sinai to be occupied in order to re-open the Tyran?
> > >
> > > Even more so before that there was other choice: before the war there was
> > > still a possibility of negotiation and that is what even Washington urged
> > > Aba Ebban and the others to do.
> >
> > A bit of research via Google will reveal some interesting later
> > acknowledgements by key Israelis that support your statements:
> >
> > "Nevertheless, Israel's leaders did not regard Nasser's acts as
> > threatening. As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli
> > government, said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was
> > invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the
> > annexation of new Arab territory." "
> >
> > Source: http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm
> >
> > "Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
> > much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
> > Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "
> >
> > www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm
> >
> > Even Begin agreed that both the 56 and 67 wars were "wars of choice"
> > on Israel's part, and that it initiated the combat:
> >
> > "It was 12 years ago when Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in
> > public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,"
> > meaning Israel started the wars. Begin's admission came in a speech
> > delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense
> > College. His purpose was to defuse mounting criticism of Israel's
> > invasion of Lebanon, which had begun two months earlier on June 5 and
> > was clearly one of Israel's wars of "choice." The others were in 1956
> > and 1967...[Begin Begin quote] "Our other wars were not without an
> > alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to
> > war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a
> > danger to the existence of the state...In June 1967, we again had a
> > choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do
> > not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest
> > with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of
> > self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of
> > National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the
> > initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the
> > security of Israel and the future of the nation."
> >
> > http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm
> >
> > Unfortunately, conventional wisdom, as exhibited by continual Israeli
> > pronouncements and the meager coverage provided by a main-line media
> > that prefers to stick with the original "Israel was forced into war"
> > concept, means that many today still cling to the old notion that
> > Israel had no choice in its wars with its neighbors that have netted
> > them the land originally mandated to the Palestinians, along with a
> > chunk of Syrian territory.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
>
>
> Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
> "washington-report".

Why do you post the EXACT same response twice to different posts?
Sighhh...well, here it is again:

General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
February 28, 1968 )

Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfoli:
a.. "In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations
in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to
attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack
him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

Again, are you now gonna claim that the NYT and Le Monde are
"Palestinian" fronts? LOL!

Brooks



>
> One only needs to enter their main page in order to realize that their
> reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
> minister (Sahaf).
>
> http://www.wrmea.com
>
> Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
> neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?
>
> Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
> you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
> that I just disproved. So don't bother...
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
> > > > were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
> > > > important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
> > > > created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
> > > > were not the aggressors.
> > >
> > > Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
> > > use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
> > > Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
> > > first".
> > >
> > > In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
> > > that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
> > > everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
> > > considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
> > > Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
> > > enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
> > > movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.
> > >
> > > > I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
> > > > the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.
> > >
> > > If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
> > > was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
> > > If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
> > > why were all these things done?
> > >
> > > Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
> > > nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
> > > anything but an aggressor in 1967.
> > >
> > > > If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
> > > > war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
> > > > picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.
> > >
> > > I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
> > > this regards.
> > >
> > > > It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
> > > > it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
> > > > regarding that war.
> > >
> > > Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
> > > Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
> > > if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
> > > brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
> > > of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
> > > you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
> > > question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.
> > >
> > > The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
> > > threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.
> > >
> > > > 1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
> > > > wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
> > > > choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.
> > >
> > > I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.
> > >
> > > > 2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
> > > > Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
> > > > then the answer is no.
> > >
> > > To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
> > > political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
> > > largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
> > > paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.
> > >
> > > > 3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
> > > > Israel.
> > >
> > > Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
> > > every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
> > > Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
> > > threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
> > > threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
> > > screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
> > > all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
> > > F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
> > > international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
> > > "defence purposes"...
> > >
> > > So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
> > > times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any more: I'm getting sick of such and
> > > similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
> > > any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
> > > politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.
> > >
> > > > 4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
> > > > to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
> > > > is why I started this thread. To get more information.
> > >
> > > Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
> > > Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
> > > in fighting against Israel?
> > >
> > > Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
> > > at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
> > > providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
> > > it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
> > > peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
> > > other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
> > > have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
> > > Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
> > > indicate the same.
> > >
> > > Tom Cooper
> > > Co-Author:
> > > Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> > > http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> > > and,
> > > Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> > > http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

> Why do you post the EXACT same response twice to different posts?
> Sighhh...well, here it is again:
>
> General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
> a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
> he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
> offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
> February 28, 1968 )

With the obvious implication that "if he didn't want war, why did he do
something so bloody stupid?"

