Singapore down selects three fighters...

[John Cook]

Singapore has down selected the F15, Rafale and the Eurofighter
typhoon for their next generation fighter....

The F16, F18E/f and Sukhoi Su-30MK were rejected.


"Asked how the final three were chosen, Mindef said it had looked at
several factors like operational performance, the availability of
spares, the cost of operating the aircraft over its lifespan and the
potential for it to be upgraded."

Cheers
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 :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:51:43 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>Singapore has down selected the F15, Rafale and the Eurofighter
>typhoon for their next generation fighter....
>
>The F16, F18E/f and Sukhoi Su-30MK were rejected.

I'm surprised the F-16 was ruled out, sincre Singapore already
operates that plane.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[AL]

It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.

IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
fast.

Pity the people that have to make the decision. One thing that is for
sure, it is going to worth the admission tickets to Asian Aeropspace
2004. All down selects are required to do demos. Quite an event since
no one in this side of the ocean has seen a real Typhoon.

phil hunt wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:51:43 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>
>
>>Singapore has down selected the F15, Rafale and the Eurofighter
>>typhoon for their next generation fighter....
>>
>>The F16, F18E/f and Sukhoi Su-30MK were rejected.
>>
>>
>
>I'm surprised the F-16 was ruled out, sincre Singapore already
>operates that plane.
>
>
>

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

[David Bromage]

AL wrote:
> It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
> do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
>
> IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
> too complicated and the road map is too short to operate.

I think the F-15 has a very good chance. Bear in mind their next door
neighbours are getting Su-30s.

Cheers
David

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +0800, AL > wrote:
>It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>about the Congress idiosyncrasies.

"Everyone"? I don't.

> Not to mention there may be plans to
>do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
>
>IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
>too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
>programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
>fast.
>
>Pity the people that have to make the decision. One thing that is for
>sure, it is going to worth the admission tickets to Asian Aeropspace
>2004. All down selects are required to do demos. Quite an event since
>no one in this side of the ocean has seen a real Typhoon.

So when will the final decision be made?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:29:56 +1000, David Bromage > wrote:
>AL wrote:
> > It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> > about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
> > do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
> >
> > IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
> > too complicated and the road map is too short to operate.
>
>I think the F-15 has a very good chance. Bear in mind their next door
>neighbours are getting Su-30s.

If the want a counter to the Su-30, wouldn't something more modern
than the F-15 be approprate?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[David Bromage]

phil hunt wrote:
> If the want a counter to the Su-30, wouldn't something more modern
> than the F-15 be approprate?

How about an F-15K?

Cheers
David

[Rick & Andrea]

I was part of the Singapore eval last year of the Strike Eagle, and they
aren't really keen on having a 2 seat fighter. They had some very
interesting philosophies about what they'd do with the rear cockpit.


"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> phil hunt wrote:
> > If the want a counter to the Su-30, wouldn't something more modern
> > than the F-15 be approprate?
>
> How about an F-15K?
>
> Cheers
> David
>

[David Bromage]

If the F-15 isn't a likely contender, then yes it comes down to the
Rafale v Typhoon. At the risk of starting another "my plane is bigger
than your plane" flamewar, which of these two would you rather have if
your neighbour is getting Su-30s in 2-3 years?

Cheers
David

[John Cook]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:59:56 -0800, "Rick & Andrea"
> wrote:

>I was part of the Singapore eval last year of the Strike Eagle, and they
>aren't really keen on having a 2 seat fighter. They had some very
>interesting philosophies about what they'd do with the rear cockpit.
>
>
What were some of the things they were looking for, if you can tell
us...

just interested ;-)

>"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
>> phil hunt wrote:
>> > If the want a counter to the Su-30, wouldn't something more modern
>> > than the F-15 be approprate?
>>
>> How about an F-15K?
>>
>> Cheers
>> David
>>
>

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 :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, AL > wrote:

> It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
> do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.

Not likely. They may upgrade the block 52s but not to near block 60.
The airframe and systems are too different to make it economical.


> IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
> too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
> programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
> fast.

It's all about loiter time and weapons. In a way, this almost mirrors the
Korean decision.
The fact that they operate F-16s becomes a plus for the F-15 wrt
engine support.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:29:56 +1000, David Bromage
> wrote:
> >AL wrote:
> > > It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> > > about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
> > > do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
> > >
> > > IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
> > > too complicated and the road map is too short to operate.
> >
> >I think the F-15 has a very good chance. Bear in mind their next door
> >neighbours are getting Su-30s.
>
> If the want a counter to the Su-30, wouldn't something more modern
> than the F-15 be approprate?

It's all about loiter time and weapons.
An amraam is faster than an Su-30.
And I can assure you that the newest F-15s have extremely modern
avionics and weapons. Unsurpassed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:39:30 +1000, David Bromage > wrote:
>If the F-15 isn't a likely contender, then yes it comes down to the
>Rafale v Typhoon. At the risk of starting another "my plane is bigger
>than your plane" flamewar, which of these two would you rather have if
>your neighbour is getting Su-30s in 2-3 years?

The Typhoon, it's more manouvrable, has a better power-to-weight
ratio, and has supercruise.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:07:05 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>In article >, AL > wrote:
>
>> It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>> about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
>> do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
>
>Not likely. They may upgrade the block 52s but not to near block 60.
>The airframe and systems are too different to make it economical.
>
>
>> IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
>> too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
>> programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
>> fast.
>
>It's all about loiter time and weapons. In a way, this almost mirrors the
>Korean decision.
>The fact that they operate F-16s becomes a plus for the F-15 wrt
>engine support.

If commonality of parts was a strong criterion, they'd go for more
F-16s.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[AL]

phil hunt wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +0800, AL > wrote:
>
>
>>It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>>about the Congress idiosyncrasies.
>>
>>
>
>"Everyone"? I don't.
>
The stopped sale of laser ring gyro for the A4, you can buy but you
can't have AMRAAM . Just to mention the few that is in public domain.

>
>
>>
>>
>
>So when will the final decision be made?
>
>
>
End 2004?

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

[AL]

Yes, the newest F-15s is most impressive. But there isn't any planned
future development. All funds are directed towards F-35.

If you are considering F-15K/T against other aircraft, that is
definitely not good.
Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
head to head?

Harry Andreas wrote:

>It's all about loiter time and weapons.
>An amraam is faster than an Su-30.
>And I can assure you that the newest F-15s have extremely modern
>avionics and weapons. Unsurpassed.
>
>
>

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

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:33:45 +0800, AL > wrote:
>
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +0800, AL > wrote:
>>
>>>It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>>>about the Congress idiosyncrasies.
>>
>>"Everyone"? I don't.
>>
>The stopped sale of laser ring gyro for the A4, you can buy but you
>can't have AMRAAM . Just to mention the few that is in public domain.

Why wouldn't the USA sell AMRAAM?

Still, your main argument is right: Europeans have few problems
selling the latest military kit to people.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[AL]

This side of the pond, you can buy the AMRAAM, but you can't get it
delivered. Something to do about not introducing the latest weapon in
the region.

Israeli stuff is really good and they no qualms about releasing source
code. My theory is that they are not so hot on world domination.

phil hunt wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:33:45 +0800, AL > wrote:
>
>
>>phil hunt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +0800, AL > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>>>>about the Congress idiosyncrasies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"Everyone"? I don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The stopped sale of laser ring gyro for the A4, you can buy but you
>>can't have AMRAAM . Just to mention the few that is in public domain.
>>
>>
>
>Why wouldn't the USA sell AMRAAM?
>
>Still, your main argument is right: Europeans have few problems
>selling the latest military kit to people.
>
>
>
>

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

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:07:05 -0700, Harry Andreas >
wrote:
> >In article >, AL > wrote:
> >
> >> It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> >> about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
> >> do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
> >
> >Not likely. They may upgrade the block 52s but not to near block 60.
> >The airframe and systems are too different to make it economical.
> >
> >
> >> IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
> >> too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
> >> programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
> >> fast.
> >
> >It's all about loiter time and weapons. In a way, this almost mirrors the
> >Korean decision.
> >The fact that they operate F-16s becomes a plus for the F-15 wrt
> >engine support.
>
> If commonality of parts was a strong criterion, they'd go for more
> F-16s.

