Not to sound like an F-22 cheerleader but I thought this was interesting. . .

[Scott Ferrin]

"“We’re way ahead of where people expected us to be,” Secretary Roche
said of the Raptor’s initial operational test evaluation trials.

The secretary used the results of a recent combat simulation to
describe the Raptor’s capabilities. “We had five F-15 Eagles against
one Raptor,” he said. “The engagement was over in three minutes. None
of the F-15s even saw the Raptor. The Raptor simply went down the line
and, in simulation, took out all five of the F-15s.”

One reporter asked if the simulations were fair, since the F/A-22
pilots had previously flown the F-15.

“They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference,” Secretary
Roche said. “The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.”

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley explained the
situation further. “Real combat is an interactive event,” he said.
“You’re not looking for a fair fight; you’re looking for the game to
be called in the second inning, not having to play out all nine
innings."

[Denyav]

>The F-15s, with very good
>radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
>were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.�

As I said numerous times no old fashioned backscatterer radar,no matter how
good they are,no matter if they are airborne or ground based, wont be able to
see f22 frontally,until its too late.
Thats the reason why air force develops an "airborne" multistatic system using
UCAVs.
Secretary of course forgat to mention that.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 18 May 2004 14:54:31 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>The F-15s, with very good
>>radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
>>were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.”
>
>As I said numerous times no old fashioned backscatterer radar,no matter how
>good they are,no matter if they are airborne or ground based, wont be able to
>see f22 frontally,until its too late.
>Thats the reason why air force develops an "airborne" multistatic system using
>UCAVs.
>Secretary of course forgat to mention that.


He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
yeah. There aren't any.

[Denyav]

>He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
>yeah. There aren't any.

He should demonstrate f22(or any other stealth plane) capabilities aganist
silent sentry not aganist 5 or 50 F15s.Or he should have mentioned something
about air forces own UCAV based multi static detection system development
program.
BTW as far as I can remember I used the word "develops" not "uses" in my post.
Ground based silent sentry is in use but UCAV based system is still in
development.

[David Pugh]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> "They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
> Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
> and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
> else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
> radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
> were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."

I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST? It probably
wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
realistic test.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 18 May 2004 16:15:08 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
>>yeah. There aren't any.
>
>He should demonstrate f22(or any other stealth plane) capabilities aganist
>silent sentry not aganist 5 or 50 F15s.Or he should have mentioned something
>about air forces own UCAV based multi static detection system development
>program.

Maybe you could provide us with a link to this UCAV program that is
"in developement"?


>BTW as far as I can remember I used the word "develops" not "uses" in my post.
>Ground based silent sentry is in use

By who?


>but UCAV based system is still in
>development.

So is antimatter propulsion but I'm not expecting it to enter service
any time soon.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:08:36 -0700, "David Pugh"
> wrote:

>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> "They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
>> Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
>> and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
>> else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
>> radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
>> were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."
>
>I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST?


I'd think a F-14D would be a better choice. Most people seem to
forget it's also got an IRST and it's APG-71 is FAR better than a
Fulcrum's radar.



> It probably
>wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
>they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
>realistic test.
>

[Paul F Austin]

"David Pugh" wrote
> "Scott Ferrin" wrote
> > "They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
> > Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
> > and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
> > else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
> > radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
> > were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."
>
> I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST? It probably
> wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
> they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
> realistic test.

People are missing something here. M1.6 and high altitude for long periods
makes it difficult for_any_fighter to get a fire control solution,
regardless of detectability. Or at least that's what some of the fighter
drivers said here about doing (or trying to do) intercepts on MiG-25s some
years back. The envelope for a successful intercept is small and once the
nil detection range for fire control radars gets folded in...

It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you just
happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
using it? Inquiring minds...

[phil hunt]

On 18 May 2004 16:15:08 GMT, Denyav > wrote:
>>He also forgot to mention all the countries using such a system. Oh
>>yeah. There aren't any.
>
>He should demonstrate f22(or any other stealth plane) capabilities aganist
>silent sentry

What is "silent sentry"?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Yeff]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:57:56 +0100, phil hunt wrote:

> What is "silent sentry"?

From <http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/jaws/sentry.pdf>

The heart of Silent Sentry is its innovative Passive Coherent Location
(PCL) technology developed by Lockheed Martin Mission Systems, which uses
everyday broadcast signals, such as those for television and radio, to
illuminate, detect and track objects. A passive detection system for U.S.
government civil agency and military purposes, Silent Sentry transmits no
radio frequency (RF) energy as conventional radar does and has no RF
"signature" to alert enemy threats. Instead, it can use the energy that
already exists in airspace for detection purposes, and does not adversely
affect or harm the environment.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[John Cook]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:20:21 -0400, Yeff > wrote:

>On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:57:56 +0100, phil hunt wrote:
>
>> What is "silent sentry"?
>
>From <http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/jaws/sentry.pdf>
>
>The heart of Silent Sentry is its innovative Passive Coherent Location
>(PCL) technology developed by Lockheed Martin Mission Systems, which uses
>everyday broadcast signals, such as those for television and radio, to
>illuminate, detect and track objects.

Just like the celldar system from Roke Manor then...

cheers

> A passive detection system for U.S.
>government civil agency and military purposes, Silent Sentry transmits no
>radio frequency (RF) energy as conventional radar does and has no RF
>"signature" to alert enemy threats. Instead, it can use the energy that
>already exists in airspace for detection purposes, and does not adversely
>affect or harm the environment.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:26:58 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"David Pugh" wrote
>> "Scott Ferrin" wrote
>> > "They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," Secretary
>> > Roche said. "The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy
>> > and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody
>> > else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good
>> > radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s
>> > were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time."
>>
>> I wonder how it would do against Mig-29s with their IRST? It probably
>> wouldn't make much difference (even if the Migs knew where the F/A-22 was
>> they probably couldn't get a missile lock) but it might make for a more
>> realistic test.
>
>People are missing something here. M1.6 and high altitude for long periods
>makes it difficult for_any_fighter to get a fire control solution,
>regardless of detectability. Or at least that's what some of the fighter
>drivers said here about doing (or trying to do) intercepts on MiG-25s some
>years back.


Not to mention the SR-71 :-) Twice as fast as the Raptor, four miles
higher. . .forty years ago.




>The envelope for a successful intercept is small and once the
>nil detection range for fire control radars gets folded in...


Compare the "average interceptor" these days with the "heavies" and it
skews it even more. The Mig-31 and F-14 were both designed with big
radars, big missiles, and fast to boot. Let's see an F-16 or Rafale
lug a thousand pound AAM up to Mach 2 or better. I'd be interested to
know how well a missile like the AIM-120 or your typical dogfight
missile would fair at 65k to 70k feet altitude. Most missiles
designed to do much manuevering at high altitudes have (had) bigger
wings to deal with the thinner air. Just look at AA-6, AA-9, Phoenix,
AIM-47, SA-5, Nike Hercules, and so forth. The "upper-right" corner
of the envelope became less and less in vogue over the years so it
wasn't that big of a deal but now you have everything geared to hit
aircraft flying below 50k for the most part. Makes me wonder what
kind of effect it has overall. Probably not much in the big picture I
would guess since there never will be huge numbers of Raptors but
still I wonder would even the latest AIM-120 have had much luck
against an SR-71



>
>It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you just
>happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
>using it? Inquiring minds...
>

[Denyav]

>Just like the celldar system from Roke Manor ...

Which is a subsidiary of German electronics giant Siemens.

[Denyav]

>>The heart of Silent Sentry is its innovative Passive Coherent Location
>>(PCL) technology developed by Lockheed Martin Mission Systems, which uses
>>everyday broadcast signals, such as those for television and radio, to
>>illuminate, detect and track objects.

BTW (West) Germans were first to devolop a multi static detection and tracking
system in 70s .Even before Firefly!.

[Denyav]

>Just like the celldar system from Roke Manor then...
>

Roke Manor (Siemens) system is optimized aganist stealth aircreaft at medium
altitudes,whereas Silent Sentry is also very effective aganist next generation
stealthy cruise missiles that employ terrain masking in addition to stealth.

[John S. Shinal]

John Cook wrote:

>Just like the celldar system from Roke Manor then...

Looking for a hole in the air that's quieter than it should
be, right ?

[John S. Shinal]

"Paul F Austin" wrote:

>It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you just
>happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
>using it? Inquiring minds...

Home On Silence targeting ? (hahaha)

[Denyav]

>It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you just
>happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
>using it? Inquiring minds...
>

You can kill easily any stealth bomber that you can detect,track and even image
for ATR purposes at long ranges, even a F-86 can do the job easily.
But the real beauty of multistatics is the ability of tracking targets without
alerting them.
Also completely passive nature of tracking makes receiver/processor units,by
far the most expensive part of any multistatic system,virtually immune to HARM
type type attacks.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you
just
> >happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
> >using it? Inquiring minds...
> >
>
> You can kill easily any stealth bomber that you can detect,track and even
image
> for ATR purposes at long ranges, even a F-86 can do the job easily.
> But the real beauty of multistatics is the ability of tracking targets
without
> alerting them.
> Also completely passive nature of tracking makes receiver/processor
units,by
> far the most expensive part of any multistatic system,virtually immune to
HARM
> type type attacks.

Nope it just puts civilian transmitters on the target list.

Keith

[Denyav]

>Nope it just puts civilian transmitters on the target list.

and turns your target list into a thick "target book" even if we assume that
planes could safely reach HARM firing range while they tracked continously by
their opponents.(not very likely).
BTW you must also shut down or bomb your own transmitters too,military or
civilian, for the best results !.
Good Luck.

[SFerrin]

On 20 May 2004 14:37:07 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Nope it just puts civilian transmitters on the target list.
>
>and turns your target list into a thick "target book" even if we assume that
>planes could safely reach HARM firing range while they tracked continously by
>their opponents.(not very likely).

1. The only way to use it with missiles would be some form of command
guidance. I needn't say what would happen to that transmitter.

2. With SDB you can hit *many* targets in one pass. With the wing
kit on them they have a range in the 30 to 50 mile range.

3. About the best way I can think of would be to use the imaginary
radar system to find the x,y,z coordinate of the aircraft, fire off a
FAST surface-to-air missile that has a good IIR seeker. Send periodic
updates to the missile until it's close enough to see the target.

The weak links I see are the transmitter that sends the update though
they could make it so 99.9% of the time it's off the air except for
when you're making sure the missile has the right target, but even
then we're talking seconds. Also your missiles are going to be
relatively large (you're not going to hit an aircraft cruising at
altitude with a MANPADS) and they're definitely going to cost more
than the SDB required to take them out. Overall, in a BEST case
scenario, trying to counter stealth with your system is going to be a
losing battle. However we're dealing with what's REAL here and that
being the case NOBODY has this kind of system nor is likely to have
one anytime soo. You may as well be using the starship Enterprise in
your arguements.



>BTW you must also shut down or bomb your own transmitters too,military or
>civilian, for the best results !.
>Good Luck.

[Denyav]

>1. The only way to use it with missiles would be some form of command
>guidance. I needn't say what would happen to that transmitter.
>

Every semi active radar guided missile system is an inherently bi-static system
and if get close enough to target even small missile antennas could pick up
returns.
Active homers need only an command link to put them in close vicinity of
target.

>2. With SDB you can hit *many* targets in one pass. With the wing
>kit on them they have a range in the 30 to 50 mile range.

30-50 m range is not bad but pretty useless aganist 500-600 miles multistatic
tracking and detection ability ,specially if your opponent has fighters with
good range and long range SAMs.

>3. About the best way I can think of would be to use the imaginary
>radar system to find the x,y,z coordinate of the aircraft, fire off a
>FAST surface-to-air missile that has a good IIR seeker. Send periodic
>updates to the missile until it's close enough to see the target.

You are on right track but anyway if you come close enough to target any
receiver could pick up echoes or any active homer can lock on even if the
receiver or active homer is inside frontal threat cone.