What Nasser really wanted was for Israel to roll over and play dead
without a military confrontation. Oops.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul Austin]

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
>
> >Some
> >improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable.
ASRAAM
> >and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
> >technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers
not
> >tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse
can
> >be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.
>
> IIRC all the rest of the entries for which the -9x as-is was
selected
> had bigger motors too.

Yep, they did. The USAF perhaps feels less need for a long range IR
missile since AIM-120 fills that range bin.

[BackToNormal]

Keith Willshaw > wrote:

> "BackToNormal" > wrote in message
> . nz...
> > Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> >
> > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> >
> > > > I contend that for many tasks
> > > > -- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
> > > > word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
> > >
> > > But they lack the market share
> >
> > So does Ferarri.
> >
>
> Actually Ferrari has a good share of the luxury sports car
> market.

Doesnt matter how much spin you try to put on it ---

Linux has a small share of the computer market.
Ferarri has a small share of the auto market.


BOTH lack market share

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:15:39 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>[regarding compiling open source software]
>
>All of which negates the point of open source which is to
>be able to make changes.

The point of open source isn't so much that *you* can make changes,
but that *everyone else* can as well. Which means, for a popular
open source program, the changes you want have perhaps already been
made...

> Frankly all Joe Blow wants
>is to be able to pop his CD in the drive and hit
>the OK Button when its asks if he wants to install it.

Yes, and you can do that with Linux.

>> typically using Java's JAR format: you just put the .jar file in the
>> relevant directory.
>
>Java is however horribly resource intense

It can be, but it is also an appropriate solution to many problems.

>> The world's most populous country is going for Linux in a big way.
>> How much market share will open-soruce apps have in 2010?
>
>That depends on whether or not they software writers ever get
>paid for their work, that market is notorious for piracy.

Piracy is irrelevant consideration to open source software. It is
relevant to proprietary software, where it can reduce revenues,
which is likely to cause open source to predominate over time.

>> I don't see govmts going bust, that's not really a consideration for
>> them.
>
>Governments arent the main customers for software.

For operating systems and office suites, they are. In the UK, the
main customer for these sorts of software is the state. The same in
most other countries.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:09:18 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >But with the number of
>> >missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies.
>>
>> Don't understand you.
>
>Lots of missiles and radar = "heavily defended."

But weren't a lot of them old and obsolescent?

>> >And since you're claiming that stealth isn't that important,
>>
>> I don't recall ever making that claim -- perhaps you could vremind
>> me where I did.
>
>By trying to show that it's not that effective,

I'm not trying to show it isn't effective, I'm trying to find out
how effective or otherwise it might be.

> and imagining odd ways
>of detecting a plane with non-radar techniques that won't work.

You seem to have already decided they won't work. I'm sorry you seem
to have a closed mind on this issue.

>> >With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
>> >distance.
>>
>> What do you mean by "safe distance"?
>
>Far enough away so they won't kill you.

If you are manning a passive sensor, the planes won't know where you
are unless they are virtually on top of you, say a few hundred
meters away. By which time the planes are already dead.

>> >If you're in a plane, you're not going to be using image
>> >magnification to find the other guy, unless you know right where he's
>> >coming from in the first place.
>>
>> I more had in mind an observer on the ground.
>
>"Hey, a plane just flew over!"
>
>"Great, where is it?"
>
>"Uhhh... it went west..."

Er, no. An observer with modern IR and visual electron systems,
linked to a computer network.

>> If we are using visual sensors, we could have several point towards
>> it and use parallax to get the exact position.
>
>Each of which would then have to find the very tiny object. That's
>covered below.

Once the first has, the second knows approximately where to look.

>You also lose them for 1/2 of the day (pure optical sensors are not too
>good at night), on cloudy days, if there's smoke in the way, if the
>sun's behind the target... and you need a *lot* of them. With the
>curvature of the Earth in the equation, you're going to need a linked
>ground observer station every 20 miles or so - at *best*.

I was assuming they'd be closer than that.

>> Once the position is got, the defenses can fire a missile to
>> intercept, using ground-controlled mid-course guidance, and active
>> radar (or IR) terminal homing.
>
>All of which are vulnerable to spoofing or jamming. Oops.