Like the Koreans, I think they want loiter time plus 2 engines.
While the Koreans worry about mountainous terrain and no airfields,
Singapore worries about lots of water and no airfields.
The Koreans of course, wanted a ground attack multi-role a/c
while Singapore looks to want air superiority, but their concerns are
similar.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, AL > wrote:

> Yes, the newest F-15s is most impressive. But there isn't any planned
> future development. All funds are directed towards F-35.

All US funds...maybe. There are upgrades programs underway for
AESA radar on F-15Cs. Probably other upgrades, too.
Plus Macair...oops, Boeing, will put in their own money if a sale looks in
the offing.


> If you are considering F-15K/T against other aircraft, that is
> definitely not good.

No, just a comparison of concerns, not missions.


> Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
> did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
> this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
> head to head?

That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:54:15 +0800, AL > wrote:
>This side of the pond, you can buy the AMRAAM, but you can't get it
>delivered. Something to do about not introducing the latest weapon in
>the region.
>
>Israeli stuff is really good and they no qualms about releasing source
>code.

Anyone buying sophisticated weapons should insist on getting the
source code, for two reasons:

1. to make it less likely there's a back door causing the weapon to
stop working

2. so the weapon can be adapted for use with other equipment

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:50:21 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>
>> Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
>> did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
>> this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
>> head to head?
>
>That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
>are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.

They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
think the F-35C falls in that category).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:09:46 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:50:21 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
>>> did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
>>> this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
>>> head to head?
>>
>>That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
>>are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.
>
>They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>think the F-35C falls in that category).

Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
RR) AESA, 360 degree IRST, stealth, -9X, . . .hell the list goes on
and on.

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:09:46 +0100, (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>>
>>They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>>better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>>think the F-35C falls in that category).
>
>Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
>before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
>RR)

Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),
giving F-35 a

> AESA,

What's this?

>360 degree IRST,

My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.

>stealth, -9X,

The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
the F-35, they have the ability to decide at what range the
engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
weight ratio and lower wing loading. F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.

(BTW, is it right that the F-35's weapons bay is too small to fit in
some weapons like ASRAAM? My understanding is ASRAAM has a larger
diameter than AIM-9X, giving it potential for greater
range/acceleration).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[guy wastiaux]

Rafale also has an IRST : it's called OSF : it's got a true IRST and
another tracking device (dunno how it's called though. It ressembles a
bit the one used on initial production F-14As). Besides, Eurofigther
isn't as versatile as the Rafale, considering mainly ATG capability.
Otherwise, the Eurofighter seems to be like THE air defence fighter.

Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
> before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
> RR) AESA, 360 degree IRST, stealth, -9X, . . .hell the list goes on
> and on.


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:50:21 -0700, Harry Andreas >
wrote:
> >
> >> Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
> >> did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
> >> this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
> >> head to head?
> >
> >That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
> >are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.
>
> They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
> better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
> think the F-35C falls in that category).

Is it better than an Amraam?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> > AESA,
>
> What's this?

Active Array radar. Higher performance and more versatile than
mechanicaly scanned planar arrays. More reliable too.


> >360 degree IRST,
>
> My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.

the 360 part is very important.


> >stealth, -9X,
>
> The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
> that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
> going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
> to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
> the F-35, they have the ability to decide at what range the
> engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
> the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
> weight ratio and lower wing loading. F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
> late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
> unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.

You seem fixated on close range combat.
Postulating a South Asia Typhoon v F-35 engagement, what makes
you think the more stealthy F-35 won't use NCTR then shoot the
Typhoon in the face BVR with an AIM-120?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:34:11 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>In article >,
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:50:21 -0700, Harry Andreas >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
>> >> did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
>> >> this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
>> >> head to head?
>> >
>> >That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
>> >are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.
>>
>> They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>> better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>> think the F-35C falls in that category).
>
>Is it better than an Amraam?

Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:17:10 +0200, guy wastiaux >
wrote:

>Rafale also has an IRST : it's called OSF : it's got a true IRST and
>another tracking device (dunno how it's called though. It ressembles a
>bit the one used on initial production F-14As). Besides, Eurofigther
>isn't as versatile as the Rafale, considering mainly ATG capability.
>Otherwise, the Eurofighter seems to be like THE air defence fighter.

Neither Rafale nor Eurofighter is even in the same league with the
F-22 and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafae are capable aircraft, but not
capable of living in the same sky with the -22 or -35.

Al Minyard

[Mike]

Like in Korea last year,it will may depend on "diplomatic questions",then
F.15 is on the way.
But like in Korea last year also,Rafale will certainly win technical
evaluations.So wait and see.



"David Bromage" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> AL wrote:
> > It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> > about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans
to
> > do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
> >
> > IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15
is
> > too complicated and the road map is too short to operate.
>
> I think the F-15 has a very good chance. Bear in mind their next door
> neighbours are getting Su-30s.
>
> Cheers
> David
>

[Mike]

Rafale has also supercruise.


"John Cook" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:59:56 -0800, "Rick & Andrea"
> > wrote:
>
> >I was part of the Singapore eval last year of the Strike Eagle, and they
> >aren't really keen on having a 2 seat fighter. They had some very
> >interesting philosophies about what they'd do with the rear cockpit.
> >
> >
> What were some of the things they were looking for, if you can tell
> us...
>
> just interested ;-)
>
> >"David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> phil hunt wrote:
> >> > If the want a counter to the Su-30, wouldn't something more modern
> >> > than the F-15 be approprate?
> >>
> >> How about an F-15K?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> David
> >>
> >
>
> 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 :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Mike]

Not the kind of aircraft they need this time.
Nor as Mirage 2000-5


"Frank Vaughan" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> In message >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:51:43 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:
> > >Singapore has down selected the F15, Rafale and the Eurofighter
> > >typhoon for their next generation fighter....
> > >
> > >The F16, F18E/f and Sukhoi Su-30MK were rejected.
> >
> > I'm surprised the F-16 was ruled out, sincre Singapore already
> > operates that plane.
>
> Well, they probably need something that does not routinely fall
> out of the sky, like the Lawn Dart is regularly doing.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"
> Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships
> 16th Special Operations Squadron (USAF)
> "We were winning when I left."
> Visit my Gunship page at: www.gunships.org

[Thomas Schoene]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> > Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
> > before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so
> > says RR)
>
> Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),

Rolls-Royce. They're working with GE on the F136 engine, which is the
alternative to the Pratt Whitney F135 specified for the first JSF batches.
The 56,000-lb figure came from Rolls-Ryce a couple of years ago; everyone
else is sticking to "40,000-lb class" for both F135 and F136.

>
> The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
> that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
> going for an air superiority fighter). S

Here you're comapring apples and oranges. AIM-9X is a dogfight missile; the
Eurofighter counterpart is ASRAAM. Meteor is a BVR missile; the US
counterpart is AMRAAM (which is shorter ranged) or one of several proposed
AMRAAM gowth options.

o the Typhoons would be able
> to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
> the F-35, they have the ability to decide at what range the
> engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
> the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
> weight ratio and lower wing loading. F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
> late models of the Typhoon might too.

JSF does not have thrust vectoring, the tail nozzle moves only for vertical
flight.

> Typhoon is dynamically
> unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.

But are like to the be dynamically unstable.

> (BTW, is it right that the F-35's weapons bay is too small to fit in
> some weapons like ASRAAM? My understanding is ASRAAM has a larger
> diameter than AIM-9X, giving it potential for greater
> range/acceleration).

The bays are designed for AMRAAM and 2000-lb JDAMS. ASRAAM will certainly
fit, but Meteor may not.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:44:07 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>In article >,
wrote:
>
>> > AESA,
>>
>> What's this?
>
>Active Array radar. Higher performance and more versatile than
>mechanicaly scanned planar arrays. More reliable too.

At the moment Typhoon uses the CAPTOR radar, but this may well
change to the AMSAR active array radar in future. There's also the
possibility of a conformal smart skin array of sensors, firther
increasing radar capability.

>> >360 degree IRST,
>>
>> My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.
>
>the 360 part is very important.