>The weak links I see are the transmitter that sends the update though
>they could make it so 99.9% of the time it's off the air except for
>when you're making sure the missile has the right target, but even
>then we're talking seconds. Also

Right,generally multistatics are more vulnerable to some forms ECM than
backscatterers,even without considereng missile datalinks.
But if you rely on active ECM instead of passive stealth for penetration ,thats
a totally different ballgame again.

[Paul F Austin]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you
just
> >happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon
> >using it? Inquiring minds...
> >
>
> You can kill easily any stealth bomber that you can detect,track and even
image
> for ATR purposes at long ranges, even a F-86 can do the job easily.
> But the real beauty of multistatics is the ability of tracking targets
without
> alerting them.
> Also completely passive nature of tracking makes receiver/processor
units,by
> far the most expensive part of any multistatic system,virtually immune to
HARM
> type type attacks.

Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept on a
high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it
failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR.

[Denyav]

>Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept on a
>high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it
>failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR.

Fine,if you can get F-86D close enough to stealth bomber even its vintage radar
could detect stealth aircraft.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 22 May 2004 03:30:36 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept on a
>>high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it
>>failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR.
>
>Fine,if you can get F-86D close enough to stealth bomber even its vintage radar
>could detect stealth aircraft.


That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
straining, turning or burning. Just hope you have enough weapons to
make ace.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[SFerrin]

On 21 May 2004 23:36:01 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>1. The only way to use it with missiles would be some form of command
>>guidance. I needn't say what would happen to that transmitter.
>>
>
>Every semi active radar guided missile system is an inherently bi-static system
>and if get close enough to target even small missile antennas could pick up
>returns.


There are several problems with that.

1. The nature of your radar and target are such that the missile is
going to need to be approaching the aircraft from any number of
directions meaning you're going to have LOTS of launchers.

2. The nature of your radar and target are such that something as
simple as the aircraft rolling ten or fifteen degrees could drop the
return so far that the missile loses it.

3. Your "transmitters" are going to be operating over a LOT of
different frequencies so your missile's seeker will have to see ALL of
them and they'll be changing from moment to moment both in freqency
and location as some turn on and some turn off. It won't be in a
predictable or controllable order to the user either.






>Active homers need only an command link to put them in close vicinity of
>target.


Active homers also need the return to bounce straight back toward them
too. The very thing stealth is designed to defeat.




>
>>2. With SDB you can hit *many* targets in one pass. With the wing
>>kit on them they have a range in the 30 to 50 mile range.
>
>30-50 m range is not bad but pretty useless aganist 500-600 miles multistatic
>tracking and detection ability ,specially if your opponent has fighters with
>good range and long range SAMs.

Figthers don't have multistatic radars. Long range missiles cost big
$$$. If the need came up (meaning if hell froze over and we actually
saw any of these systems in service) we could just slap a small
turbojet on the SDB and be back in business.




>
>>3. About the best way I can think of would be to use the imaginary
>>radar system to find the x,y,z coordinate of the aircraft, fire off a
>>FAST surface-to-air missile that has a good IIR seeker. Send periodic
>>updates to the missile until it's close enough to see the target.
>
>You are on right track but anyway if you come close enough to target any
>receiver could pick up echoes or any active homer can lock on even if the
>receiver or active homer is inside frontal threat cone.


Because you say so? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Hell the targeting device could be a satellite.



>
>>The weak links I see are the transmitter that sends the update though
>>they could make it so 99.9% of the time it's off the air except for
>>when you're making sure the missile has the right target, but even
>>then we're talking seconds. Also
>
>Right,generally multistatics are more vulnerable to some forms ECM than
>backscatterers,even without considereng missile datalinks.
>But if you rely on active ECM instead of passive stealth for penetration ,thats
>a totally different ballgame again.


You've still not shown any reliable source claiming that such a system
is even in developement. I'm talking about a system of
detection-to-shooter not just some one-off. And as soon as they come
up with a real system that will introduce comm links (it will have to)
and guess what the first thing is that will be knocked out? Face it.
Stealth isn't magic but it's the next best thing.

[Paul F Austin]

"Denyav" > wrote
> >Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept
on a
> >high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it
> >failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR.
>
> Fine,if you can get F-86D close enough to stealth bomber even its vintage
radar
> could detect stealth aircraft.

Going to use the air data probe for FOX-4? Get a life. Stealth works
superbly against X-band RADARs. In case you didn't understand, even with
MagicTech multistatic RADARs, the interceptor is going to be effectively
blind, none of his guided weapons will work and he's reduced to being a
Hawker Hunter blindly poking around the night sky aided by hints from the
GCI site.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul F Austin" > wrote:

> Going to use the air data probe for FOX-4? Get a life. Stealth works
> superbly against X-band RADARs. In case you didn't understand, even
> with MagicTech multistatic RADARs, the interceptor is going to be
> effectively blind, none of his guided weapons will work and he's
> reduced to being a Hawker Hunter blindly poking around the night sky
> aided by hints from the GCI site.

One of the big ugly problems with multistatics is that they're *really*
vulnerable to wideband jamming. Put up a half-dozen very low power
jammers in their line of sight, and they're screwed.

Since the systems are dealing with sub-nanowatt signals in the first
place (less if trying to detect stealthy airframes), a milliwatt would
be more than enough. A couple of watts of fairly directional RF over a
very wide bandwidth would do the trick. A few hundred watts aimed at
the radar might even do enough damage to take the system offline.

The problem is compounded by the fact that "celldars" and distributed
radars don't actually have that many frequencies to choose from. If
they're doing the full passive schtick, they only get a handful of
civilian frequencies, and if they're active parts of the system, they
can be jammed and/or blown up.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Denyav]

>1. The nature of your radar and target are such that the missile is
>going to need to be approaching the aircraft from any number of
>directions meaning you're going to have LOTS of launchers.
>

You are approaching to the problem from the opposite direction,to solve the
problems you described correctly you have to install receiver/processor unit of
multistatic system inside every SAM,which is currently technologically and more
importantly financially not feasible.
But solution is very cheap,though not so excellent like turning SAM missiles
into multistatic processors.
1)Multi statics can track stealth platform at extremely long ranges.
2)Stealth platforms designed to reduce backscatter.They reduce backscatter
significantly but total elimination of bacscatter is not possible.(Thats the
reason why a particular backscatter radar detects conventional aircraft at 100
m but identical sized stealth aircraft only at 5 or 10 miles)
If your radar receiver comes close enough to stealth target (or target comes
close to bacscatter receiver) at some point backscatterer receiver will start
receiving backscatterers from target.

So,
1)You are tracking your target precisely using multistatics (You might not even
need very precise tracking using multistatics (expensive),If you use the
methods used by Serbians,you can detect stealth ,but you cannot track it.(your
SAM crews must be lighting fast)

2)If you want to use an semi active system ,turn on guidance radar and aim it
according to multistatic radar tracking data.
(or if you use serbian style interconnected bacscatterers to the latest known
position position )

3)Fire missiles guide them to target by command guidance,as missile nears to
the target missiles own backscatter receiver will be able to receive
backscatter signals (not forward scatterers used by multistatics) from its own
guidance radar.

If you can use an active homer skip step2 and use missiles active seeker as
terminal guidance only.

[Denyav]

>Stealth works
>superbly against X-band RADARs. In case you didn't understand, even with
>MagicTech multistatic RADARs, the interceptor is going to be effectively
>blind, none of his guided weapons will work and he's reduced to

There is ALWAYS backscatter from the target,unless you use active
cancellation,for usefulness of backscatter everything depends on how close you
get to your target.

The rule of the thumb for multistatic-stealth relationship is:
Better stealth means easier detection and tracking by multistatics.
Better stealth reduces backscatterers but increases forwardscatterers but
multistatics chase forward scatterers.

[Denyav]

>That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
>he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
>the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
>and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,

Is F22 (jurassicfighter) is a Bomber?

[Denyav]

>Active homers also need the return to bounce straight back toward them
>too. The very thing stealth is designed to defeat.
>

Quite so,stealth reduces backscatterers very significantly but cannot totally
eliminate it.
If you can guide an active homer close enough to your target using multistatic
tracking data,it will start receiving its own bacscatter .>Figthers don't have
multistatic radars. Long range missiles cost big

$$$. If the need came up (meaning if hell froze over and we actually
>saw any of these systems in service) we could just slap a small
>turbojet on the SDB and be back in business.

Thats correct but air force tries to develop an UCAV based system.

[Denyav]

>One of the big ugly problems with multistatics is that they're *really*
>vulnerable to wideband jamming. Put up a half-dozen very low power
>jammers in their line of sight, and they're screwed.

Thats partly true,if you process and analyse polarimetric data forward
scatterer contains you can even find out type of material that reflected this
signal.
(Thats the advantage of german design)

[Ed Rasimus]

On 23 May 2004 04:49:00 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
>>he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
>>the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
>>and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
>
>Is F22 (jurassicfighter) is a Bomber?

I think we've explained to you in the past the malapropism you employ
regarding the name. A "Raptor" is a bird of prey such as an eagle,
hawk, tercel, condor. You misidentify with the velociraptor, a small
jurassic period dinosaur made famous in the Jurassic Park series of
mediocre movies.

But, I digress.

Yes, the current development format is for F/A-22 to have an
air-ground capability. The joy of stealth, you wake up dead never
knowing that there was an attack on the way. You don't die all tensed
up.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Denyav]

>The joy of stealth, you wake up dead never
>knowing that there was an attack on the way. You don't die all tensed
>up.

Joy of multi statics is also very similar,they track stealth platforms,but they
dont even know that before its too late.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> Joy of multi statics is also very similar,they track stealth
> platforms,but they dont even know that before its too late.

It's sounding more and more like those Cold War claims of Amazing
Russian Wonder Weapons that would destroy the West with no trouble at
all.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Denyav]

>It's sounding more and more like those Cold War claims of Amazing
>Russian Wonder Weapons that would destroy the West with no trouble at
>all.

With a small difference,Made in USA and other western countries.
For the introduction of really "amazing" weapons we all need to wait till next
decade.

[Scott Ferrin]

>You are approaching to the problem from the opposite direction,to solve the
>problems you described correctly you have to install receiver/processor unit of
>multistatic system inside every SAM,which is currently technologically and more
>importantly financially not feasible.
>But solution is very cheap,though not so excellent like turning SAM missiles
>into multistatic processors.
>1)Multi statics can track stealth platform at extremely long ranges.
>2)Stealth platforms designed to reduce backscatter.They reduce backscatter
>significantly but total elimination of bacscatter is not possible.(Thats the
>reason why a particular backscatter radar detects conventional aircraft at 100
>m but identical sized stealth aircraft only at 5 or 10 miles)
>If your radar receiver comes close enough to stealth target (or target comes
>close to bacscatter receiver) at some point backscatterer receiver will start
>receiving backscatterers from target.
>
>So,
>1)You are tracking your target precisely using multistatics (You might not even
>need very precise tracking using multistatics (expensive),If you use the
>methods used by Serbians,you can detect stealth ,but you cannot track it.(your
>SAM crews must be lighting fast)
>
>2)If you want to use an semi active system ,turn on guidance radar and aim it
>according to multistatic radar tracking data.
>(or if you use serbian style interconnected bacscatterers to the latest known
>position position )


Do you know what "semiactive" is/means?





>
>3)Fire missiles guide them to target by command guidance


Command guidance? I'll bet a HARM would just LOVE that.



>,as missile nears to
>the target missiles own backscatter receiver will be able to receive
>backscatter signals (not forward scatterers used by multistatics) from its own
>guidance radar.


An active radar seeker on a AAM likely wouldn't work very well against
stealh. You'd be better off with an IIR seeker.




>
>If you can use an active homer skip step2 and use missiles active seeker as
>terminal guidance only.


A high frequency radar against a stealth aircraft?

[Scott Ferrin]

On 23 May 2004 05:00:24 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Active homers also need the return to bounce straight back toward them
>>too. The very thing stealth is designed to defeat.
>>
>
>Quite so,stealth reduces backscatterers very significantly but cannot totally
>eliminate it.
>If you can guide an active homer close enough to your target using multistatic
>tracking data,it will start receiving its own bacscatter .>Figthers don't have
>multistatic radars. Long range missiles cost big
>
>$$$. If the need came up (meaning if hell froze over and we actually
>>saw any of these systems in service) we could just slap a small
>>turbojet on the SDB and be back in business.
>
>Thats correct but air force tries to develop an UCAV based system.