How would it be vulnerable to spoofing, given that the missile and
ground station could use modern cryptographic techniques to verify
each others identity?

>> Identifying is fairly easy. Either use IFF or the known positions of
>> friendly aircraft to know whether it's hostile. If you know it's
>> hostile, use the size of sensor returns to guess more or less what
>> it is (cruise missile/ small fighter/ big fighter/ AEW), though the
>> precise nature isn't very important, since in all cases the response
>> would be the same.
>
>So the other guys pop up a plane or two and get you to actively ID them,
>or you target them with a long-range radar (that doesn't work because
>they're too stealthy), because some guy saw something the couldn't
>really identify... and then they kill you between reloads, because the
>other "Wild Weasel" plane is at 50,000 feet, above the clouds, unseen by
>your ground observers, watching where the missiles came from. Later
>that night, they kill your launchers.

What if each launcher only contains one missile? Or the launchers
are mobile, and move after every launch?

Note that there's no need for the launchers, radars, and other
sensors to be particularly close to each other.

I imagine also that there's no need for the radar transmitters and
receivers to be located together either -- perhaps people with more
knowledge than me can verify this. Also, radio astronomers use
multiple dishes to creatre the effect of one big dish -- I wonder if
this would work with networked radars.

>> > Narrowing down the field of view enough to make visual ID makes for
>> > a lot less coverage per sweep. If you know where the target is, it
>> > gets fairly easy, but you have to look in the right direction
>> > first, and hope there's no clouds or haze in the way.
>>
>> Yes.
>
>...and *that's* why people don't use visual acquisition and targeting.
>A system with a useful "uptime" of a couple of hours a day is a loser in
>so many respects...

People *do* use visual acquisition and tracking. The British army
for example.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> If you are manning a passive sensor, the planes won't know where you
> are unless they are virtually on top of you, say a few hundred
> meters away. By which time the planes are already dead.

A few hundred meters. Except that in a high/high/high precision strike
mission, the closest the planes get to you is nine miles straight up.

> Er, no. An observer with modern IR and visual electron systems,
> linked to a computer network.

As Phil busily reinvents the WWII Ground Observer Corps...

> Once the first has, the second knows approximately where to look.

And by the time they figure that out, the first guy's lost it. The best
you could hope for is a whole string of guys saying "I saw a plane a
minute or so back." Run a half-dozen planes through at a time, and
suddenly half of your planes get through with no effective ID.

> >You also lose them for 1/2 of the day (pure optical sensors are not too
> >good at night), on cloudy days, if there's smoke in the way, if the
> >sun's behind the target... and you need a *lot* of them. With the
> >curvature of the Earth in the equation, you're going to need a linked
> >ground observer station every 20 miles or so - at *best*.
>
> I was assuming they'd be closer than that.

So, for a country the size of, say, Iraq, you'd need an observer every
ten miles (each being responsible for about 30 square miles - you have
to have some overlap), linked together with a modern computer/comm
network. You'd have 6000 observer stations, each with at least four
observers on duty at all times, hoping for clear weather. And only
working in daylight. Manpower alone would take up about 24,000 people
on duty... with support crews, tech, extra coverage, you're looking at
30,000 to 50,000 people. For a system that only works part of the time,
at best.

> What if each launcher only contains one missile? Or the launchers
> are mobile, and move after every launch?

You keep putting restrictions on the usefulness of your system...

> Note that there's no need for the launchers, radars, and other
> sensors to be particularly close to each other.

No, you pretty much killed the whole thing with the manpower
requirements for the optical part.

> People *do* use visual acquisition and tracking. The British army
> for example.

Everyone does, sorta. Nobody *relies* on it any more, though, because
it's really not that effective for anything other than "hey, look, a
plane," or "did you hear something?"

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:15:39 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >[regarding compiling open source software]
>
> Piracy is irrelevant consideration to open source software. It is
> relevant to proprietary software, where it can reduce revenues,
> which is likely to cause open source to predominate over time.
>

Its highly relevant when software costs a shedload of money
to develop. Developing software that does complex tasks
like process simulation costs a LOT of money and contrary to
popular belief many software companies walk a line awfully
close to bankruptcy. Finding that your software can be bought for
$2 a time in Beijing is mighty disheartening

> >> I don't see govmts going bust, that's not really a consideration for
> >> them.
> >
> >Governments arent the main customers for software.
>
> For operating systems and office suites, they are. In the UK, the
> main customer for these sorts of software is the state. The same in
> most other countries.
>

Cite please.