Possibly. In any case, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to add a
reverse-looking one to Typhoon, perhaps on a wingtip pod.

>> >stealth, -9X,
>>
>> The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
>> that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
>> going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
>> to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
>> the F-35, they have the ability to decide at what range the
>> engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
>> the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
>> weight ratio and lower wing loading. F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
>> late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
>> unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.
>
>You seem fixated on close range combat.

I don't think so; I did specifically say that long range missiles
would be used first, but there's a possibility of close range
combat -- I've no idea how high that possibility is.

>Postulating a South Asia Typhoon v F-35 engagement, what makes
>you think the more stealthy F-35 won't use NCTR then shoot the
>Typhoon in the face BVR with an AIM-120?

I don't know what NCTR is, so I won't discuss that. If the F-35 is
switching its radar on to detect the Typhoon, then the Typhoon will
presumably be able to detect this (the signal will be
billions of times stronger at the Typhoon than what's received back
at the F-35), so I am doubtful of the possibility of the F-35
sneaking up on the Typhoon undetected.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Thomas Schoene]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message


> Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
> longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
> the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.

Depends a lot on radar capability and intiial detection rhage. if the JSF
is significantly stealthier than the Typhoon , it could get clsoer before
benig vulnerabel to counter-fire. That's one part fo the logic of the
F/A-22 and MARAAM -- put the complexity ni the airframe, not the missile.


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:05:02 -0500, Alan Minyard > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:17:10 +0200, guy wastiaux >
>wrote:
>
>>Rafale also has an IRST : it's called OSF : it's got a true IRST and
>>another tracking device (dunno how it's called though. It ressembles a
>>bit the one used on initial production F-14As). Besides, Eurofigther
>>isn't as versatile as the Rafale, considering mainly ATG capability.
>>Otherwise, the Eurofighter seems to be like THE air defence fighter.
>
>Neither Rafale nor Eurofighter is even in the same league with the
>F-22 and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafae are capable aircraft, but not
>capable of living in the same sky with the -22 or -35.

Then why isn't Singapore considering the F-22 or F-35?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:19:43 +0200, Mike > wrote:
>Rafale has also supercruise.

I ewasn't aware of that -- do you have a cite?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[AL]

Rafale may have a slight advantage.
http://www.sedb.com/edbcorp/sg/en_uk/index/in_the_news/publications/singapore_now_2003/singaporenow_-_jun0/singaporenow__volume.html
REGIONAL FOCUS
Research pact with France
The first day of the Asia Pacific Conference yesterday saw France and
Singapore lift their already close defence relations to a new plane with
the signing of an agreement for joint studies in aerospace and radar
technology. Paris-based defence giant, Thales, will follow suit with a
similar agreement that will be inked today. This will pave the way for
Thales to set up a research lab - its first Asian-based research
facility - in Singapore. Sealing the deal, the first between France and
an Asia-Pacific country, on the sidelines of the defence talks tagged it
with more significance than had it been held at any other time. For
starters, the memorandum of understanding signed between the Defence
Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) and Onera, France's leading
aerospace research agency, capped two years of talks between France and
Singapore on the way defence technology research between the two
countries could be strengthened. Some $2 million will be spent initially
to set up a lab outside Paris. Defence officials said it was a visible
demonstration of Singapore's commitment to broadening its defence
cooperation with partners in Europe, to complement strong ties with America.
Adapted from The Straits Times 31 May 2003

Mike wrote:

>Like in Korea last year,it will may depend on "diplomatic questions",then
>F.15 is on the way.
>But like in Korea last year also,Rafale will certainly win technical
>evaluations.So wait and see.
>
>
>
>"David Bromage" > a écrit dans le
>message de news: ...
>
>
>>AL wrote:
>> > It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>> > about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>> > do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
>> >
>> > IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15
>>
>>
>is
>
>
>> > too complicated and the road map is too short to operate.
>>
>>I think the F-15 has a very good chance. Bear in mind their next door
>>neighbours are getting Su-30s.
>>
>>Cheers
>>David
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

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

[AL]

Actually the F-35 is serious future contender. Probably as a F-16
replacement. F-22 well wistfull thinking?

phil hunt wrote:

>Then why isn't Singapore considering the F-22 or F-35?
>
>
>

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

[AL]

Another stickler, will be the usability of current stock US weapons on
European aircraft. Typhoon is certified (Rafale?) to launch AIM-120.
Not too sure if the US is going to block the capability to ensure the
success of F-15 sale.



Harry Andreas wrote:

>In article >,
wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:07:05 -0700, Harry Andreas >
>>
>>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>In article >, AL > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
>>>>about the Congress idiosyncrasies. Not to mention there may be plans to
>>>>do some kind of upgrade from type 52 F16 to near type 60.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not likely. They may upgrade the block 52s but not to near block 60.
>>>The airframe and systems are too different to make it economical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>IMHO, it is going to be a tossup between Rafale and the Typhoon. F15 is
>>>>too complicated and the road map is too short to operate. But Rafale
>>>>programme needs more money and the Typhoon roll out rate isn't exactly
>>>>fast.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's all about loiter time and weapons. In a way, this almost mirrors the
>>>Korean decision.
>>>The fact that they operate F-16s becomes a plus for the F-15 wrt
>>>engine support.
>>>
>>>
>>If commonality of parts was a strong criterion, they'd go for more
>>F-16s.
>>
>>
>
>Like the Koreans, I think they want loiter time plus 2 engines.
>While the Koreans worry about mountainous terrain and no airfields,
>Singapore worries about lots of water and no airfields.
>The Koreans of course, wanted a ground attack multi-role a/c
>while Singapore looks to want air superiority, but their concerns are
>similar.
>
>
>

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

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:31:21 +0800, AL > wrote:
>Actually the F-35 is serious future contender. Probably as a F-16
>replacement.

Singapore currently operates the F-16. They are thinking of buying a
new plane, call it X. If they then purchase the F-35, they'll have 3
fighters operational, F-16, X, and F-35, at least of the period that
F-16 is being replaced.

I suppose they might do this, but to me it seems an unnecessary
lack of standardisation.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:25:02 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>> > Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
>> > before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so
>> > says RR)
>>
>> Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),
>
>Rolls-Royce. They're working with GE on the F136 engine, which is the
>alternative to the Pratt Whitney F135 specified for the first JSF batches.
>The 56,000-lb figure came from Rolls-Ryce a couple of years ago; everyone
>else is sticking to "40,000-lb class" for both F135 and F136.
>

Pretty much everybody was/is skeptical of that figure from RR but it's
notewothy that the PW version used on the non VTOL X-32 hit 52,000 in
afterburner. Considering that several years more developement time
are going into the production engine AND that GE will want to have
SOME reason for the buyer to choose their's over the P&W engine I
don't think 56k is beyond believability. But almost.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:14 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:09:46 +0100, (phil
>>hunt) wrote:
>>>
>>>They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>>>better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>>>think the F-35C falls in that category).
>>
>>Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
>>before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
>>RR)
>
>Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),
>giving F-35 a

I've never seen 35 anywhere. I've seen 40 a lot but that F119 in the
X-32 put out nearly that DRY.


>
>> AESA,
>
>What's this?
>
>>360 degree IRST,
>
>My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.

Eurofighter's has a MUCH smaller field of view. The X-35 will be able
to look in front, behind and below it. Basically all around.

>
>>stealth, -9X,
>
>The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
>that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
>going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
>to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
>the F-35

An assumption yet to be proven.




, they have the ability to decide at what range the
>engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
>the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
>weight ratio and lower wing loading.


Depends. There is talk of putting the big navy wing on the land
version if someone wants it. That plus the uncertainty of how
powerful the engine will be makes this all speculation.



> F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
>late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
>unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.

You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).


>
>(BTW, is it right that the F-35's weapons bay is too small to fit in
>some weapons like ASRAAM? My understanding is ASRAAM has a larger
>diameter than AIM-9X, giving it potential for greater
>range/acceleration).