Who is? Do you have *any* sources of your claim?

[Scott Ferrin]

On 23 May 2004 04:49:00 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
>>he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
>>the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
>>and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
>
>Is F22 (jurassicfighter) is a Bomber?


I like that. The F-22 will be the T-rex of fighters.

[Denyav]

>Do you know what "semiactive" is/means?

I guess so.

>Command guidance? I'll bet a HARM would just LOVE that.

Sure,but you will need a HARM with at least 150+ miles range to start with.


>An active radar seeker on a AAM likely wouldn't work very well against
>stealh. You'd be better off with an IIR seeker.

If you can come close enough to stealth (or stealth comes close enough to you
)everything works.
If you want to increase your chances you might even upgrade SAMs with multi
spectral seekers.

>A high frequency radar against a stealth aircraft?

But of course,during terminal phase everything works.We are talking about very
close ranges.

[Denyav]

>I like that. The F-22 will be the T-rex of fighters.

Agreed ,It will be highly regarded as a valuable object in every museum.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 25 May 2004 03:32:55 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>I like that. The F-22 will be the T-rex of fighters.
>
>Agreed ,It will be highly regarded as a valuable object in every museum.

Yeah I imagine everybody who isn't getting them is knawing on their
liver. I don't blame you for being bitter.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 25 May 2004 03:27:40 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Do you know what "semiactive" is/means?
>
>I guess so.

Doesn't sound like it.
>
>>Command guidance? I'll bet a HARM would just LOVE that.
>
>Sure,but you will need a HARM with at least 150+ miles range to start with.

Why? You damn sure aren't going to be able to hide a 150+ mile SAM.
We'd be taking those babies out with JASSM and Tomahawks before *any*
aircraft got near. That's if someone were to actually deploy such a
system of course. And if it actually worked. Besides, to use your
150 mile SAM you'd have to bring your command link online and that's
when the HARM would pop him. It could be 10 miles away, it doesn't
matter.



>
>
>>An active radar seeker on a AAM likely wouldn't work very well against
>>stealh. You'd be better off with an IIR seeker.
>
>If you can come close enough to stealth (or stealth comes close enough to you
>)everything works.

You're talking *maybe* a couple miles. An IIR would see it further
than that. No way, NO way will an active radar seeker in an AAM pick
up a stealth aircraft from fifteen or twenty miles. They don't even
do that for NON-stealth aircraft.




>If you want to increase your chances you might even upgrade SAMs with multi
>spectral seekers.

Multi-spectral? Do you just stick these terms in wherever you think
it might sound right? You essentially have various form of radar and
light. ALL forms of active radar in a missile are high frequency or
REALLY high frequency. Non of which are useful against a stealth
aircraft. There is laser beam-riding, but not on a 150 mile range
missile. Optical guidance for SAMS means optics on the ground and the
missile is command guided. They don't have cameras in the nose of
SAMs like a Maverick. Because of LOS limitatons (among MANY other
things) you aren't going to be able to use optical guidance for a 150
mile SAM. Using a laser designator won't work for many of the same
reasons. Nope, IIR is your best bet. Use your Magical Multistatic
Vaporware Radar (MMVR) to cue the missile and the IIR seeker for
terminal guidance.




>
>>A high frequency radar against a stealth aircraft?
>
>But of course,during terminal phase everything works.We are talking about very
>close ranges.

What, a mile?

[Denyav]

>We'd be taking those babies out with JASSM and Tomahawks before *any*
>aircraft got near. That's if someone

Interesting,but didn't I say "US multistatic system is also very effective next
generation of stealthy cruise misilles that use terrain masking in addiditon to
passive stealth".

JASSM or JASSM counterparts will be shot down long before they reach their
targets.

>That's if someone were to actually deploy such a
>system of course. And if it actually worked. Besides, to use your

Multistatics are not new,in applications that the money is no problem,like
defense in national level,US used them for years,for example the space based
multistatic system for the defense of of CONUS,but problem was the theater
level applications where a similar system need to be realized much cheaper.So
it had to wait for some innovations.

>50 mile SAM you'd have to bring your command link online and that's
>when the HARM would pop him. It could be 10 miles away, it doesn't
>matter.

Forget HARM type weapons,current ones have not enough range to keep HARM trucks
outside lethal range of SAMs and next generation long range HARMs themselves
will become targets.
If were an attacker I would try to disturb the command link.

>You're talking *maybe* a couple miles. An IIR would see it further

>than that. No way, NO way will an active radar seeker in an AAM pick
>up a stealth aircraft from fifteen or twenty miles. They don't even
>do that for NON-stealth aircraft.

Yes I am talking about a couple of miles and its more than enough as
terminalguidance as we all learned in Balkans.

>There is laser beam-riding, but not on a 150 mile range
>missile. Optical guidance for SAMS means optics on the ground and the
>missile is command guided. They don't have cameras in the nose of

Who needs 150+ miles guidance radar,IR,laser or whatever.
Multistatics easily track every existing stealth aircraft at 600 miles.
(B2 has an excellent monostatic RCS value,but its "bistatic" RCS value is
bigger than B52 frontal monostatic RCS !)
As I said before as you come closer to stealth target you will receive
backscatter returns and if you need only a couple of miles range the band you
use wont make much difference.so better use whatever you have.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Scott Ferrin
<> wrote:

> On 23 May 2004 04:49:00 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:
>
> >>That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
> >>he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
> >>the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
> >>and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
> >
> >Is F22 (jurassicfighter) is a Bomber?
>
>
> I like that. The F-22 will be the T-rex of fighters

Thank you, Sir. I now can't cleanse my mind of the image of a C-5 as a
brontosaurus and an AC-130 as a triceratops.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 25 May 2004 16:42:16 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>We'd be taking those babies out with JASSM and Tomahawks before *any*
>>aircraft got near. That's if someone
>
>Interesting,but didn't I say "US multistatic system is also very effective next
>generation of stealthy cruise misilles that use terrain masking in addiditon to
>passive stealth".

Well then it's just like I said. Exactly who with what system is
going to be a threat to US stealth aircraft anytime in the near
future? Besides that, having an airborne TRANSMITTER is just begging
to be shot down.




>
>JASSM or JASSM counterparts will be shot down long before they reach their
>targets.
>
>>That's if someone were to actually deploy such a
>>system of course. And if it actually worked. Besides, to use your
>
>Multistatics are not new,in applications that the money is no problem,like
>defense in national level,US used them for years,for example the space based
>multistatic system for the defense of of CONUS

What are you smoking?



>,but problem was the theater
>level applications where a similar system need to be realized much cheaper.So
>it had to wait for some innovations.
>
>>50 mile SAM you'd have to bring your command link online and that's
>>when the HARM would pop him. It could be 10 miles away, it doesn't
>>matter.
>
>Forget HARM type weapons,current ones have not enough range to keep HARM trucks
>outside lethal range of SAMs

We're talking about stealth aircraft here. Say you somehow detect a
stealth aircraft at 600 miles and you have a SAM that can hit a target
at 150 miles. 1. You're going to have to hide those big-ass missiles
somewhere they can't be destroyed. Good luck. 2. Semi Active
guidance with a MMVR will never work so forget it. You obviously
don't know how the two work. 3. High frequency radar of ANY type
doesn't work against stealth unless they're practically on top of it.
So I'd forget that too. 4. Whatever terminal guidance you use you're
going to have to send updates to that missile until it can get close
enough for onboard guidance to take over. That means transmitting.
If you have the cash maybe you could get yourself some LPI
transmitters but I wouldn't bank on that though it might be your only
choice.


> and next generation long range HARMs themselves
>will become targets.

And I'd trade them all day. A next generation HARM against a next
generation S-400+? That's like saying "I'm going to defeat all of
your Maverick missiles by putting tanks in front of my bunkers"





>If were an attacker I would try to disturb the command link.

Yeah. I'd disturb it with a HARM.


>
>>You're talking *maybe* a couple miles. An IIR would see it further
>
>>than that. No way, NO way will an active radar seeker in an AAM pick
>>up a stealth aircraft from fifteen or twenty miles. They don't even
>>do that for NON-stealth aircraft.
>
>Yes I am talking about a couple of miles and its more than enough as
>terminalguidance as we all learned in Balkans.


You obviously don't have a clue what happened there. Why don't you
tell how you *think* it happened. My guess is you've got some things
confused.



>
>>There is laser beam-riding, but not on a 150 mile range
>>missile. Optical guidance for SAMS means optics on the ground and the
>>missile is command guided. They don't have cameras in the nose of
>
>Who needs 150+ miles guidance radar,IR,laser or whatever.
>Multistatics easily track every existing stealth aircraft at 600 miles.

Well you want to hit the thing don't you? You want to hit the
aircraft before it can hit you back don't you? Doesn't do you much
good if your SAM only flies twenty miles but the airplane can hit you
from a hundred.



>(B2 has an excellent monostatic RCS value,but its "bistatic" RCS value is
>bigger than B52 frontal monostatic RCS !)

Any sources for that? Didn't think so.



>As I said before as you come closer to stealth target

The more likely it is to hit you.


>you will receive
>backscatter returns and if you need only a couple of miles range the band you
>use wont make much difference.so better use whatever you have.


If you wanted to come up with an anti stealth system a good way to do
it would be to have a MSVR that actually WORKS. Proven, in service,
non vaporware and you have more than one. You use that to collect
your x,y,z positions of stealth aircraft. Using cellular, radio, or
freakin' internet, communicate those positions to *mobile* LPI
transmitters that talk to your SAMS. For missiles use something like
an ESSM with an AIM-9X seeker that can do LOAL. Stick two or four of
them per truck-mounted launcher. The idea being to have the two or
four missiles and a truck be CHEAP. I don't mean stick them on a
forty year old rust bucket rescued from the scrap heap but then again
I'm not talking about one of those big eight-wheeled vehicles either.
So you deploy you launchers God only knows where but make sure you
have adequate coverage. They pull up to their site and hook up to the
internet. All the truck gets is "launch missile, tell it to go to
x,y,z". After that the nearest LPI transmitter takes over and the
missile launcher is back on the road. It updates the now in-flight
missile intermittently and stays off the air the majority of the time
LPI or not. As the missile gets closer to the target it gets more
frequent updates. Once the IIR seeker has locked on to it's target
the LPI transmitter forgets about it. Numerous missiles on cheap
trucks, hard to detect transmitters, and a distributed comm network.
All spread out, realtively cheap, with no one unit worth a Tomahawk
and mobile to boot. The only vurnerable spot would be the decision
maker which would likely be the first thing hit.

[Denyav]

>Well then it's just like I said. Exactly who with what system is
>going to be a threat to US stealth aircraft anytime in the near
>future? Besides that, having an airborne TRANSMITTER is just begging
>to be shot down.

Not countries like Iraq,Afghanistan,Panama,Somalia,I guess.

Having one airborne ,space or ground based transmitter is one thing having
thousands of them another.

>What are you smoking?
You seem pretty clueless,a clue for you this is a space and ground based system


>We're talking about stealth aircraft here. Say you somehow detect a
>stealth aircraft at 600 miles and you have a SAM that can hit a target
>at 150 miles. 1. You're going to have to hide those big-ass missiles
>somewhere they can't be destroyed. Good luck.

You know where they but you can not kill them easily,as I said HARM is too
short legged,cruise misilles and other long range weapons have only little
penetration chance.

>Active
>guidance with a MMVR will never work so forget it. You obviously
>don't know how the two work. 3. High frequency radar of ANY type
>doesn't work against stealth unless

If you can bring your fathers backscatterers close enough to ANY stealth
platform they will detect it.period.

Some will detect it at 0,6 m some others at 10 m but they will detect lt.