I seriously doubt the UK Government owns the majority
of PC's in this country

Keith

[Quant]

[snip, save space]

> > >
> > > www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104034.htm
> > >
> > > Even Begin agreed that both the 56 and 67 wars were "wars of choice"
> > > on Israel's part, and that it initiated the combat:
> > >
> > > "It was 12 years ago when Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in
> > > public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,"
> > > meaning Israel started the wars. Begin's admission came in a speech
> > > delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense
> > > College. His purpose was to defuse mounting criticism of Israel's
> > > invasion of Lebanon, which had begun two months earlier on June 5 and
> > > was clearly one of Israel's wars of "choice." The others were in 1956
> > > and 1967...[Begin Begin quote] "Our other wars were not without an
> > > alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to
> > > war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a
> > > danger to the existence of the state...In June 1967, we again had a
> > > choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do
> > > not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest
> > > with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of
> > > self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of
> > > National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the
> > > initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the
> > > security of Israel and the future of the nation."
> > >
> > > http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, conventional wisdom, as exhibited by continual Israeli
> > > pronouncements and the meager coverage provided by a main-line media
> > > that prefers to stick with the original "Israel was forced into war"
> > > concept, means that many today still cling to the old notion that
> > > Israel had no choice in its wars with its neighbors that have netted
> > > them the land originally mandated to the Palestinians, along with a
> > > chunk of Syrian territory.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
> > "washington-report".
>
> Why do you post the EXACT same response twice to different posts?
> Sighhh...well, here it is again:
>
> General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
> a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
> he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
> offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
> February 28, 1968 )
>
> Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfoli:
> a.. "In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations
> in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to
> attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack
> him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)
>
> Again, are you now gonna claim that the NYT and Le Monde are
> "Palestinian" fronts? LOL!
>
> Brooks
>
>

I looked for it again and didn't find it in any reliable site on the net.
I tried searching with google, copernic and on Hebrew.




>
> >
> > One only needs to enter their main page in order to realize that their
> > reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
> > minister (Sahaf).
> >
> > http://www.wrmea.com
> >
> > Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
> > neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?
> >
> > Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
> > you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
> > that I just disproved. So don't bother...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
> > > > > were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
> > > > > important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
> > > > > created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
> > > > > were not the aggressors.
> > > >
> > > > Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
> > > > use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
> > > > Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
> > > > first".
> > > >
> > > > In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
> > > > that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
> > > > everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
> > > > considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
> > > > Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
> > > > enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
> > > > movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.
> > > >
> > > > > I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
> > > > > the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.
> > > >
> > > > If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
> > > > was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
> > > > If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
> > > > why were all these things done?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
> > > > nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
> > > > anything but an aggressor in 1967.
> > > >
> > > > > If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
> > > > > war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
> > > > > picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.
> > > >
> > > > I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
> > > > this regards.
> > > >
> > > > > It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
> > > > > it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
> > > > > regarding that war.
> > > >
> > > > Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
> > > > Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
> > > > if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
> > > > brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
> > > > of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
> > > > you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
> > > > question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.
> > > >
> > > > The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
> > > > threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.
> > > >
> > > > > 1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
> > > > > wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
> > > > > choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.
> > > >
> > > > I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
> > > > > Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
> > > > > then the answer is no.
> > > >
> > > > To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
> > > > political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
> > > > largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
> > > > paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.
> > > >
> > > > > 3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
> > > > > Israel.
> > > >
> > > > Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
> > > > every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
> > > > Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
> > > > threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
> > > > threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
> > > > screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
> > > > all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
> > > > F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
> > > > international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
> > > > "defence purposes"...
> > > >
> > > > So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
> > > > times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any more: I'm getting sick of such and
> > > > similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
> > > > any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
> > > > politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.
> > > >
> > > > > 4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
> > > > > to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
> > > > > is why I started this thread. To get more information.
> > > >
> > > > Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
> > > > Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
> > > > in fighting against Israel?
> > > >
> > > > Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
> > > > at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
> > > > providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
> > > > it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
> > > > peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
> > > > other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
> > > > have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
> > > > Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
> > > > indicate the same.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Cooper
> > > > Co-Author:
> > > > Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> > > > http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> > > > and,
> > > > Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
> > > > http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 04:40:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> If you are manning a passive sensor, the planes won't know where you
>> are unless they are virtually on top of you, say a few hundred
>> meters away. By which time the planes are already dead.
>
>A few hundred meters. Except that in a high/high/high precision strike
>mission, the closest the planes get to you is nine miles straight up.