From what I've read the internal bays don't use rails like you'd use
for a -9X or ASRAAM. It's AMRAMM only. BTW there's serious talk of
putting LASER weaponry on F-35s at some point but whether or not THAT
little goodie would ever get exported is anyone's guess. Personally I
think it would be a bad decision.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:28:53 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:05:02 -0500, Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:17:10 +0200, guy wastiaux >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Rafale also has an IRST : it's called OSF : it's got a true IRST and
>>>another tracking device (dunno how it's called though. It ressembles a
>>>bit the one used on initial production F-14As). Besides, Eurofigther
>>>isn't as versatile as the Rafale, considering mainly ATG capability.
>>>Otherwise, the Eurofighter seems to be like THE air defence fighter.
>>
>>Neither Rafale nor Eurofighter is even in the same league with the
>>F-22 and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafae are capable aircraft, but not
>>capable of living in the same sky with the -22 or -35.
>
>Then why isn't Singapore considering the F-22 or F-35?

As far as the F-22 goes *cha-CHING*

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
phil hunt > wrote:

>(BTW, is it right that the F-35's weapons bay is too small to fit in
>some weapons like ASRAAM?

No, the AAM bay is designed for up to AMRAAM sized
missiles.

The RAF and RN are even thinking of fitting four ASRAAMs
internally.

>My understanding is ASRAAM has a larger
>diameter than AIM-9X, giving it potential for greater
>range/acceleration).

True, but it's got a slightly smaller span and it's
slightly shorter.
--
Urban Fredriksson
Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Weblog http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:19:43 +0200, Mike > wrote:
> >Rafale has also supercruise.
>
> I ewasn't aware of that -- do you have a cite?

http://www.snecma.com/en/group/history/1975.php : fifth line from the end.
But supercruise with complete A/G loadout will only be available with the
M88-3 engine.
--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:25:02 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>
>JSF does not have thrust vectoring, the tail nozzle moves only for vertical
>flight.

I stand corrected. What about the VTOL varient of the F-35 -- would
it be possible to thrust downwards while in level flight, as a
combat maneouvre?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:48:10 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>
>> Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
>> longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
>> the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.
>
>Depends a lot on radar capability and intiial detection rhage. if the JSF
>is significantly stealthier than the Typhoon , it could get clsoer before
>benig vulnerabel to counter-fire.

Possibly. If the F-35 is using its radar, that may well give it
away. If it isn't, thne it might be able to pick up the Typhoon's
radar before the Typhoon knows it (that's likely that the opposiite
scvenario, since the F-35's radar reflection is smaller). But if
the Typhoon switches its radar off too, then the advantage
disappears, and both aircraft are limited to what they can sense
through IR, or what information is passed to them from sensors
elsewhere (for example, on the ground, or on AWACS aircraft).

I think warfare iscreasingly going to be a competition to see who
spots who first, and the first one to get spotted loses. So I see
passive sensors becoming more prominent, and active sensors less so.

>That's one part fo the logic of the
>F/A-22 and MARAAM -- put the complexity ni the airframe, not the missile.

I'm not sure that's wise, since a missile will always be faster
and more maneouvrable than a manned aircraft.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:38:54 +0800, AL > wrote:
>
>Another stickler, will be the usability of current stock US weapons on
>European aircraft. Typhoon is certified (Rafale?) to launch AIM-120.
> Not too sure if the US is going to block the capability to ensure the
>success of F-15 sale.

If they do, then Singapore would be well advised to not buy the
F-15, and to make it known to the American defense industry workers
involved why their govmt is putting their jobs at risk.

It's for the same reason that people shouldn't use Microsoft
software while they continue to attempt to lock-in their customers:
because every purchase carries a hidden cost of forcing the customer
to purchase again from the same supplier.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:53:23 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:14 +0100, (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:48:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:09:46 +0100, (phil
>>>hunt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>>>>better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>>>>think the F-35C falls in that category).
>>>
>>>Well it's good to dream but I'd say wait until the F-35C is flying
>>>before making that judgement. That big wing, 56k lbs thrust (so says
>>>RR)
>>
>>Who's RR? The figure I've seen for thrust is 35 klbf (15900 kgf),
>>giving F-35 a
>
>I've never seen 35 anywhere. I've seen 40 a lot but that F119 in the
>X-32 put out nearly that DRY.

I got my figures from _The illustrated directory of fighters_ by
Mike Spick.

>>The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
>>that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
>>going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
>>to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
>>the F-35
>
>An assumption yet to be proven.

Indeed, since the production F-35 doesn't exist yet. I'm going on
publicly available figures.

>, they have the ability to decide at what range the
>>engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
>>the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
>>weight ratio and lower wing loading.
>
>Depends. There is talk of putting the big navy wing on the land
>version if someone wants it.

Presumably the land version doesn't use the bigger wing because
they are drawbacks to doing so?

>That plus the uncertainty of how
>powerful the engine will be makes this all speculation.

Indeed.

>> F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
>>late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
>>unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.
>
>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).

If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
stealth.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[William Wright]

>
> It's for the same reason that people shouldn't use Microsoft
> software while they continue to attempt to lock-in their customers:
> because every purchase carries a hidden cost of forcing the customer
> to purchase again from the same supplier.

Yep! No technology lock-in using say Sun Solaris or HP/UX is there? If I use
Windows I can get top of the line hardware from HP (Compaq), Dell , IBM,
Gateway and who knows how many others. I can switch to another OS such as
Red Hat Linux. If I use a proprietary Unix solution I will also be using a
proprietary hardware platform. Twice the technology lock-in for the price.

Of course no European company would be guilty of that now would they.

"The war with Boeing will continue to intensify until Airbus has 100 percent
of the worldwide commercial market" Former Airbus Industrie Managing
Director Jean Pierson 1992.

[Ian Craig]

If you read the company releases, CAPTOR is actually performing a lot better
than expected, and at a level comparable with todays AESA radars.
Supposedly (and I know very little about radars) it will keep itself in
service for a lot longer than previously thought, and may just jump to the
next big technical leap?

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:44:07 -0700, Harry Andreas >
wrote:
> >In article >,
> wrote:
> >
> >> > AESA,
> >>
> >> What's this?
> >
> >Active Array radar. Higher performance and more versatile than
> >mechanicaly scanned planar arrays. More reliable too.
>
> At the moment Typhoon uses the CAPTOR radar, but this may well
> change to the AMSAR active array radar in future. There's also the
> possibility of a conformal smart skin array of sensors, firther
> increasing radar capability.
>
> >> >360 degree IRST,
> >>
> >> My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.
> >
> >the 360 part is very important.
>
> Possibly. In any case, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to add a
> reverse-looking one to Typhoon, perhaps on a wingtip pod.
>
> >> >stealth, -9X,
> >>
> >> The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
> >> that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
> >> going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
> >> to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
> >> the F-35, they have the ability to decide at what range the
> >> engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
> >> the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
> >> weight ratio and lower wing loading. F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
> >> late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
> >> unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.
> >
> >You seem fixated on close range combat.
>
> I don't think so; I did specifically say that long range missiles
> would be used first, but there's a possibility of close range
> combat -- I've no idea how high that possibility is.
>
> >Postulating a South Asia Typhoon v F-35 engagement, what makes
> >you think the more stealthy F-35 won't use NCTR then shoot the
> >Typhoon in the face BVR with an AIM-120?
>
> I don't know what NCTR is, so I won't discuss that. If the F-35 is
> switching its radar on to detect the Typhoon, then the Typhoon will
> presumably be able to detect this (the signal will be
> billions of times stronger at the Typhoon than what's received back
> at the F-35), so I am doubtful of the possibility of the F-35
> sneaking up on the Typhoon undetected.
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (My real email address would be > if you added 275
> to it and reversed the last two letters).
>
>

[Ian Craig]

Thats the same as the Harrier ziff (sp?) manoeuvre?


"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:25:02 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> wrote:
> >
> >JSF does not have thrust vectoring, the tail nozzle moves only for
vertical
> >flight.
>
> I stand corrected. What about the VTOL varient of the F-35 -- would
> it be possible to thrust downwards while in level flight, as a
> combat maneouvre?
>
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (My real email address would be > if you added 275
> to it and reversed the last two letters).
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

>>, they have the ability to decide at what range the
>>>engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
>>>the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
>>>weight ratio and lower wing loading.
>>
>>Depends. There is talk of putting the big navy wing on the land
>>version if someone wants it.
>
>Presumably the land version doesn't use the bigger wing because
>they are drawbacks to doing so?

Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
is the main issue for the STOVL version.


>
>>That plus the uncertainty of how
>>powerful the engine will be makes this all speculation.
>
>Indeed.
>
>>> F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
>>>late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
>>>unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.
>>
>>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
>>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
>
>If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
>detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
>stealth.

That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> >> They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
> >> better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
> >> think the F-35C falls in that category).
> >
> >Is it better than an Amraam?
>
> Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
> longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
> the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.

Speed doesn't matter as much when the opposing platform is stealthy.
If you can't "see" it you can't shoot it, so speed does not dictate the
engagement anymore.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:44:07 -0700, Harry Andreas >
wrote:
> >In article >,
> wrote:
> >
> >> > AESA,
> >>
> >> What's this?
> >
> >Active Array radar. Higher performance and more versatile than
> >mechanicaly scanned planar arrays. More reliable too.
>
> At the moment Typhoon uses the CAPTOR radar, but this may well
> change to the AMSAR active array radar in future. There's also the
> possibility of a conformal smart skin array of sensors, firther
> increasing radar capability.

Conformal arrays are so far in the future as to be effectively a
daydream. Not to mention the impact on the airframe, fuselage,
and systems will be so dramatic as to require almost a new platform.
I don't see it as being retro-fittable.


> >> >360 degree IRST,
> >>
> >> My understanding is Eurofighter has an IRST too.
> >
> >the 360 part is very important.
>
> Possibly. In any case, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to add a
> reverse-looking one to Typhoon, perhaps on a wingtip pod.

Typhoon is already a very crowded aircraft. It may be more difficult
than you imagine.

>
> >> >stealth, -9X,
> >>
> >> The AIM-9X will have a shorter range than the Meteor (I'm assuming
> >> that Singapore would buy it, it seems quite logical if they are
> >> going for an air superiority fighter). So the Typhoons would be able
> >> to get the first shot in (not only that, since they are faster than
> >> the F-35, they have the ability to decide at what range the
> >> engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
> >> the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
> >> weight ratio and lower wing loading. F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
> >> late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
> >> unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.
> >
> >You seem fixated on close range combat.
>
> I don't think so; I did specifically say that long range missiles
> would be used first, but there's a possibility of close range
> combat -- I've no idea how high that possibility is.
>
> >Postulating a South Asia Typhoon v F-35 engagement, what makes
> >you think the more stealthy F-35 won't use NCTR then shoot the
> >Typhoon in the face BVR with an AIM-120?
>
> I don't know what NCTR is, so I won't discuss that. If the F-35 is
> switching its radar on to detect the Typhoon, then the Typhoon will
> presumably be able to detect this (the signal will be
> billions of times stronger at the Typhoon than what's received back
> at the F-35), so I am doubtful of the possibility of the F-35
> sneaking up on the Typhoon undetected.

NCTR - Non Cooperative Target Recognition

Radar has many modes, and new ones are becoming availabe.
That's all I'll say about that.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:31:21 +0800, AL > wrote:
> >Actually the F-35 is serious future contender. Probably as a F-16
> >replacement.
>
> Singapore currently operates the F-16. They are thinking of buying a
> new plane, call it X. If they then purchase the F-35, they'll have 3
> fighters operational, F-16, X, and F-35, at least of the period that
> F-16 is being replaced.
>
> I suppose they might do this, but to me it seems an unnecessary
> lack of standardisation.

Singapore, like everyone else, is replacing their F-16s with F-35s.
It will be a very long time before Singapore gets any F-35s.
In the meantime they want something that has range and a good
enough avoinics suite to match against the neighbor's MiGs.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Ian Craig]

Excuse my ignornance, but whats an LPI radar? ( I only work with missiles)

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>, they have the ability to decide at what range the
> >>>engagement takes place). If the engagement does get to close range,
> >>>the Typhoon has (according to figures I've seen) a better thrust to
> >>>weight ratio and lower wing loading.
> >>
> >>Depends. There is talk of putting the big navy wing on the land
> >>version if someone wants it.
> >
> >Presumably the land version doesn't use the bigger wing because
> >they are drawbacks to doing so?
>
> Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
> is the main issue for the STOVL version.
>
>
> >
> >>That plus the uncertainty of how
> >>powerful the engine will be makes this all speculation.
> >
> >Indeed.
> >
> >>> F-35 has thrust vectoring, but
> >>>late models of the Typhoon might too. Typhoon is dynamically
> >>>unstable, which should increase its maneouvrability.
> >>
> >>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
> >>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
> >
> >If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
> >detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
> >stealth.
>
> That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
>

[guy wastiaux]

well Italy is doing so by using F-16As for Air Defence, replacing
Tornados F3s, as the air force is waiting for the Typhoon. If Italy is
doing it, then why not Singapour ?

phil hunt wrote:
> I suppose they might do this, but to me it seems an unnecessary
> lack of standardisation.
>


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Keith Willshaw]

"guy wastiaux" > wrote in message
...
> well Italy is doing so by using F-16As for Air Defence, replacing
> Tornados F3s, as the air force is waiting for the Typhoon. If Italy is
> doing it, then why not Singapour ?
>

Actually Italy are a development partner for Typhoon and
have ordered 120 aircraft.

Keith

[Thomas Schoene]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message

> "guy wastiaux" > wrote in message
> ...
> > well Italy is doing so by using F-16As for Air Defence, replacing
> > Tornados F3s, as the air force is waiting for the Typhoon. If Italy
> > is doing it, then why not Singapour ?
> >
>
> Actually Italy are a development partner for Typhoon and
> have ordered 120 aircraft.

No contradiction here. Yes, Italy is buying Typhoons. But until they show
up, they're leasing ex-USAF F-16s to replace leased ex-RAF Tornado F.3s,
which in turn replaced F-104s.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:16:22 GMT, William Wright > wrote:
>>
>> It's for the same reason that people shouldn't use Microsoft
>> software while they continue to attempt to lock-in their customers:
>> because every purchase carries a hidden cost of forcing the customer
>> to purchase again from the same supplier.
>
>Yep! No technology lock-in using say Sun Solaris or HP/UX is there?

Your argument, as I understand it, is that because Microsoft uses
vendor lock-in, Sun and HP can't do. That's frankly a silly
argument.

A more sophisticated version is that you beleive I beleive that.
That's equally absurd.

So I conclude I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:17:55 +0100, Ian Craig > wrote:
>Thats the same as the Harrier ziff (sp?) manoeuvre?

You mean VIFF ("Vectoring in forward flight").

BTW, can resepct usenet convention and post new comments below
what you're replying to, please?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:10:30 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>In article >,
wrote:
>> >Postulating a South Asia Typhoon v F-35 engagement, what makes
>> >you think the more stealthy F-35 won't use NCTR then shoot the
>> >Typhoon in the face BVR with an AIM-120?
>>
>> I don't know what NCTR is, so I won't discuss that. If the F-35 is
>> switching its radar on to detect the Typhoon, then the Typhoon will
>> presumably be able to detect this (the signal will be
>> billions of times stronger at the Typhoon than what's received back
>> at the F-35), so I am doubtful of the possibility of the F-35
>> sneaking up on the Typhoon undetected.
>
>NCTR - Non Cooperative Target Recognition

Umm, that's sound bizare to me -- isn't it normal for the target
to not co-operate in being recognised?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:03:32 -0700, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>In article >,
wrote:
>> >> They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>> >> better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>> >> think the F-35C falls in that category).
>> >
>> >Is it better than an Amraam?
>>
>> Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
>> longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
>> the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.
>
>Speed doesn't matter as much when the opposing platform is stealthy.
>If you can't "see" it you can't shoot it, so speed does not dictate the
>engagement anymore.

According to
<http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html>,
Typhoon can use infra-red to detect aircraft at a range of 30-50
nm (48-90 km), and possibly up to 80 nm (148 km).

By comparison, AMRAAM has an estimated range of "17+ nm" (32 km).
(From <http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=79>).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>[regarding the F-35]
>Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
>is the main issue for the STOVL version.

That makes sense.