>And I'd trade them all day. A next generation HARM against a next
>generation S-400+? That's like saying "I'm going to defeat all of
>your Maverick missiles by putting tanks in front of my bunkers"

If you think next generation HARM will be cheaper than next generation SAM,you
are simply wrong.
(BTW I think there wont be any next generation SAM)

>Yeah. I'd disturb it with a HARM.
>

Good Luck then,you will need it

>ou obviously don't have a clue what happened there. Why don't you
>tell how you *think* it happened. My guess is you've got some things
>confused.
>
I think I know what happened,if stealth fleet continued to fly like stealth
aircraft supposed to fly ,US would probably lose whole stealth fleet in
Balkans.
Two back to back hits were enough change tactics and make them to fly like
F14s,15s,16s ,Mirages,Tornados.
After changes,their vulnerability reduced to the F14,15,16,Mirage,Tornado
levels.

But flip side,that was starting point of Jammer Crisis.

r>Well you want to hit the thing don't you? You want to hit the
>aircraft before it can hit you back don't you? Doesn't do you much
>good if your SAM only flies twenty miles but the airplane can hit you
>from a hundred.

Sure,In order to take advantage multistatic tracking and detection systems long
range
SAMs are a must.
Shorter range SAMs might be used aganist next generation stealthy long range
HARMs or cruise misilles though.

>The more likely it is to hit you.

I dont thing that any aircraft ,stealthy or not,would like idea of hitting a
missile !.>If you wanted to come up with an anti stealth system a good way to
do


>it would be to have a MSVR that actually WORKS. Proven, in service,
>non vaporware and you have more than one. You use that to collect
>your x,y,z positions of stealth aircraft. Using cellular, radio, or
>freakin' internet, communicate those positions to *mobile* LPI
>transmitters that talk to your SAMS. For missiles use something like
>an ESSM with an AIM-9X seeker that can do LOAL. Stick two or four of
>them per truck-mounted launcher. The idea being to have the two or
>four missiles and a truck be CHEAP. I don't mean stick them on a
>forty year old rust bucket rescued from the scrap heap but then again
>I'm not talking about one of those big eight-wheeled vehicles either.
>So you deploy you launchers God only knows where but make sure you
>have adequate coverage. They pull up to their site and hook up to the
>internet. All the truck gets is "launch missile, tell it to go to
>x,y,z". After that the nearest LPI transmitter takes over and the
>missile launcher is back on the road. It updates the now in-flight
>missile intermittently and stays off the air the majority of the time
>LPI or not. As the missile gets closer to the target it gets more
>frequent updates. Once the IIR seeker has locked on to it's target
>the LPI transmitter forgets about it. Numerous missiles on cheap
>trucks, hard to detect transmitters, and a distributed comm network.
>All spread out, realtively cheap, with no one unit worth a Tomahawk
>and mobile to boot. The only vurnerable spot would be the decision
>maker which would likely be the first thing hit.

Actualy GPS is an excellent multistatic radar emitter,specially for the space
based receivers.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 26 May 2004 03:50:00 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Well then it's just like I said. Exactly who with what system is
>>going to be a threat to US stealth aircraft anytime in the near
>>future? Besides that, having an airborne TRANSMITTER is just begging
>>to be shot down.
>
>Not countries like Iraq,Afghanistan,Panama,Somalia,I guess.


Well why don't you tell us about all these MSVRs and MSVR guided
missile systems they have?



>
>Having one airborne ,space or ground based transmitter is one thing having
>thousands of them another.

Obviously. And just has obviously nobody has them in service.




>
>>What are you smoking?
>You seem pretty clueless,a clue for you this is a space and ground based system

So point me to a website that describes this space based, multistatic
radar missile guiding system. Yeah, about what I thought.





>
>
>>We're talking about stealth aircraft here. Say you somehow detect a
>>stealth aircraft at 600 miles and you have a SAM that can hit a target
>>at 150 miles. 1. You're going to have to hide those big-ass missiles
>>somewhere they can't be destroyed. Good luck.
>
>You know where they but you can not kill them easily,as I said HARM is too
>short legged,cruise misilles and other long range weapons have only little
>penetration chance.

Which missile system that has demonstrated the ability to destroy
stealth aircraft at beyond 80 mile range are you talking about? Point
me to some information on it. Yeah that's what I thought.




>
>>Active
>>guidance with a MMVR will never work so forget it. You obviously
>>don't know how the two work. 3. High frequency radar of ANY type
>>doesn't work against stealth unless
>
>If you can bring your fathers backscatterers close enough to ANY stealth
>platform they will detect it.period.


Hell, if I can bring myself close enough I can reach out and detect it
with my hand. So what? You've proven nothing.




>
>Some will detect it at 0,6 m some others at 10 m but they will detect lt.
>
>>And I'd trade them all day. A next generation HARM against a next
>>generation S-400+? That's like saying "I'm going to defeat all of
>>your Maverick missiles by putting tanks in front of my bunkers"
>
>If you think next generation HARM will be cheaper than next generation SAM,you
>are simply wrong.

LOL. Support your assertion. You could probably buy three or four
HARMs for the price of an SA-10. Add in all the R&D, support
equipment and so on and the next generation, stealth destroying
fantasy SAM will skew it even more.






>(BTW I think there wont be any next generation SAM)
>
>>Yeah. I'd disturb it with a HARM.
>>
>
>Good Luck then,you will need it


I don't know. We seem to be bombing the **** out of pretty much any
SAM site we choose so the history doesn't support you.



>
>>ou obviously don't have a clue what happened there. Why don't you
>>tell how you *think* it happened. My guess is you've got some things
>>confused.
>>
>I think I know what happened,if stealth fleet continued to fly like stealth
>aircraft supposed to fly ,US would probably lose whole stealth fleet in
>Balkans.

Because it had nothing to do with stealth. It had to do with dumbass
tactics.


>Two back to back hits were enough change tactics and make them to fly like
>F14s,15s,16s ,Mirages,Tornados.
>After changes,their vulnerability reduced to the F14,15,16,Mirage,Tornado
>levels.

You couldn't have mangled it more if you tried. The loss had nothing
to do with stealth technology though I could see why you like to
believe it so. You just keep telling yourself that.





>
>But flip side,that was starting point of Jammer Crisis.
>
> r>Well you want to hit the thing don't you? You want to hit the
>>aircraft before it can hit you back don't you? Doesn't do you much
>>good if your SAM only flies twenty miles but the airplane can hit you
>>from a hundred.
>
>Sure,In order to take advantage multistatic tracking and detection systems long
>range
>SAMs are a must.

You mean long range, expensive, easy to spot from orbit SAMs right?






>Shorter range SAMs might be used aganist next generation stealthy long range
>HARMs or cruise misilles though.
>
>>The more likely it is to hit you.
>
>I dont thing that any aircraft ,stealthy or not,would like idea of hitting a
>missile !.>If you wanted to come up with an anti stealth system a good way to
>do
>
>
>>it would be to have a MSVR that actually WORKS. Proven, in service,
>>non vaporware and you have more than one. You use that to collect
>>your x,y,z positions of stealth aircraft. Using cellular, radio, or
>>freakin' internet, communicate those positions to *mobile* LPI
>>transmitters that talk to your SAMS. For missiles use something like
>>an ESSM with an AIM-9X seeker that can do LOAL. Stick two or four of
>>them per truck-mounted launcher. The idea being to have the two or
>>four missiles and a truck be CHEAP. I don't mean stick them on a
>>forty year old rust bucket rescued from the scrap heap but then again
>>I'm not talking about one of those big eight-wheeled vehicles either.
>>So you deploy you launchers God only knows where but make sure you
>>have adequate coverage. They pull up to their site and hook up to the
>>internet. All the truck gets is "launch missile, tell it to go to
>>x,y,z". After that the nearest LPI transmitter takes over and the
>>missile launcher is back on the road. It updates the now in-flight
>>missile intermittently and stays off the air the majority of the time
>>LPI or not. As the missile gets closer to the target it gets more
>>frequent updates. Once the IIR seeker has locked on to it's target
>>the LPI transmitter forgets about it. Numerous missiles on cheap
>>trucks, hard to detect transmitters, and a distributed comm network.
>>All spread out, realtively cheap, with no one unit worth a Tomahawk
>>and mobile to boot. The only vurnerable spot would be the decision
>>maker which would likely be the first thing hit.
>
>Actualy GPS is an excellent multistatic radar emitter,specially for the space
>based receivers.

So is the moon. Sheesh.

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:44:38 -0600, Scott Ferrin <> wrote:
>On 23 May 2004 04:49:00 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:
>
>>>That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
>>>he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
>>>the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
>>>and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
>>
>>Is F22 (jurassicfighter) is a Bomber?
>
>
>I like that. The F-22 will be the T-rex of fighters.

Wouldn't that make it a cretaceousfighter?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 14:01:53 -0400, Howard Berkowitz > wrote:
>In article >, Scott Ferrin
><> wrote:
>
>> On 23 May 2004 04:49:00 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:
>>
>> >>That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
>> >>he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
>> >>the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
>> >>and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
>> >
>> >Is F22 (jurassicfighter) is a Bomber?
>>
>>
>> I like that. The F-22 will be the T-rex of fighters
>
>Thank you, Sir. I now can't cleanse my mind of the image of a C-5 as a
>brontosaurus and an AC-130 as a triceratops.

The Airbus Beluga as a stegasaurus...

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Denyav]

>Well why don't you tell us about all these MSVRs and MSVR guided
>missile systems they have?

If I say they are even (much) better than Silent Sentry would be enough for
you?

BTW some of them do not even need multistatics for stealth detection and
tracking,they can turn any stealth or non stealth platform into high flying
lighthouse so that "anybody" could detect them.

Obviously. And just has obviously nobody has them in service.

Obviously you think all black projects should have wings and life support
systems and all of them are made in USA.

>o point me to a website that describes this space based, multistatic
>radar missile guiding system. Yeah, about what I thought.

Unlike ultra classified ,much publicized,sight-sensitive stealth platforms that
you can see everywhere everyday,some things are still kept behind the
curtain,even 35 years after their first introduction.

Thats the difference between the Showboats and the important assets.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 27 May 2004 04:43:09 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Well why don't you tell us about all these MSVRs and MSVR guided
>>missile systems they have?
>
>If I say they are even (much) better than Silent Sentry would be enough for
>you?

Not by a long shot. You could just as easily say Russia has a Death
Star on the far side of the moon. As the saying goes "talk is cheap".
Give us some sources. Hell I could say the US has time traveling,
mile long, space going battle ships designed and built on planet
Poontang by aliens and it would have all the credibility of what
you've been telling us so far.


>
>BTW some of them do not even need multistatics for stealth detection and
>tracking,they can turn any stealth or non stealth platform into high flying
>lighthouse so that "anybody" could detect them.
>
>Obviously. And just has obviously nobody has them in service.
>
>Obviously you think all black projects should have wings and life support
>systems and all of them are made in USA.

So prove me wrong. Show us any evidence other than your word that any
of these systems are in service or even close to it. Saying "oh it's
top secret" doesn't cut it because if it's so secret how is it YOU
know about it. Share your sources with us.




>
>>o point me to a website that describes this space based, multistatic
>>radar missile guiding system. Yeah, about what I thought.
>
>Unlike ultra classified ,much publicized,sight-sensitive stealth platforms that
>you can see everywhere everyday,some things are still kept behind the
>curtain,even 35 years after their first introduction.

Like them alien autopsies?




>
>Thats the difference between the Showboats and the important assets.
>

No, that's the difference between pipedreams and reality.

[Denyav]

>No, that's the difference between pipedreams and reality.
>

Lets say a seventy years old imported (polite version of stolen) technology
(stealth) defeated by another seventy years old imported technology.

I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not designed to
detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR campaign?
Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track stealth
targets?

Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant backscatterer
reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer reduction
was not.
Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years ago,after
spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.

Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced Countries.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 28 May 2004 03:24:16 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>No, that's the difference between pipedreams and reality.
>>
>
>Lets say a seventy years old imported (polite version of stolen) technology
>(stealth) defeated by another seventy years old imported technology.
>
>I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not designed to
>detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR campaign?
>Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track stealth
>targets?

Maybe because they want to demonstrate against something real? You'll
notice they didn't demonstrate it against flying saucers either.