And how are planes going to detect a camoflaged passive sensor at 9
miles? It's a lot harder that a guy on the ground detecting a plane
9 miles up -- the contrast with the sky is obvious.

>> Er, no. An observer with modern IR and visual electron systems,
>> linked to a computer network.
>
>As Phil busily reinvents the WWII Ground Observer Corps...
>
>> Once the first has, the second knows approximately where to look.
>
>And by the time they figure that out,

Ever heard of electronics? Electronic messages are transmitted very
quickly, and computers can process billions of instructions per
second.

>the first guy's lost it. The best
>you could hope for is a whole string of guys saying "I saw a plane a
>minute or so back."

Are you stupid, or are you deliberately not understanding?

> Run a half-dozen planes through at a time, and
>suddenly half of your planes get through with no effective ID.
>
>> >You also lose them for 1/2 of the day (pure optical sensors are not too
>> >good at night), on cloudy days, if there's smoke in the way, if the
>> >sun's behind the target... and you need a *lot* of them. With the
>> >curvature of the Earth in the equation, you're going to need a linked
>> >ground observer station every 20 miles or so - at *best*.
>>
>> I was assuming they'd be closer than that.
>
>So, for a country the size of, say, Iraq,

In Iraq, a lot of the country is unpopulated desert. This is true of
most countries. Obviously some areas would be more heavily defended
than others -- around the national capital, for example.

>you'd need an observer every
>ten miles (each being responsible for about 30 square miles - you have
>to have some overlap), linked together with a modern computer/comm
>network. You'd have 6000 observer stations,

I've no idea where you get this number from.

>each with at least four
>observers on duty at all times, hoping for clear weather. And only
>working in daylight.

IR works at night.

>Manpower alone would take up about 24,000 people
>on duty... with support crews, tech, extra coverage, you're looking at
>30,000 to 50,000 people. For a system that only works part of the time,
>at best.

Say 50,000. Using Iraq as an example, again, the population of that
country is roughly 25 million, so we're talking about 0.2% of
them, most of who would be reservists. By way of contrast, during
WW2 the UK with roughly twice that population employed 1 million in
the RAF.

>> What if each launcher only contains one missile? Or the launchers
>> are mobile, and move after every launch?
>
>You keep putting restrictions on the usefulness of your system...

Placing each launcher separately does not restrict the usefulness of
the system; it enhances it by making it more survivable.

>> Note that there's no need for the launchers, radars, and other
>> sensors to be particularly close to each other.
>
>No, you pretty much killed the whole thing with the manpower
>requirements for the optical part.
>
>> People *do* use visual acquisition and tracking. The British army
>> for example.
>
>Everyone does, sorta. Nobody *relies* on it any more, though, because
>it's really not that effective for anything other than "hey, look, a
>plane," or "did you hear something?"

You are wrong. The British army uses it to shoot down aircraft, not
just to spot them. Google Starstreak if you don't beleive me.

Other missile systems that use some of the ideas I'vre been
discussing are the Swedish RBS 23 BAMSE, which can use IR sensors,
the US Avenger, the French Mistral, and indeed all IR missiles.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:06:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:15:39 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >[regarding compiling open source software]
>>
>> Piracy is irrelevant consideration to open source software. It is
>> relevant to proprietary software, where it can reduce revenues,
>> which is likely to cause open source to predominate over time.
>
>Its highly relevant when software costs a shedload of money
>to develop. Developing software that does complex tasks
>like process simulation costs a LOT of money and contrary to
>popular belief many software companies walk a line awfully
>close to bankruptcy. Finding that your software can be bought for
>$2 a time in Beijing is mighty disheartening

Then perhaps the proprietary software model is outdated, at least
for some application areas. Had a typical Linux distribution been
made by traditional proprietary techniques, it would cost $ 2
billion to develop. Yet it was developed anyway, without being able
to recoup revenue by sale of copies.