>>>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
>>>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
>>
>>If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
>>detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
>>stealth.
>
>That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.

What's that, and how is it different from other radars?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Thomas Schoene]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:10:30 -0700, Harry Andreas
> > wrote:
> > NCTR - Non Cooperative Target Recognition
>
> Umm, that's sound bizare to me -- isn't it normal for the target
> to not co-operate in being recognised?

Depends. Civilian aircraft are supposed to squawk a transponder code, but
sometimes don't. So are friendly aircraft (unless the enemy can spoof your
IFF). An aircraft not squawking could be hostile, or it could be a neutral
airliner or friendly aircraft with a failed or inactive transponder.

NCTR gives you a way to identify an aircraft type by specific
characterisitcs of the radar return. Various different techniques are used;
I won't even try to go into details of how they do it. KNowing the typer of
aircraft, you can then make a more informed decision about the contact's
status.

IN Gulf War 1, two positive forms of ID were required to authorize a shoot.
AWACS track from an Iraqi point of origin was good for one. NCTR or Visual
ID was good for another. Lack of IFF did not count.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:

> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
>
> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?

LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random spread-spectum
signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Michael Williamson]

Ian Craig wrote:
> Excuse my ignornance, but whats an LPI radar? ( I only work with missiles)
>

Low Probability of Intercept. An LPI radar uses various techniques
to lower the probability that an enemy will detect and identify the
signal as being a radar system.

Mike

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>
>> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
>>
>> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
>
>LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random spread-spectum
>signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.

Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[John Cook]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:03:32 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

>In article >,
wrote:
>
>> >> They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
>> >> better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
>> >> think the F-35C falls in that category).
>> >
>> >Is it better than an Amraam?
>>
>> Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
>> longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
>> the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.
>
>Speed doesn't matter as much when the opposing platform is stealthy.
>If you can't "see" it you can't shoot it, so speed does not dictate the
>engagement anymore.


Nice theory in a two dimentional world, until they make Runways
invisible the aircraft will have to be at a specific location some of
the time , bomb that location and (invisible of not) there toast.

Visual stealth is the next big thing as you can see a fighter from
tens of miles away... the right sort of paint scheme reduces this
but!!!.


As long as you can detect the target at longer range than the targets
weapons range then you 99% safe, after that you have to commit to the
fight, your chances are then reducing depending on ESM ECM ECCM of the
respective aircraft and the skills of the individual pilots.

In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??



Cheers
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 :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>>"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
>>>
>>> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
>>
>>LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random spread-spectum
>>signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
>
>Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?


Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:31:33 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:17:55 +0100, Ian Craig > wrote:
>>Thats the same as the Harrier ziff (sp?) manoeuvre?
>
>You mean VIFF ("Vectoring in forward flight").
>
>BTW, can resepct usenet convention and post new comments below
>what you're replying to, please?


VIFFing is possible (though from what I hear it isn't used much) in
the Harrier because the four posts stradle the center of graviity. If
the X-35 were fitted with a vectoring nozzle it would be used more
like an elevator.

[Russell Waterson]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, (phil
> hunt) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> wrote:
> >>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>
> >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
> >>>
> >>> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
> >>
> >>LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
spread-spectum
> >>signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
> >
> >Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
>
>
> Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
> Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
> comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
> split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
> majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
> that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

It will not be long till someone thinks up a way around them. Especially if
an enemy of America is using it

[Russell Waterson]

Aussies use both Amraam and Asraam for the F 18 so on the other side of the
Ocean (the pond is on the other side of the yanks) we can get it

"AL" > wrote in message ...
> This side of the pond, you can buy the AMRAAM, but you can't get it
> delivered. Something to do about not introducing the latest weapon in
> the region.
>
> Israeli stuff is really good and they no qualms about releasing source
> code. My theory is that they are not so hot on world domination.
>
> phil hunt wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:33:45 +0800, AL > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>phil hunt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +0800, AL > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
> >>>>about the Congress idiosyncrasies.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>"Everyone"? I don't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The stopped sale of laser ring gyro for the A4, you can buy but you
> >>can't have AMRAAM . Just to mention the few that is in public domain.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why wouldn't the USA sell AMRAAM?
> >
> >Still, your main argument is right: Europeans have few problems
> >selling the latest military kit to people.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> AL
> New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
> http://www.alfredivy.per.sg
>
>

[Ian Craig]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:17:55 +0100, Ian Craig
> wrote:
> >Thats the same as the Harrier ziff (sp?) manoeuvre?
>
> You mean VIFF ("Vectoring in forward flight").
>
> BTW, can resepct usenet convention and post new comments below
> what you're replying to, please?

Sure no problems.
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (My real email address would be > if you added 275
> to it and reversed the last two letters).
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

phil hunt wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
> >[regarding the F-35]
> >Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
> >is the main issue for the STOVL version.
>
> That makes sense.

To be specific, the navy version has the most fuel and is thus the heaviest
version, but it needs a larger wing (adding weight again) to make a carrier
approach at a sufficiently slow speed. The extra weight naturally decreases
performance in other areas, as well as boosting the cost and complexity (it
folds). If you don't need it, why pay for it or haul it around? Some countries
(e.g., Australia) may well want/require the extra range, but ideally would prefer
to have the larger wing in a non-folding version. Since they'd likely have to
foot the bill for the development and production of that all by themselves, it's
unlikely to happen.

> >>>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
> >>>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
> >>
> >>If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
> >>detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
> >>stealth.

It also assumes that the a/c aren't getting any info from offboard sensors, which
is increasingly unlikely. Stealth matters, especially for BVR. Depending on the
particular situation, it may or may not be more important than other factors. In
the situation you describe above, it would matter a lot.

Guy

[John Keeney]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> wrote:
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>
> >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
> >>
> >> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
> >
> >LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
spread-spectum
> >signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
>
> Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?

I don't know for a demonstrated (to me) fact, but in theory, it's danged
good.
Current LPI radar is one that has been adapted to spread spectrum technology
which works well in radios and is hard to direction find against: good clues
that it can be made to work as radar and is hard to intercept.

I believe the B-2 has a LPI ground mapping radar and one of
the early concepts for the JOINT STARS mission placed a
LPI equipped plane (Tacit Blue) near or over the front edge of
the battle line.

[John Keeney]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, (phil
> hunt) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> wrote:
> >>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>
> >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
> >>>
> >>> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
> >>
> >>LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
spread-spectum
> >>signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
> >
> >Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
>
>
> Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
> Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
> comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
> split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
> majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
> that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

I had not heard that, do remember a source?

[John Keeney]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
> Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
> defensive decoy system.
>
> Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:57:18 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>>>"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
>>>>
>>>> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
>>>
>>>LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random spread-spectum
>>>signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
>>
>>Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
>
>Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
>Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
>comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
>split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
>majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
>that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

That suggests to me that the radars that Iraq had in 1991 counldn't
detect LPI radars. However, Iraq didn't have the best radars in the
world not even then, and the electronics industry is more advanced
today than it was (12 years is roughly 6-8 doublings of
performance/price, according to Moore's law). How effective would a
modern LPI radar be against an adversary using detectors which are
roughly as sensitive? Bear in mind that it's output signal cannot
truely look like random noise (it must be stronger, or the receiver
wouldn't be able to do anything useful with it). Also, the signal
reaching the receiver will be billions of times weaker than the
signal reaching the target. It therefore follows that the signal
reaching the target *at the relevant frequencies* will be billions
of times stronger than background random noise.

I suppose the question I'm asking amounts to: assuming equal
technology on both sides, can radar signals (from an aircraft radar,
or ground-based radar) be detected by an aqdversary (e.g. either an
aircraft, or anti-radiation missile)? Obviously when there's a wide
technology disparity, the answer to the question becomes most
obvious.

BTW, does anyone know of a good web resource on radars? (Most of the
stuff I can find from Google is a bit basis).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:57:04 -0400, John Keeney > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> >
>> >LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
>> >spread-spectum
>> >signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
>>
>> Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
>
>I don't know for a demonstrated (to me) fact, but in theory, it's danged
>good.
>Current LPI radar is one that has been adapted to spread spectrum technology
>which works well in radios and is hard to direction find against: good clues
>that it can be made to work as radar and is hard to intercept.