>
>Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant backscatterer
>reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer reduction
>was not.
>Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years ago,after
>spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.


I think you're missing the point entirely here. Take any fighter in
the world other than the F-22 and you have an aircraft that can be
detected by ANY radar in the world. You don't need to hang your hopes
on some mythical beast that someone might develope into a working
system in twenty or thirty years. You want to talk about "jurassic"
fighters? How 'bout Flankers, Fulcrums and pretty much every other
NON stealth aircraft in the world.





>
>Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced Countries.

Good thing we're both.

[Denyav]

>aybe because they want to demonstrate against something real?

If you allowed to hand pick your opponent you win always.

> Take any fighter in
>the world other than the F-22 and you have an aircraft that can be
>detected by ANY radar in the world. You don't need to hang

The proliferation of stealth platforms was the reason why multistatics and
other counter LO systems pop up everywhere now.
I think you are missing my point,my point is that both stealth and counter
stealth technologies were known for more than half century and if push one them
you pull another too.
Classical technological push-pull example.
Before investing zillions of dollars in any military technology you must check
if a technology to counter your technology is already available.

>How 'bout Flankers, Fulcrums and pretty much every other
>NON stealth aircraft in the world.

They are going to accompany Raptors in Jurassic Park.

>Good thing we're both.

Countries that cannot produce their own scientific talent cannot be classified
as Advanced Nations they are only Advanced Countries and as such are easy preys
for the Advanced Nations.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 28 May 2004 16:29:57 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>aybe because they want to demonstrate against something real?
>
>If you allowed to hand pick your opponent you win always.

Exactly.




>
>> Take any fighter in
>>the world other than the F-22 and you have an aircraft that can be
>>detected by ANY radar in the world. You don't need to hang
>
>The proliferation of stealth platforms was the reason why multistatics and
>other counter LO systems pop up everywhere now.


Funny. For them being "everywhere" you sure don't seem to be able to
produce any information on them. Oh yeah, they're classified.




>I think you are missing my point,my point is that both stealth and counter
>stealth technologies were known for more than half century and if push one them
>you pull another too.
>Classical technological push-pull example.
>Before investing zillions of dollars in any military technology you must check
>if a technology to counter your technology is already available.
>
>>How 'bout Flankers, Fulcrums and pretty much every other
>>NON stealth aircraft in the world.
>
>They are going to accompany Raptors in Jurassic Park.
>
>>Good thing we're both.
>
>Countries that cannot produce their own scientific talent cannot be classified
>as Advanced Nations they are only Advanced Countries and as such are easy preys
>for the Advanced Nations.

Yeah you're right. The US isn't anywhere near as advanced as the
motherland. Boy I sure wish I didn't live here in the godd ol' U S of
A. I tell ya, I'm really hatin' it here. I wish we were as advanced
as. . .who is it you're talking about? I don't seem to remember.

[Denyav]

>Funny. For them being "everywhere" you sure don't seem to be able to
>produce any information on them. Oh yeah, they're classified.

In some countries the producers of stealth platforms AND counter stealth
systems are the same companies.High profile marketing of anti stealth systems
before completion of projected stealth sales would not be a wise corporate
strategy.>eah you're right. The US isn't anywhere near as advanced as the
>motherland. Boy I sure wish I didn't live here in the godd ol' U S of
>A. I tell ya, I'm really hatin' it here. I wish we were as advanced
>as. . .who is it you're talking about? I don't seem to remember.

1300 trillion dollars is the worth of the stolen technology from a certain
western country.(Needless to say US did not pay even a dime for the stolen
technology).
Does it help to refresh your memory?.

Unlike advanced country US ,advanced nations do not need H1b or O visas ,they
produce their own scientific and technological talent,even though their
populations are only a fraction of US population.

Heck,H1b and O visa categories must be expanded to include
Presidents,Politicians and Generals,as the inability of US to produce top notch
individuals is apparently not limited to the scientists.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 29 May 2004 04:19:50 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Funny. For them being "everywhere" you sure don't seem to be able to
>>produce any information on them. Oh yeah, they're classified.
>
>In some countries the producers of stealth platforms AND counter stealth
>systems are the same companies.High profile marketing of anti stealth systems
>before completion of projected stealth sales would not be a wise corporate
>strategy.>eah you're right. The US isn't anywhere near as advanced as the
>>motherland. Boy I sure wish I didn't live here in the godd ol' U S of
>>A. I tell ya, I'm really hatin' it here. I wish we were as advanced
>>as. . .who is it you're talking about? I don't seem to remember.
>
>1300 trillion dollars is the worth of the stolen technology from a certain
>western country.(Needless to say US did not pay even a dime for the stolen
>technology).
>Does it help to refresh your memory?.
>
>Unlike advanced country US ,advanced nations do not need H1b or O visas ,they
>produce their own scientific and technological talent,even though their
>populations are only a fraction of US population.
>
>Heck,H1b and O visa categories must be expanded to include
>Presidents,Politicians and Generals,as the inability of US to produce top notch
>individuals is apparently not limited to the scientists.



LOL!

[Tom Cooper]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >No, that's the difference between pipedreams and reality.
> >
>
> Lets say a seventy years old imported (polite version of stolen)
technology
> (stealth) defeated by another seventy years old imported technology.
>
> I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not
designed to
> detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR
campaign?
> Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track
stealth
> targets?

Because the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so they
can't talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing.

> Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant
backscatterer
> reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer
reduction
> was not.
> Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years
ago,after
> spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.
>
> Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced Countries.

Should that still be a surprise - after the F/A-18E/F step back?

The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they realized
that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to sit
there with F-22s and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >No, that's the difference between pipedreams and reality.
> > >
> >
> > Lets say a seventy years old imported (polite version of stolen)
> technology
> > (stealth) defeated by another seventy years old imported technology.
> >
> > I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not
> designed to
> > detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR
> campaign?
> > Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track
> stealth
> > targets?
>
> Because the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so they
> can't talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing.

And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary aircraft
have "silent sentry"..?

>
> > Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant
> backscatterer
> > reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer
> reduction
> > was not.
> > Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years
> ago,after
> > spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.
> >
> > Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced Countries.
>
> Should that still be a surprise - after the F/A-18E/F step back?
>
> The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they realized
> that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to
sit
> there with F-22s and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
> Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.

I don't know what is scarier--the thought that you actually think the USN
has joined in this alleged "evil cabal" to save the F/A-22, or the fact that
you are agreeing with a two-ton loon like Denyav in the first place. Would
that be "aviation journalist", or "aviation fantasist"?

Brooks

>
> Tom Cooper
> Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
> Vienna, Austria
>

[Tom Cooper]

> > > I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not
> > designed to
> > > detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR
> > campaign?
> > > Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track
> > stealth
> > > targets?
> >
> > Because the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so
they
> > can't talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing.
>
> And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary aircraft
> have "silent sentry"..?

No, just you're running in the front of the car, and so have failed to
understand what that means.

Have you never heard about the Grey Bears as USAF unit?

> > > Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant
> > backscatterer
> > > reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer
> > reduction
> > > was not.
> > > Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years
> > ago,after
> > > spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.
> > >
> > > Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced Countries.
> >
> > Should that still be a surprise - after the F/A-18E/F step back?
> >
> > The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they
realized
> > that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to
> sit
> > there with F-22s and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
> > Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.
>
> I don't know what is scarier--the thought that you actually think the USN
> has joined in this alleged "evil cabal" to save the F/A-22, or the fact
that
> you are agreeing with a two-ton loon like Denyav in the first place. Would
> that be "aviation journalist", or "aviation fantasist"?

Again the same problem as above: that should have meant "F-15" instead of
"F-22", i.e. it was a typo, but you're so fast in attempting to make me look
silly, you don't even notice this.

Well, I certainly do hope you feel better now. In the meantime I'll continue
reading US and other reports about USAF and USN scrambling to pick up in the
air-to-air race, after being bushwacked on other international exercises....

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> > > > I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not
> > > designed to
> > > > detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR
> > > campaign?
> > > > Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track
> > > stealth
> > > > targets?
> > >
> > > Because the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so
> they
> > > can't talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing.
> >
> > And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary
aircraft
> > have "silent sentry"..?
>
> No, just you're running in the front of the car, and so have failed to
> understand what that means.

The statement you were responding to asked, "Why not aganist silent sentry
which is designed to..." and you offered a "Because..." answer. So are you
buying nto this "silent sentry" bit being outfitted onto Russian aircraft
like the Mig-29 and Su-27 or not?

>
> Have you never heard about the Grey Bears as USAF unit?
>
> > > > Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant
> > > backscatterer
> > > > reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer
> > > reduction
> > > > was not.
> > > > Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years
> > > ago,after
> > > > spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.
> > > >
> > > > Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced
Countries.
> > >
> > > Should that still be a surprise - after the F/A-18E/F step back?
> > >
> > > The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they
> realized
> > > that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they
to
> > sit
> > > there with F-22s and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
> > > Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.
> >
> > I don't know what is scarier--the thought that you actually think the
USN
> > has joined in this alleged "evil cabal" to save the F/A-22, or the fact
> that
> > you are agreeing with a two-ton loon like Denyav in the first place.
Would
> > that be "aviation journalist", or "aviation fantasist"?
>
> Again the same problem as above: that should have meant "F-15" instead of
> "F-22", i.e. it was a typo, but you're so fast in attempting to make me
look
> silly, you don't even notice this.

You have lumped the USN into the "save the F/A-22" cabal you posited with
your, "The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air..." bit. Pray
tell what the USN's big piece of the F/A-22 fight is?

Brooks

>
> Well, I certainly do hope you feel better now. In the meantime I'll
continue
> reading US and other reports about USAF and USN scrambling to pick up in
the
> air-to-air race, after being bushwacked on other international
exercises....
>
> Tom Cooper
> Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
> Vienna, Austria
>
> *************************************************
>
> Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
>
> Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875
>
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585
>
> African MiGs
> http://www.acig.org/afmig/
>
> Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM
>
> *************************************************
>
>

[Tom Cooper]

> > > And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary
> aircraft
> > > have "silent sentry"..?
> >
> > No, just you're running in the front of the car, and so have failed to
> > understand what that means.
>
> The statement you were responding to asked, "Why not aganist silent sentry
> which is designed to..." and you offered a "Because..." answer. So are you
> buying nto this "silent sentry" bit being outfitted onto Russian aircraft
> like the Mig-29 and Su-27 or not?

Yes, I see you have a considerable problem with understanding this.

Now, think for a while: if the USAF is not even reporting about testing of
F-22s against MiG-29s and Su-27s (at home), so, in which World do you live
to expect from them to report about testing much more exotic stuff?


> > > I don't know what is scarier--the thought that you actually think the
> USN
> > > has joined in this alleged "evil cabal" to save the F/A-22, or the
fact
> > that
> > > you are agreeing with a two-ton loon like Denyav in the first place.
> Would
> > > that be "aviation journalist", or "aviation fantasist"?
> >
> > Again the same problem as above: that should have meant "F-15" instead
of
> > "F-22", i.e. it was a typo, but you're so fast in attempting to make me
> look
> > silly, you don't even notice this.
>
> You have lumped the USN into the "save the F/A-22" cabal you posited with
> your, "The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air..." bit. Pray
> tell what the USN's big piece of the F/A-22 fight is?

Sigh... OK. Let's try it one more time, this time with the type corrected
(and, don't worry: you'll get it sooner or later):

The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they realized
that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to sit
there with _F-15s_ and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.

And I hope you'll not come to the same idea again and think that the USN
expects its Super Horrors to fight for air superiority in any kind of other
scenario but battling Congo, Liberia, or Somalia...?

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > > And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary
> > aircraft
> > > > have "silent sentry"..?
> > >
> > > No, just you're running in the front of the car, and so have failed to
> > > understand what that means.
> >
> > The statement you were responding to asked, "Why not aganist silent
sentry
> > which is designed to..." and you offered a "Because..." answer. So are
you
> > buying nto this "silent sentry" bit being outfitted onto Russian
aircraft
> > like the Mig-29 and Su-27 or not?
>
> Yes, I see you have a considerable problem with understanding this.
>
> Now, think for a while: if the USAF is not even reporting about testing of
> F-22s against MiG-29s and Su-27s (at home), so, in which World do you live
> to expect from them to report about testing much more exotic stuff?