I don't know how many people use process simulation software, so it
may not be a good example. But I'll use it anyway -- you can
imagine I'm talking about a different application area if you like.

Someone writes a simple program to to process simulation. it isn't
very sophisticated, but it does the job for the needs of that one
user. He releases it as open source. Someone else finds it *almost*
fulfills their needs, and extends it, giving their changes back to
the first person. A third person works for a largish company and
realises that with a bit of effort this package could be useful to
them -- so they add to the code and can use it. Eventually, the
package gets more and more features applied to it, and can do
everything the proprietary packages can do.

As I said, I don't know much about process simulation, but there are
open source packages that have been extended in just that way.

>> For operating systems and office suites, they are. In the UK, the
>> main customer for these sorts of software is the state. The same in
>> most other countries.
>
>Cite please.
>
>I seriously doubt the UK Government owns the majority
>of PC's in this country

I never said it, did, only that it owns more than anyone else.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:06:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:15:39 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> > wrote:
> >> >[regarding compiling open source software]
> >>
> >> Piracy is irrelevant consideration to open source software. It is
> >> relevant to proprietary software, where it can reduce revenues,
> >> which is likely to cause open source to predominate over time.
> >
> >Its highly relevant when software costs a shedload of money
> >to develop. Developing software that does complex tasks
> >like process simulation costs a LOT of money and contrary to
> >popular belief many software companies walk a line awfully
> >close to bankruptcy. Finding that your software can be bought for
> >$2 a time in Beijing is mighty disheartening
>
> Then perhaps the proprietary software model is outdated, at least
> for some application areas. Had a typical Linux distribution been
> made by traditional proprietary techniques, it would cost $ 2
> billion to develop. Yet it was developed anyway, without being able
> to recoup revenue by sale of copies.
>
> I don't know how many people use process simulation software, so it
> may not be a good example. But I'll use it anyway -- you can
> imagine I'm talking about a different application area if you like.
>
> Someone writes a simple program to to process simulation. it isn't
> very sophisticated, but it does the job for the needs of that one
> user. He releases it as open source. Someone else finds it *almost*
> fulfills their needs, and extends it, giving their changes back to
> the first person. A third person works for a largish company and
> realises that with a bit of effort this package could be useful to
> them -- so they add to the code and can use it. Eventually, the
> package gets more and more features applied to it, and can do
> everything the proprietary packages can do.
>

I'm aware of how open source works and for some applications
its great. I have used GNU emacs for may years for example.

> As I said, I don't know much about process simulation, but there are
> open source packages that have been extended in just that way.
>

Process simulation is VERY different. For one thing the knowledge
base is often proprietary and we spend a lot of money licensing
that technology but more important a process simulator is
a massive piece of software developed by teams in multiple
locations around the world. The other issue is that the
output is safety critical, getting it wrong at best results in
a millions or billions of dollars being spent on failed designs
and at worst you kill a bunch of people. For this reason the
testing, QC and vaildation process is long and involved.

A new release typically takes between 50 and 200 man years
of development and testing time.

> >> For operating systems and office suites, they are. In the UK, the
> >> main customer for these sorts of software is the state. The same in
> >> most other countries.
> >
> >Cite please.
> >
> >I seriously doubt the UK Government owns the majority
> >of PC's in this country
>
> I never said it, did, only that it owns more than anyone else.
>

Then by definition they arent the majority purchaser, just another
large customer.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:30:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:02:28 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>>Have you seen the plots, Al, or just LockMart propaganda? What aspect
>>>and frequency are we discussing?
>>>
>>No, I have not seen the plots, but looking at, for instance the
>>forward aspect, the inlets and turbine blades are going to light up a
>>radar at quite a range.
>
>You mean before or after the redesign to eliminate just that hotspot?

What "redesign"? (not being sarky here, I would really like to know
:-))
>
>>>Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
>>>much better.
>>>
>>>On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
>>>Raptors...
>>
>>They will need them.
>
>Why? Are we expecting to fight F-22s?

No, that would be suicidal. But you will need at least five Typhoons
to equal one F-22.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:04:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
> wrote:

>
>Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
>same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
>waged an aggressive war.... Gee!

The japanese had every choice. All they had to do was stop the war of
aggression that they had been waging since 1937. Their despicable
attack on Pearl Harbor was an extension of that war.