Anti-radiation missiles such as HARM or ALARM can detect radars. Can
they only detect older radars, or would they have some usefulness
against LPI radars too?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Ian Craig]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:57:04 -0400, John Keeney >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> >
> >> >LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
> >> >spread-spectum
> >> >signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning
receiver.
> >>
> >> Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
> >
> >I don't know for a demonstrated (to me) fact, but in theory, it's danged
> >good.
> >Current LPI radar is one that has been adapted to spread spectrum
technology
> >which works well in radios and is hard to direction find against: good
clues
> >that it can be made to work as radar and is hard to intercept.
>
> Anti-radiation missiles such as HARM or ALARM can detect radars. Can
> they only detect older radars, or would they have some usefulness
> against LPI radars too?
>
From what I've read around the web, ALARM has just underwent a seeker
modification that can cope with any known radar transmitter. Whether that
includes LPI etc, I don't know, and doubt it'll be published for some time?

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:01:01 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>> >[regarding the F-35]
>> >Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
>> >is the main issue for the STOVL version.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>
>To be specific, the navy version has the most fuel and is thus the heaviest
>version, but it needs a larger wing (adding weight again) to make a carrier
>approach at a sufficiently slow speed. The extra weight naturally decreases
>performance in other areas, as well as boosting the cost and complexity (it
>folds). If you don't need it, why pay for it or haul it around? Some countries
>(e.g., Australia) may well want/require the extra range, but ideally would prefer
>to have the larger wing in a non-folding version. Since they'd likely have to
>foot the bill for the development and production of that all by themselves, it's
>unlikely to happen.
>
>> >>>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
>> >>>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
>> >>
>> >>If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
>> >>detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
>> >>stealth.
>
>It also assumes that the a/c aren't getting any info from offboard sensors, which
>is increasingly unlikely. Stealth matters, especially for BVR. Depending on the
>particular situation, it may or may not be more important than other factors. In
>the situation you describe above, it would matter a lot.
>
>Guy

The CTOL version does not have STOVL capabilities, so weight is no as
much of an issue.

Al Minyard

[Thomas Schoene]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>
> BTW, does anyone know of a good web resource on radars? (Most of the
> stuff I can find from Google is a bit basis).

If you don't mind some math, I'd look at EW 1010 on the Journal of
Electronic Defense website. You'll have to register, but it's easily worth
it. It will give you a fairly good tchnical overview or radars, EW systems,
electro-optics, etc.

http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp?func=ew101

In their discussion of LPI radar, they talk about Random Signal Radars,
which really do use a random (not even pseudo-random) signal. It works
because the emitter keeps a copy of the signal it sent and can compare it to
the time-late return and extract a useful signal. The RWR can't do that
nearly as easily because it doesn't know what was sent. So for an equal
level of technology, the radar wins.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:58:21 -0400, "John Keeney" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, (phil
>> hunt) wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> wrote:
>> >>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.
>> >>>
>> >>> What's that, and how is it different from other radars?
>> >>
>> >>LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
>spread-spectum
>> >>signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.
>> >
>> >Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
>>
>>
>> Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
>> Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
>> comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
>> split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
>> majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
>> that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.
>
>I had not heard that, do remember a source?
>


Yeah. It was one of the more recent issues of either Airpower Review
(the Blue publication that has since been discontinued) or Internation
Airpower Review (the silver one) by Airtime Publishing. Sorry I
can't be more specific but they're boxed up and in storage. Basically
it said that around the time of the first gulf war F-15Cs were being
upgraded with the capability and then when the war started (or the
buildup I guess) they were the ones that got sent.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:01:01 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>> >[regarding the F-35]
>> >Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
>> >is the main issue for the STOVL version.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>
>To be specific, the navy version has the most fuel and is thus the heaviest
>version, but it needs a larger wing (adding weight again) to make a carrier
>approach at a sufficiently slow speed. The extra weight naturally decreases
>performance in other areas, as well as boosting the cost and complexity (it
>folds). If you don't need it, why pay for it or haul it around? Some countries
>(e.g., Australia) may well want/require the extra range, but ideally would prefer
>to have the larger wing in a non-folding version. Since they'd likely have to
>foot the bill for the development and production of that all by themselves, it's
>unlikely to happen.
>
>> >>>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
>> >>>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
>> >>
>> >>If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
>> >>detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
>> >>stealth.
>
>It also assumes that the a/c aren't getting any info from offboard sensors, which
>is increasingly unlikely. Stealth matters, especially for BVR. Depending on the
>particular situation, it may or may not be more important than other factors. In
>the situation you describe above, it would matter a lot.
>
>Guy


Any idea why no vectoring nozzle on the A and C? With both PW and GE
having tested round ones it seems like a no brainer.

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:07:01 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message

>>
>> BTW, does anyone know of a good web resource on radars? (Most of the
>> stuff I can find from Google is a bit basis).
>
>If you don't mind some math, I'd look at EW 1010 on the Journal of
>Electronic Defense website. You'll have to register, but it's easily worth
>it. It will give you a fairly good tchnical overview or radars, EW systems,
>electro-optics, etc.
>
>http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp?func=ew101

This looks useful, thanks.

>In their discussion of LPI radar, they talk about Random Signal Radars,
>which really do use a random (not even pseudo-random) signal. It works
>because the emitter keeps a copy of the signal it sent and can compare it to
>the time-late return and extract a useful signal. The RWR can't do that
>nearly as easily because it doesn't know what was sent.

Indeed it doesn't. But, OTOH, it does have a *much* more powerful
signal to work with.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[John Keeney]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:57:04 -0400, John Keeney >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> >
> >> >LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
> >> >spread-spectum
> >> >signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning
receiver.
> >>
> >> Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?
> >
> >I don't know for a demonstrated (to me) fact, but in theory, it's danged
> >good.
> >Current LPI radar is one that has been adapted to spread spectrum
technology
> >which works well in radios and is hard to direction find against: good
clues
> >that it can be made to work as radar and is hard to intercept.
>
> Anti-radiation missiles such as HARM or ALARM can detect radars. Can
> they only detect older radars, or would they have some usefulness
> against LPI radars too?

Anti-radiation missiles are in the same boat as any other DFing receiver,
the work on the same principles as other radio receivers, not magic.

[Kevin Brooks]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:01:01 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >phil hunt wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
> >> >[regarding the F-35]
> >> >Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
> >> >is the main issue for the STOVL version.
> >>
> >> That makes sense.
> >
> >To be specific, the navy version has the most fuel and is thus the heaviest
> >version, but it needs a larger wing (adding weight again) to make a carrier
> >approach at a sufficiently slow speed. The extra weight naturally decreases
> >performance in other areas, as well as boosting the cost and complexity (it
> >folds). If you don't need it, why pay for it or haul it around? Some countries
> >(e.g., Australia) may well want/require the extra range, but ideally would prefer
> >to have the larger wing in a non-folding version. Since they'd likely have to
> >foot the bill for the development and production of that all by themselves, it's
> >unlikely to happen.
> >
> >> >>>You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
> >> >>>USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).
> >> >>
> >> >>If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
> >> >>detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
> >> >>stealth.
> >
> >It also assumes that the a/c aren't getting any info from offboard sensors, which
> >is increasingly unlikely. Stealth matters, especially for BVR. Depending on the
> >particular situation, it may or may not be more important than other factors. In
> >the situation you describe above, it would matter a lot.
> >
> >Guy
>
>
> Any idea why no vectoring nozzle on the A and C? With both PW and GE
> having tested round ones it seems like a no brainer.

I believe the decision was based upon cost, weight, and need; not
including one is cheaper, lighter, and since the primary role is
strike, not required.

Brooks

[John Cook]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:00:52 -0400, "John Keeney" >
wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>> In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
>> Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
>> defensive decoy system.
>>
>> Who wins??
>
>The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
>decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Wrong....

The guns are radar guided, and the actual projectile is explosive and
therefor has to be triggered by something spoof either and that fits
in with a 100% effective decoy system.

The only caveat is in the real world nothing is 100%..