That is NOT what you said. To the query about why they were not
testing/publiscizing the F/A-22 against "silent sentry", you said, "Because
the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so they can't
talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing." You did not say, "They can't even
talk about Mig/Su testing, so why would you expect them to be able to
discuss testing against even more exotic systems". Silent Sentry is, AFAIK,
a ground based system as yet (and a US system to boot)--why you would even
introduce the Mig-29/Su-27 argument into the mix is beyond understanding.

>
>
> > > > I don't know what is scarier--the thought that you actually think
the
> > USN
> > > > has joined in this alleged "evil cabal" to save the F/A-22, or the
> fact
> > > that
> > > > you are agreeing with a two-ton loon like Denyav in the first place.
> > Would
> > > > that be "aviation journalist", or "aviation fantasist"?
> > >
> > > Again the same problem as above: that should have meant "F-15" instead
> of
> > > "F-22", i.e. it was a typo, but you're so fast in attempting to make
me
> > look
> > > silly, you don't even notice this.
> >
> > You have lumped the USN into the "save the F/A-22" cabal you posited
with
> > your, "The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air..." bit.
Pray
> > tell what the USN's big piece of the F/A-22 fight is?
>
> Sigh... OK. Let's try it one more time, this time with the type corrected
> (and, don't worry: you'll get it sooner or later):
>
> The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they realized
> that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to
sit
> there with _F-15s_ and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
> Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.
>
> And I hope you'll not come to the same idea again and think that the USN
> expects its Super Horrors to fight for air superiority in any kind of
other
> scenario but battling Congo, Liberia, or Somalia...?

Once again--why are you claiming the USN is seriously interested in
preserving the F/A-22, as they are "reinventing air-to-air, after they
(inclusive) realized the F-22 (sic) might be cancelled, and it could happen
they to sit (sic??)..."?

Brooks
>
> Tom Cooper

[Denyav]

>And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary aircraft
>have "silent sentry"..?

Silent Sentry an airborne system? I did not know that.Anyway thats a big chance
for you to become a very rich person.
Just send your airborne silent sentry proposal to Phillips labs,they trying to
develop an airborne (UCAV) for Air Force.
I am sure they will appreciate your help.

Good Luck

[John Cook]

On 01 Jun 2004 22:02:28 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary aircraft
>>have "silent sentry"..?

IIRC Celldar is being fitted/trialled into an aircraft!!!, There you
go a totally passive receiver, aircraft mouinted...

Up to you if you think thats relevent!!

Cheers


>Silent Sentry an airborne system? I did not know that.Anyway thats a big chance
>for you to become a very rich person.
>Just send your airborne silent sentry proposal to Phillips labs,they trying to
>develop an airborne (UCAV) for Air Force.
>I am sure they will appreciate your help.
>
>Good Luck

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

[Tom Cooper]

Brooks,
you can jump around each and every word that I say, yet, the point is this:
in no way are you going to hear about what the USAF is testing _right now_.
Forget about this.

So, all this semantic about the silent sentry is useless: you can't know
what are they doing. The USAF is, just for example, testing hypersonic
vehicles already since the early 1990s. Several different (manned and
unmanned) types were developed and tested in flight. Yet, nothing was ever
officially acknowledged or confirmed. There are more MiG-29s operational
with the USAF than in most smaller air forces that fly the type. Guess what?
Nothing was ever officially acknowledged and confirmed about this either.
Stuff like AIM-9X is far further in the R+D process than reported in the
last two years: actually, when I compare what I read in some papers and what
do I hear via private channels, the F-22 is at least one year ahead in
testing to what is currently reported as planned or being underway too. And
this despite the fact that the avionics - all of which is functioning via
the same system - is frequently suffering total failures, so that some of
the test-pilots had to carry their cell-phones in the cockpit, to call the
base and ask which way to fly back when the system crashes.

But you guys here wonder how it comes the F-22 is not reported to have been
tested against silent sentry and such stuff?

Don't wonder, but wait for the news. That's my opinion. We all don't know
what are they currently doing, nor really in which world are they living: we
only get to hear about few tid-bits when it's - actually - too late. So, you
can - at best - GUESS if they have (or not) tested the silent sentry.

Re other stuff: I still haven't found a place where I should have said the
USN is, "seriously interested in preserving the F-22", but as said, we'll
solve this problem too.

I said the USAF and the USN have realized that currently available
air-to-air assets are not up to the task any more. Worst yet - at least in
the case of the USN - even the newest fighter (which proved to have been the
wrong solution in anything but pilot comfort and flying safety) - is not up
to the task. So there is now an urgent need to field the AIM-9X, and then to
get the AIM-120D, so to compensate for short range, slow speed, and lack of
manoeuverability of the F/A-18E/F. That, however, is only to cover a part of
the problem: the type is going to remain unable of fighting the "outer
battle" the way the F-14 could do, and especially against modern threats,
because even longer-ranged missiles (or, what's more important: weapons with
wider envelope) cannot compensate for deficiencies of the aircraft. At the
time the potential enemies are fielding large numbers of superior aircraft,
armed with almost equal weapons and supported by similar network in the
background, this eliminates quite a few of USN's options: you can't start a
war, for example, fighting somebody only with a single carrier carrying one
squadron of F/A-18E/Fs and three squadrons of F/A-18Cs - except you're
fighting a bunch of terrorists in Asian mountains or the African bush.
Anything else is not going to function with assets at hand.

Something similar can be said for the USAF: there is a large gap in the
quality between such an asset like B-2 and the F-15. One can start a war and
deliver the main blow with B-2s, but the gap is closing - if it's not
already closed - on the F-15. On the other side, despite their immense
capabilities the B-2 have proven not to be able to completely shut down the
enemy air. Consequently, you have a situation where there is a need for a
measure in between: what a better PR for F-22 one needs? Given that the F-22
is an endangered species, and the JSF is - still - not fix (but also never
to offer a similar capability), there is now so much "good PR" for the
Raptor. If the USN is then also releasing signals that it needs a
longer-ranged solution - that better, for both services (and without the USN
being "interested in preserving the F-22": they're interested in saving what
they can of their own assets, first and foremost).

So, in the context of the original message to which I responded: it is not
surprising that billions were spent for wrong systems in other fields.
Something similar was done in such a well-known arena like air-to-air too.
Worst yet: currently there are attempts to save what can be saved, but all
of this is rather a reaction than a proper action.

Just give me a call if I have to explain this for the fourth time too.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> Brooks,
> you can jump around each and every word that I say, yet, the point is
this:
> in no way are you going to hear about what the USAF is testing _right
now_.
> Forget about this.

Hem guy, you ought to know that the ONLY way we have of knowing what you
MEAN is by what you WRITE. In this case, you came in with the view that
"silent sentry" was somehow tied to some apocryphal USAF adversary aircraft
unit--it ain't. Then you came out and stated that the USN was somehow
seriously tied into trying to keep the F/A-22 alive. If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist" you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Brooks

<snip further obfuscation>

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:15:20 GMT, "Tom Cooper" > wrote:

>"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>> >No, that's the difference between pipedreams and reality.
>> >
>>
>> Lets say a seventy years old imported (polite version of stolen)
>technology
>> (stealth) defeated by another seventy years old imported technology.
>>
>> I wonder why they demonstrate the abilities of f22 aganist f15 (not
>designed to
>> detect stealth targets) and use demonstration results in their PR
>campaign?
>> Why not aganist silent sentry which is designed to detect and track
>stealth
>> targets?
>
>Because the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so they
>can't talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing.
>
>> Heck even Germans and Brits knew during WWII that significant
>backscatterer
>> reductions were possible by hard body shaping but forward scatterer
>reduction
>> was not.
>> Now US is learning hard way what Brits and Germans knew sixty years
>ago,after
>> spending zillions of dollars for a dead end technology.
>>
>> Thats the difference between advanced Nations and advanced Countries.
>
>Should that still be a surprise - after the F/A-18E/F step back?
>
>The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they realized
>that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to sit
>there with F-22s and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
>Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.
>
>Tom Cooper
>Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
>Vienna, Austria
>
>*************************************************
>
>Author:
>Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
>http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
>
>Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
>http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875
>
>Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
>http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585
>
>African MiGs
>http://www.acig.org/afmig/
>
>Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
>http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM
>
>*************************************************
>
The USAF and the USMC/USN aircraft are, by a large margin, the best
in the world. The rumored "multi-static" radars are vapor ware, and the
"new" Russian aircraft are either simply rumors or prototypes that will
never enter production. The F-22 and F-35 will give the US Military
absolute air dominance.

Sorry that the facts interfere with your anti-US ravings.

Al Minyard

[Denyav]

>The F-22 and F-35 will give the US Military
>absolute air dominance.
>
>Sorry that the facts interfere with your anti-US ravings.

Anti US ?
I guess you are underestimating US capabilities,two of the existing multistatic
systems are "Made in USA".

Apparently you have not much confidence in US capabilities !.

[Tom Cooper]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...

> The USAF and the USMC/USN aircraft are, by a large margin, the best
> in the world. The rumored "multi-static" radars are vapor ware, and the
> "new" Russian aircraft are either simply rumors or prototypes that will
> never enter production. The F-22 and F-35 will give the US Military
> absolute air dominance.

Well, what you apparently refuse to see is that there are plenty of
Su-30-clones around _in service_ right now, but that the F-22 and the F-35
are still years away from being available to operational units. But, I guess
this doesn't matter to you.

If you consider that there are over 200 Su-27/30s supported by several AWACS
in Chinese service alone right now, how do you think could the USAF and the
USN help defend Taiwan - just for example - with two squadrons of F-15s (on
Okinawa) and few squadrons of Hornets on the carrier based in Japan?

> Sorry that the facts interfere with your anti-US ravings.

Yes, Al,
very good: just continue adding fuel on fire of those that really hate the
USA and consider the Americans for a bunch of ignorant and undereducated
idiots. The Europe is full of such people, and they are all happy when they
can read something like your post here - especially when somebody reacts in
the way you do against people who live in the Europe.

The problem is only that you've found yourself a wrong one - like usually in
such cases: so now there are going to even more of those here who also think
that most Americans can't even read properly... sigh...

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Tom Cooper]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> If you want to bang
> someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job of
> wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist" you
> should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or what,
Kevin?

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > If you want to bang
> > someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job
of
> > wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist" you
> > should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.
>
> Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or what,
> Kevin?

How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether through
very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them, and
then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like. Sad.

Brooks

>
> Tom Cooper

[Pete]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote

> If you consider that there are over 200 Su-27/30s supported by several
AWACS
> in Chinese service alone right now, how do you think could the USAF and
the
> USN help defend Taiwan - just for example - with two squadrons of F-15s
(on
> Okinawa) and few squadrons of Hornets on the carrier based in Japan?

I should think that the 200 or so Taiwanese F-16's and Mirages would want a
part of that.

Pete

[Tom Cooper]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > If you want to bang
> > > someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job
> of
> > > wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist"
you
> > > should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.
> >
> > Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or
what,
> > Kevin?
>
> How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether
through
> very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them,
and
> then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like.
Sad.

So, it is my signature after all, Kevin? ;-)))

Thanks a lot for confirmation - otherwise you wouldn't come babbling about
"bold-faced" statements, then I don't know where have I posted such.

BTW, I don't remember to be in a need some kind of special permission from
you for what I'm doing - here or anywhere else - and I have also not
misunderstood this NG for some courtroom. So, I'm telling it again: go and
find yourself somebody else to play - or keep on playing with yourself. I'm
not the least interested.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Tom Cooper]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote
>
> > If you consider that there are over 200 Su-27/30s supported by several
> AWACS
> > in Chinese service alone right now, how do you think could the USAF and
> the
> > USN help defend Taiwan - just for example - with two squadrons of F-15s
> (on
> > Okinawa) and few squadrons of Hornets on the carrier based in Japan?
>
> I should think that the 200 or so Taiwanese F-16's and Mirages would want
a
> part of that.