They were incredibly stupid in attacking the US.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:30:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>You mean before or after the redesign to eliminate just that hotspot?
>
>What "redesign"? (not being sarky here, I would really like to know
>:-))

Early 1990s. Some say it was a panic reaction to Desert Storm and "we
gotta be stealthier", others that it was a wise move taking advantage of
German delay to significantly reduce the RCS, truth probably in the
middle.

>>Why? Are we expecting to fight F-22s?
>
>No, that would be suicidal. But you will need at least five Typhoons
>to equal one F-22.

On what measure?

Trouble is, both seriously outclass current and projected threats - but
for a given budget, you're a lot more likely to have Typhoons available
to throw at the threat: means more Red raids intercepted, and more
offensive sorties generated.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[L'acrobat]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:30:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"

> >>>On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
> >>>Raptors...
> >>
> >>They will need them.
> >
> >Why? Are we expecting to fight F-22s?
>
> No, that would be suicidal. But you will need at least five Typhoons
> to equal one F-22.

So you are saying it will be cheaper to buy the Typhoons to do the job than
the F-22? :-p

But seriously, what is the F-22 buy number down to now? and what is the unit
price up to?

[Guy Alcala]

Paul Austin wrote:

> "Scott Ferrin" wrote
> >
> > >Some
> > >improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable.
> ASRAAM
> > >and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
> > >technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers
> not
> > >tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse
> can
> > >be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.
> >
> > IIRC all the rest of the entries for which the -9x as-is was
> selected
> > had bigger motors too.
>
> Yep, they did. The USAF perhaps feels less need for a long range IR
> missile since AIM-120 fills that range bin.

Exactly right. That, and they had a lot of AIM-9s (at least half of the
24,000 in stock) available to convert. FWIW, here's some data from the
Air International article "Battle of the Missiles" by John Fricker in the
Feb. 1997 issue:

"Two Sidewinder-derived reduced airframe drag configurations were
proposed by the Pentagon in April 1993, as AIM-9X options. From the USAF
came the wingless Box Office concept, using very small (28cm/11 in span)
all-moving tail-mounted fin controls, with no foreplanes, plus digital
autopilot stabilisation, while the Naval Weapons Center's relaxed
stability Boa project employed a clipped canard and fin configuration
(40.64cm/16 in. span each), with a similar autopilot."

"In broad terms, Box Office was expected to halve the drag of the current
AIM-9M8/9 and double its 8km (4.3nm) range. A speed increase of up to
Mach 1.3 over the original Mach 2.5 was also sought, with doubled
g-limits. Boa has higher drag and hence a reduced range and maximum
speed, but it has less speed loss in turns. . . ."

"AIM-9X seeker performance targets included increasing clear sky target
acquisition range to 13-16km (7 - 8 3/4 nm) and 6.6km (3 1/2 nm) in
ground clutter. . . ."

He then goes on to give descriptions of the Iris-T, ASRAAM, P4 and Magic
2 and their variants on offer, and says why each was rejected. The
design eventually selected was a Hughes version called Box Office 2 Plus,
although it seems to have the clipped canard/fins Fricker attributes to
Boa.

Guy

[lisieux]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...

>
> > The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn expensive.
> > Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
> > it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.
>
> There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."


The luftwaffe towards the end of WWII were actively pursuing a
strategy of resistance which might involve conflict without access to
any natural or synthetic oil resources. That tends to suggest that the
Luftwaffe not only sought miracles but were planing on those miracles
the same way the allies depended on routine logistics.

[Keith Willshaw]

"lisieux" > wrote in message
om...
> Chad Irby > wrote in message
>...
>
> >
> > > The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn
expensive.
> > > Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
> > > it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.
> >
> > There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."
>
>
> The luftwaffe towards the end of WWII were actively pursuing a
> strategy of resistance which might involve conflict without access to
> any natural or synthetic oil resources.

If by that you mean their aircraft were grounded for lack of fuel
I'll agree. As I recall they issued ground crews with rifles and
used them as infantry.

> That tends to suggest that the
> Luftwaffe not only sought miracles but were planing on those miracles
> the same way the allies depended on routine logistics.

It sounds more like they were out of fuel, pilots and options
to me, everything was in short supply except propaganda.

Keith