Cheers
>

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 :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Nele_VII]

Wrong wrong :)

A -laser- or, simply, colimator "guided" (in the terms of distance/track or
whatever) gun and simple ballistic (read steel, lead)round would make a nice
30 mm hole in aircraft B. It does things to high-velocity turbofan/jet
engines when it contacts turbine blades, y'know...

Unless aircraft b is invisible :))))))

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

John Cook wrote in message >...
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:00:52 -0400, "John Keeney" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>>> In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
>>> Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
>>> defensive decoy system.
>>>
>>> Who wins??
>>
>>The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
>>decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)
>
>Wrong....
>
>The guns are radar guided, and the actual projectile is explosive and
>therefor has to be triggered by something spoof either and that fits
>in with a 100% effective decoy system.
>
>The only caveat is in the real world nothing is 100%..
>
>Cheers
>>
>
>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 :-
>Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
>Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, John Keeney
> writes
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>> In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
>> Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
>> defensive decoy system.
>>
>> Who wins??
>
>The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
>decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)

Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data. (And the
chance of a hit without a working sight is pretty minimal: not something
to bet an airframe and a mission on)

This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
shot... far from a given.

--
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

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, John Keeney
> writes
>>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>>> In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
>>> Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
>>> defensive decoy system.
>>>
>>> Who wins??
>>
>>The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
>>decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)
>
>Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
>predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
>all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data.

Very, very difficult, assuming it's a passive sensor. A visual or IR
sensor can see the target -- a decoy would have to be the same size
and shape to work, at the rangres we're talking about. And the sight
could use a rangefinder to measure distance (e.g. 2 sights, one at
the ewnd of each wing, giving the parallax). This would be very
difficult to spoof.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, John Keeney
> writes
>>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>>> In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
>>> Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
>>> defensive decoy system.
>>>
>>> Who wins??
>>
>>The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
>>decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)
>
>Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
>predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
>all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data. (And the
>chance of a hit without a working sight is pretty minimal: not something
>to bet an airframe and a mission on)
>
>This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
>shot... far from a given.


And it's assuming you don't get a dual mode seeker coming after you.
One of the Standards has both semi-active radar AND IR and they'd
kicked around the idea of putting one on Sparrow. Wouldn't be too
difficult to pull of if they felt it necessary. For example say an
F-22 identifies the enemy aircraft at position X and launches an
AMRAAM equiped with an active radar / IIR seeker that looks for a
return that has both a radar return AND an image somewhat resembling
an aircraft, it seems like it would be difficult to decoy. Granted
their isn't such a missile in service to my knowledge but it wouldn't
be particularly difficult to come up with one if they felt the need.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlync
>h.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
>>predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
>>all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data.
>
>Very, very difficult, assuming it's a passive sensor.

A passive sensor won't give you range and rate information, just bearing
(and you can get that from the pilot's eyeball). A laser rangefinder
will get you range and radial velocity, but not crossing velocity: while
you can use it to drive a gyro gunsight, that requires a tracking shot.
If you want an accurate snapshot capability (rather than spray-and-pray)
you're looking at radar.

>A visual or IR
>sensor can see the target -- a decoy would have to be the same size
>and shape to work, at the rangres we're talking about. And the sight
>could use a rangefinder to measure distance (e.g. 2 sights, one at
>the ewnd of each wing, giving the parallax). This would be very
>difficult to spoof.

All this for a fixed-axis, thousand-yard maximum range weapon?

--
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 >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
>>shot... far from a given.
>
>And it's assuming you don't get a dual mode seeker coming after you.
>One of the Standards has both semi-active radar AND IR and they'd
>kicked around the idea of putting one on Sparrow. Wouldn't be too
>difficult to pull of if they felt it necessary.

Does offer complications, however. Which sensor is in charge and which
is the backup? (It's thoroughly feasible, but has a few wrinkles in the
implementation: sensor fusion is a tricky art)

>For example say an
>F-22 identifies the enemy aircraft at position X and launches an
>AMRAAM equiped with an active radar / IIR seeker that looks for a
>return that has both a radar return AND an image somewhat resembling
>an aircraft, it seems like it would be difficult to decoy.

Being done for antiship missiles at the moment; it complicates defensive
soft-kill but isn't invincible.

--
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

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Scott Ferrin

>Does offer complications, however. Which sensor is in charge and which
>is the backup?

Neither. Or the one which sees only a single target is in
charge.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A boundary between the known and the unknown always exists.

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:34:30 +0000, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlync
>>h.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Don't decoy the round, screw with the sight: that cannon is aimed by a
>>>predictor system that needs target range and velocity data. Not hard at
>>>all to have the gunsight generate the wrong pointing data.
>>
>>Very, very difficult, assuming it's a passive sensor.
>
>A passive sensor won't give you range and rate information, just bearing
>(and you can get that from the pilot's eyeball). A laser rangefinder
>will get you range and radial velocity, but not crossing velocity:

Multiple measurements will give you this.

> while
>you can use it to drive a gyro gunsight, that requires a tracking shot.
>If you want an accurate snapshot capability (rather than spray-and-pray)
>you're looking at radar.
>
>>A visual or IR
>>sensor can see the target -- a decoy would have to be the same size
>>and shape to work, at the rangres we're talking about. And the sight
>>could use a rangefinder to measure distance (e.g. 2 sights, one at
>>the ewnd of each wing, giving the parallax). This would be very
>>difficult to spoof.
>
>All this for a fixed-axis, thousand-yard maximum range weapon?

If it works, why not?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:34:30 +0000, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlyn
>ch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>A passive sensor won't give you range and rate information, just bearing
>>(and you can get that from the pilot's eyeball). A laser rangefinder
>>will get you range and radial velocity, but not crossing velocity:
>
>Multiple measurements will give you this.

Sure, but this takes *time*, which you don't have by definition for a
snapshot. You can in theory use passive acoustics to track aircraft,
given enough time, but theoretical possibility hasn't translated yet
into useful application.

>>All this for a fixed-axis, thousand-yard maximum range weapon?
>
>If it works, why not?

Cost, weight, and the fact that you usually die before you get to use
it?

--
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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:45:27 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:16:05 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>>This also presupposes that you're able to get into parameters for a guns
>>>shot... far from a given.
>>
>>And it's assuming you don't get a dual mode seeker coming after you.
>>One of the Standards has both semi-active radar AND IR and they'd
>>kicked around the idea of putting one on Sparrow. Wouldn't be too
>>difficult to pull of if they felt it necessary.
>
>Does offer complications, however. Which sensor is in charge and which
>is the backup? (It's thoroughly feasible, but has a few wrinkles in the
>implementation: sensor fusion is a tricky art)



The idea is that if it's using something like a decoy on a string the
IIR seeker won't see an airplane where the signal is coming from. The
decoy won't keep the radar seeker from seeing the airplane, it just
tries to present a more appealing target. So the IIR seeker sees that
from the decoy's position there definitely ain't an airplane there but
there IS something resembling an airplane a few hundred feet up the
wire that still has a return but maybe not as enticing as the one on
the decoy. So the software says "okay ignore the decoy, that aint the
target". I'm not sure how they deal with missiles that have IIR
seekers but if they start popping flares the radar seeker won't see a
radar return who's signiture is changing as it would be from a
maneuvering aircraft so it ignores the flares. If they put a heat
source in the decoy on a string the missile would see it and though it
might have a radar return and a nice hot source, the IIR seeker would
see that it's a point source and ignore it. Basically the seekers
work in unison and winnow down the presented targets to find the one
that satisfies the criteria for BOTH seekers. If you had a mmw radar
in the seeker it would seem to make it even more difficult for the
defenses because how do you emulate the return off an aircraft of a
high res seeker? Both the radar and the IR seekers would have the
resolution to tell if what they were looking at WAS in fact an
airplane. If they used a laser to burn out the IIR seeker the missile
would note that it's IIR seeker is out of commission and rely on the
radar alone. Even stilll the decoy would have to convince the mmw
radar that it was looking at an aircraft and not a point source.

[Vicente Vazquez]

AL > wrote in message >...
> Yes, the newest F-15s is most impressive. But there isn't any planned
> future development. All funds are directed towards F-35.

Well... There is Israel's Elbit Systems... :-)