Super: now the ROCAF should be fighting to establish air superiority for the
USAF and the USN?

What an argument... But, if we're talking about "mine is bigger than yours":
by the time the first F-22s are going to enter service there are going to be
over 400 Su-27/30s in China, plus some 300 J-10s, JF-17s and similar
animals. In an environment where nothing short of at least a 1:6 exchange
ratio would be needed, but where anything beyond 1:3 is actually unlikely
(at least according to calculations based on current data), not a very
brilliant prospect.

But OK; feel yourself as "winners": obviously warning about such matters is
considered here as "anti-US", so I guess somebody has first to hit the wall
head-on... (it wouldn't be the first time, but at least that functions for
sure).

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Pete]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote i

>
> Super: now the ROCAF should be fighting to establish air superiority for
the
> USAF and the USN?
>
> What an argument...

No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think the
USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe at
the same time.

Pete

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote
> >
> > > If you consider that there are over 200 Su-27/30s supported by several
> > AWACS
> > > in Chinese service alone right now, how do you think could the USAF
and
> > the
> > > USN help defend Taiwan - just for example - with two squadrons of
F-15s
> > (on
> > > Okinawa) and few squadrons of Hornets on the carrier based in Japan?
> >
> > I should think that the 200 or so Taiwanese F-16's and Mirages would
want
> a
> > part of that.
>
> Super: now the ROCAF should be fighting to establish air superiority for
the
> USAF and the USN?

That statement is even more preposterous than your assertion that the USN is
involved in redefining the air-to-air arena to support fielding of the
F/A-22. The ROCAF would, if the US became involved, be fighting the same
enemy in the same geographical area, and you can bet it would be in
coordination with US assets. That you have chosen to completely disregard
the contribution of the ROCAF may be convenient for your agenda, but it is a
ludicrous oversight.

>
> What an argument... But, if we're talking about "mine is bigger than
yours":
> by the time the first F-22s are going to enter service there are going to
be
> over 400 Su-27/30s in China,

Let's see, the first F/A-22's have already entered into their operational
test and eval phase, and the 1st TFW is scheduled to get their first birds
in the 2005-06 timeframe IIRC. The PLAAF has, from what I have seen on the
sinodefence.com site, some 120 total Su-27/30 variants in service now (out
of a total of some 175 on order) from Russia and some 200 in the
construction pipeline in the PRC, and indicates that it is expected some 48
aircraft will be added to the 120 number in service by 2006--it would appear
that your timeline may be a little off, unless you think all of those 200 or
so domestic production examples will be completed over the next year or two
(and then they's still have to order another 25 or so Russian built aircraft
just to meet your four hundred figure, much less acheive "over 400").

plus some 300 J-10s, JF-17s and similar
> animals.

What?! You actually think they are going to field that number of J-10's and
FC-1/JF-17's over the next couple of years? Holy crap, Batman--the FC-1 just
had its maiden rollout last year (and is intended to meet export market
requirements--no indication yet it will enter into PLAAF service)! The J-10
has been a pretty slow program--last I heard they were still dicking around
with which engine to mount in it, and there is some doubt as to whether or
not it will *ever* enter into major frontline service with either PLAN or
PLAAF units in anything other than nominal numbers.

In an environment where nothing short of at least a 1:6 exchange
> ratio would be needed, but where anything beyond 1:3 is actually unlikely
> (at least according to calculations based on current data), not a very
> brilliant prospect.

If the aforementioned numbers are representative of your "data", then excuse
me for not buying into the validity of your assertion (which also discounts
PLAAF losses due to ADA, SAM, and interdiction efforts, I presume).

>
> But OK; feel yourself as "winners": obviously warning about such matters
is
> considered here as "anti-US", so I guess somebody has first to hit the
wall
> head-on... (it wouldn't be the first time, but at least that functions for
> sure).

You have to be able to present a credible case--you have fallen far short
thus far. Merely playing Chicken Little, without a decent set of supporting
data, is not going to get you too far.

Brooks

>
> Tom Cooper

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > If you want to bang
> > > > someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better
job
> > of
> > > > wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist"
> you
> > > > should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible
manner.
> > >
> > > Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or
> what,
> > > Kevin?
> >
> > How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether
> through
> > very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them,
> and
> > then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like.
> Sad.
>
> So, it is my signature after all, Kevin? ;-)))
>
> Thanks a lot for confirmation - otherwise you wouldn't come babbling about
> "bold-faced" statements, then I don't know where have I posted such.
>
> BTW, I don't remember to be in a need some kind of special permission from
> you for what I'm doing - here or anywhere else - and I have also not
> misunderstood this NG for some courtroom. So, I'm telling it again: go and
> find yourself somebody else to play - or keep on playing with yourself.
I'm
> not the least interested.

Having just read the baseless hype you dumped on Pete about the PRC fielding
some six hundred new advanced aircraft over the next year or two, I'd say
you have your own hands full enough right now.

Brooks

>
> Tom Cooper

[Tom Cooper]

Pete,

> No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think the
> USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe at
> the same time.

Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years,
it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening.

The problem is this: the USA have an obligation to defend Taiwan (except
some US admin finds this is 0 and void), and they have a treaty with Japan
and South Korea. But, there is no way the USA to hit China first.
Consequently the first blow in such a scenario would obviously be delivered
by the Chinese; and in that case the USAF would not be in offensive, but on
defensive right from the start, flying from airfields that are thousands of
kms away from the battlefield. The USN could bring a carrier or two (even
more... of course, several months later) but these would have underdogs on
their decks, developed to strike places not defended by hundreds of Flankers
and AWACS....

Hm, perhaps you are right: the ROCAF would fight for US air superiority...
Obviously, there is no need for either the USAF or the USN to push for
additional developments in the air-to-air arena...


Kevin,
> Let's see, the first F/A-22's have already entered into their operational
> test and eval phase, and the 1st TFW is scheduled to get their first birds
> in the 2005-06 timeframe IIRC. The PLAAF has, from what I have seen on the
> sinodefence.com site, some 120 total Su-27/30 variants in service now (out
> of a total of some 175 on order) from Russia and some 200 in the
> construction pipeline in the PRC, and indicates that it is expected some
48
> aircraft will be added to the 120 number in service by 2006--it would
appear
> that your timeline may be a little off, unless you think all of those 200
or
> so domestic production examples will be completed over the next year or
two
> (and then they's still have to order another 25 or so Russian built
aircraft
> just to meet your four hundred figure, much less acheive "over 400").

The following figures are from Chinese-language sources and as of 1 March
2004. They detail the number of aircraft in service, location and
assignement of Flankers in the PLAAF (and I hope you know that J-11 is the
Chinese designation for Su-27SKs, and that an increasing number of these is
meanwhile upgraded with new avionics package - foremost radars and
nav/attack systems).

- 1st Anshan MR, base: Shenyang, 1st AR: 26 J-11
- 2nd Suixi MR, base: Guangzhou, 4th AR: 26 Su-27
- 3rd Wuhu MR, base: Nanjing, 9th AR: 26 Su-30
- 6th Yingchaun MR, base: Lanzhou, 16 or 18 AR and 139 AR: 26 J-11 (and
increasing)
- 7th Beijing MR, base: near Beijing, 19/20/21 ARs: 26 J-11 (and increasing:
planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
- 18th Changsha MR, base: Guangzhou, 54th AR: 26 Su-30
- 19th Zhengzhou MR, base: Jinan 55/56/or 58 AR: 26 Su-27 (and increasing:
planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
- 29th Quzhou MR, base: Nanjing 85/86 or 87 AR: 26 Su-27 (and increasing:
planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
- 33rd Chongqing MR, base: Chengdu 97th AR: 38 Su-27
- 6th Naval MR, base: Dachang (Shanghai)16 or 17 AR: 18 Su-30 (and
increasing: planned to become over 36 by the end of 2005)
- Flight Test Center, Cangchou MR, Beijing: 18 Su-30

In total, the numbers should currently be as follows:
- J-11: 80 at present, no additional orders: all are going to be converted
to J-11A
- J-11A: 20+ at present, 80 J-11s to be converted, for an eventual total of
100
- Su-30MKK: 60+ at present, +20-30 additional airframes delivered per year
on average, for an eventual total of 80+ (at least) by the end of 2005
- Su-30MK2: 20+ at present, at least 20 are on order, for an eventual total
of 40+ (at least) by the end of 2005
- Su-27SK: 50 at present
- Su-27UBK: 40 at present, 20 on order, for an eventual total of 60 by the
end of 2005

That's a total of 270 airframes in service and 140 on order, for a total of
430 by the end of 2005 - if China indeed discontinues the production of the
J-11.

Duh, sorry, but it appears I was actually wrong: the numbers are even higher
than I originally stated....

> What?! You actually think they are going to field that number of J-10's
and
> FC-1/JF-17's over the next couple of years? Holy crap, Batman--the FC-1
just
> had its maiden rollout last year (and is intended to meet export market
> requirements--no indication yet it will enter into PLAAF service)!

There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown earlier
(perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless), then it
was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first time
only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).
Consequently, they are ahead of what it appears they are. BTW, the PLAAF
very much plans to have the JF-17 in service. For example a total of eight
should enter service by 2006 (remaining planes from the first batch are to
reach Pakistan by June or July that year) and three times this number should
form the first regiment one year later.

So, if we do not count J-10s, and China discontinues purchasing Su-27/30s
from Russia after those currently ordered are delivered by the end of the
next year (which is not only unlikely, but - according to Russian reports -
the PLAAF and the PLANAF want to acquire around 700 Flankers by 2007 or
2008), there are going to be a total of 430 Su-27/30s, 20+ JF-17s, and over
200 J-8II and (I forgot to mention them earlier:) JH-7s alone in service
by - let's say - 2007. That's a total of 650 fighters, most of which are
going to be compatible with the R-77, but a large number of which is going
to be armed with even better stuff of Chinese design (and not to talk about
all the Kh-31s, Kh-58s etc.).

ROCAF is by the time still going to have a fleet of roughly 200 F-16s and
Mirage 2000s, and the USAF is not going to have more than two squadrons of
F-15s at Okinawa, plus four USN Hornet squadrons and four USMC Hornet units
_in Japan_ (i.e. also thousands of kms away), for a total of 36 USAF and 96
USN/USMC fighters - "somewhere in the area". Oh, yes, and 20.000km+ away, in
CONUS, the 1st TFW is going to have something like 25 F-22s....

Hell, I'm really talking about very unrealistic things: this all are pure
dreams. Please, disregard my nonsence then you obviously need to feel better
by bashing me at any opportunity.


> The J-10
> has been a pretty slow program--last I heard they were still dicking
around
> with which engine to mount in it, and there is some doubt as to whether or
> not it will *ever* enter into major frontline service with either PLAN or
> PLAAF units in anything other than nominal numbers.

I see you are first-class informed about the current condition of the J-10
Project, so I'm not going to disturb you with any such nonsence like citing
reports about acceleration of the J-10-production - from April this year.

> That statement is even more preposterous than your assertion that the USN
is
> involved in redefining the air-to-air arena to support fielding of the
> F/A-22.

That's your own construction: feel free to continue developing it even
further.

> That you have chosen to completely disregard the contribution of the ROCAF
may be convenient for your agenda, but it is a ludicrous oversight.

I only asked if the ROCAF is now to fight for the air superiority for the
USAF and the USN. You have my most humble apology if that was wrong to do.

> In an environment where nothing short of at least a 1:6 exchange
> > ratio would be needed, but where anything beyond 1:3 is actually
unlikely
> > (at least according to calculations based on current data), not a very
> > brilliant prospect.
>
> If the aforementioned numbers are representative of your "data", then
excuse
> me for not buying into the validity of your assertion (which also
discounts
> PLAAF losses due to ADA, SAM, and interdiction efforts, I presume).

Yeah! Hell, the Su-27/30 family has such a minimal combat range and
endurance, and China is not in a position to pick up the time of the fight.
For this alone - but especially because I am so obviously anti-US - it must
be that most of them are going to be destroyed in interdiction efforts or -
especially - shot down by SAMs.... ;-)))

> > But OK; feel yourself as "winners": obviously warning about such matters
> is
> > considered here as "anti-US", so I guess somebody has first to hit the
> wall
> > head-on... (it wouldn't be the first time, but at least that functions
for
> > sure).
>
> You have to be able to present a credible case--you have fallen far short
> thus far. Merely playing Chicken Little, without a decent set of
supporting
> data, is not going to get you too far.

Consequently, I do not understand why are you still so upset? You are doing
so well: all my "data" is wrong, because I am a Chicken Little, and cannot
support it. I contradict myself all the time, express myself so that nobody
can understand it, and - most important of all, obviously - I am so much
anti-US that I must be wrong all the way - and you MUST be right (if for no
other reason then because of my signature). ;-))))


Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Tom Cooper]

> Having just read the baseless hype you dumped on Pete about the PRC
fielding
> some six hundred new advanced aircraft over the next year or two, I'd say
> you have your own hands full enough right now.

Of course, Kevin: everything you say.

Then, everything I do is wrong, and consequently everything you do or write
here is right. Because of my signature.

Have I got that correctly? ;-))))

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> Pete,
>
> > No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think
the
> > USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe
at
> > the same time.
>
> Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years,
> it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening.
>
> The problem is this: the USA have an obligation to defend Taiwan (except
> some US admin finds this is 0 and void), and they have a treaty with Japan
> and South Korea. But, there is no way the USA to hit China first.
> Consequently the first blow in such a scenario would obviously be
delivered
> by the Chinese; and in that case the USAF would not be in offensive, but
on
> defensive right from the start, flying from airfields that are thousands
of
> kms away from the battlefield.

In such a situation the fighter aircraft of the USAF would be flying from
bases
in Taiwan

> The USN could bring a carrier or two (even
> more... of course, several months later) but these would have underdogs on
> their decks, developed to strike places not defended by hundreds of
Flankers
> and AWACS....
>

The Chinese dont have hundreds of Flankers or a fully
specified AWACS. They have purchased around 120
Su-27 and SU-3x aircraft. Assuming normal training
and serviceability requirements this equates to less
than 80 front line aircraft. They can field another
couple of hundred indigienously produced 3rd
generation fighters but the vast majority of their
air force consist of obsolete Mi17/19/21 clones

The PLAF has been boasting about acquiring
hundreds of front line aircraft for years but
the reality is that the real world acquisition
has been considerably below claimed targets.

As for strikes against Chinese targets, thats
what stand off and cruise missiles are for.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom Cooper]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> In such a situation the fighter aircraft of the USAF would be flying from
> bases in Taiwan

Mmh, I guess that would be badly needed: the question of using airfields
that would be under almost permanent threat of IRBM and other kind of
attacks is another one, of course...

> The Chinese dont have hundreds of Flankers or a fully
> specified AWACS. They have purchased around 120
> Su-27 and SU-3x aircraft. Assuming normal training
> and serviceability requirements this equates to less
> than 80 front line aircraft. They can field another
> couple of hundred indigienously produced 3rd
> generation fighters but the vast majority of their
> air force consist of obsolete Mi17/19/21 clones
>
> The PLAF has been boasting about acquiring
> hundreds of front line aircraft for years but
> the reality is that the real world acquisition
> has been considerably below claimed targets.
>
> As for strikes against Chinese targets, thats
> what stand off and cruise missiles are for.

Keith,
the figures for the numbers of Su-27/30s in China I posted above come from
people who know much more about the PLAAF/PLANAF and the production of
Flankers than we both are to learn in our life-time. So, please excuse me if
I refuse to take seriously a statement that only something like 80 Flankers
are in the Chinese front-line service, especially at the time they have ten
operational and two regiments in the process of acquiring different
versions.

BTW, most of PLAAF MiG-17s and MiG-19s are long since gone. We're not
talking here about a Mao-times air force that couldn't get anything else.
It's perhaps these two types of which only "80 front-line aircraft" are
remaining in service: the PLAAF Is otherwise downsizing and massively
modernizing - and that since years. Believing, wishing or thinking a threat
away is not going to help - neither in the case of China or some other
nations, I'm affraid.

In that sence: the increasing air-to-air threat from China is only one
example, valid in the case of a clash over Taiwan. The USAF and the USN
would also be facing very advanced threats and powerful adversaries if
confronting Iran as well: except the few battles with Iraqi Mirages and
MiG-25/29s in 1991, namely, neither service has ever encountered anything
like IRIAF F-14s, armed with AIM-54s in combat (oh, and when the last USN's
F-14s are going to be retired, in 2007 or 2008, the IRIAF is going to stand
alone with the longest-ranged air-to-air missile world-wide, just for
example). Given the - pretty negative (especially in regards of the BVR -
which is quite surprising) - experiences from exercises with IAF Su-30MKIs
recently, this is also potentially not the nicest situation given the
aircraft and weapons currently at hand.

All in all, the gap is closing, and that's the main point in the whole
debate: to me it is obvious that the F-22 is more needed than many other
things.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> Pete,
>
> > No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think
the
> > USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe
at
> > the same time.
>
> Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years,
> it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening.
>
> The problem is this: the USA have an obligation to defend Taiwan (except
> some US admin finds this is 0 and void), and they have a treaty with Japan
> and South Korea. But, there is no way the USA to hit China first.
> Consequently the first blow in such a scenario would obviously be
delivered
> by the Chinese; and in that case the USAF would not be in offensive, but
on
> defensive right from the start, flying from airfields that are thousands
of
> kms away from the battlefield.

Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets in
the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back in
the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
there...

The USN could bring a carrier or two (even
> more... of course, several months later) but these would have underdogs on
> their decks, developed to strike places not defended by hundreds of
Flankers
> and AWACS....

You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still awaiting
delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the
Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).

>
> Hm, perhaps you are right: the ROCAF would fight for US air superiority...
> Obviously, there is no need for either the USAF or the USN to push for
> additional developments in the air-to-air arena...

Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in the
same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you
can't seem to grasp that little fact.

>
>
> Kevin,
> > Let's see, the first F/A-22's have already entered into their
operational
> > test and eval phase, and the 1st TFW is scheduled to get their first
birds
> > in the 2005-06 timeframe IIRC. The PLAAF has, from what I have seen on
the
> > sinodefence.com site, some 120 total Su-27/30 variants in service now
(out
> > of a total of some 175 on order) from Russia and some 200 in the
> > construction pipeline in the PRC, and indicates that it is expected some
> 48
> > aircraft will be added to the 120 number in service by 2006--it would
> appear
> > that your timeline may be a little off, unless you think all of those
200
> or
> > so domestic production examples will be completed over the next year or
> two
> > (and then they's still have to order another 25 or so Russian built
> aircraft
> > just to meet your four hundred figure, much less acheive "over 400").
>
> The following figures are from Chinese-language sources and as of 1 March
> 2004. They detail the number of aircraft in service, location and
> assignement of Flankers in the PLAAF (and I hope you know that J-11 is the
> Chinese designation for Su-27SKs, and that an increasing number of these
is
> meanwhile upgraded with new avionics package - foremost radars and
> nav/attack systems).
>
> - 1st Anshan MR, base: Shenyang, 1st AR: 26 J-11
> - 2nd Suixi MR, base: Guangzhou, 4th AR: 26 Su-27
> - 3rd Wuhu MR, base: Nanjing, 9th AR: 26 Su-30
> - 6th Yingchaun MR, base: Lanzhou, 16 or 18 AR and 139 AR: 26 J-11 (and
> increasing)
> - 7th Beijing MR, base: near Beijing, 19/20/21 ARs: 26 J-11 (and
increasing:
> planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
> - 18th Changsha MR, base: Guangzhou, 54th AR: 26 Su-30
> - 19th Zhengzhou MR, base: Jinan 55/56/or 58 AR: 26 Su-27 (and increasing:
> planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
> - 29th Quzhou MR, base: Nanjing 85/86 or 87 AR: 26 Su-27 (and increasing:
> planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
> - 33rd Chongqing MR, base: Chengdu 97th AR: 38 Su-27
> - 6th Naval MR, base: Dachang (Shanghai)16 or 17 AR: 18 Su-30 (and
> increasing: planned to become over 36 by the end of 2005)
> - Flight Test Center, Cangchou MR, Beijing: 18 Su-30
>
> In total, the numbers should currently be as follows:
> - J-11: 80 at present, no additional orders: all are going to be converted
> to J-11A
> - J-11A: 20+ at present, 80 J-11s to be converted, for an eventual total
of
> 100
> - Su-30MKK: 60+ at present, +20-30 additional airframes delivered per year
> on average, for an eventual total of 80+ (at least) by the end of 2005
> - Su-30MK2: 20+ at present, at least 20 are on order, for an eventual
total
> of 40+ (at least) by the end of 2005
> - Su-27SK: 50 at present
> - Su-27UBK: 40 at present, 20 on order, for an eventual total of 60 by the
> end of 2005
>
> That's a total of 270 airframes in service and 140 on order, for a total
of
> 430 by the end of 2005 - if China indeed discontinues the production of
the
> J-11.

You actually expect them to complete delivery of 140 airframes over an
eighteen month period?

Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

www.bvalphaserver.com/article8018.html : "By 2005, PLA fourth-generation
are expected to number about 150..."

www.cdi.org/asia/fa080201.html : "Jane's Defense Weekly (11 July 2001) gives
the number of modern Chinese warplanes in the People's Liberation Air Force
(PLAAF) as less than 200: 100 Su-27 fighters (with 10 or so more added
annually) and 38 Su-30 fighter-bombers with 38 more on order from Russia."
Granted, a 2001 report--but still indicative of the fact that your numbers
are inflated.

www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/ archive/9.1/Essays/Nolt.pdf : (2002) "During
the past decade, China ordered 118 Su-27/30 fighters from Russia (not all
have been delivered). China has begun assembling the Su-27 from Russian
kits, about 15 so far, but "considerable quality control problems" have
delayed deliveries." Source goes on to note that over the next five years
(reaching to 2007) it is only expected that China will be able to
domestically produce about 100 advanced fighter aircraft and declares that
the PLAAF is "declining in relative capability" when compared to the USAF
due to the excessive age of the vast majority of its airframes.,

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/884/documentid/2014/history/3,2360,884,2014 :
"...while the PLA has roughly 3,400 aircraft at their command, only a small
number, around 100 are deemed modern fourth- generation fighters. These
include Russian-designed Su-27 and Su-30s...The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) is
dogged by personnel issues. Chinese pilots, by western standards, are ill
equipped to operate their aircraft to the fullest potential. The Pentagon's
report believes that the PLAAF will have "developed operational concepts and
the training needed to fight as an integrated force" by 2010."

http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/2004/04fisher_report/04_01_01fisherreport.htm:
Lists total PRC purchases of Su-27/30 variants as 154 from Russia and 200
domestically produced J-11's, while noting that the production of the full
200 J-11's is in some doubt. This report, prepared for a US government
commission, is only a couple of months old.

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=395&issue_id=2931&article_id=23659 :
"The purchase of Su-27 fighters from Russia has progressed to the point
where China is assembling kits of these very capable aircraft, which now
number approximately 200 in the PLAAF. The Su-30 fighter/attack aircraft is
also rapidly being acquired by China, and more than seventy-five are
currently in its air force..." This source, which comes closest to matching
your claims, indicates the number that have entered into service as being
275; but it curiously does not reflect any operational/training losses (a
Taiwanese source indicates that during one six month period the PLAAF lost 4
Su-27's in training mishaps). Even if you accept this most optimistic
estimate of deliveries/in-service aircraft, if you apply even a minimal loss
rate (say four aircraft per *year* since the beginning of Su-27/Su-30
operations in the PRC), you would have a total loss rate of some forty
airframes--not including those that were heavily damaged in that 1998
typhoon, of which "most* were repaired and subsequently returned to service.

>
> Duh, sorry, but it appears I was actually wrong: the numbers are even
higher
> than I originally stated....

Sorry, but the picture I am getting from a number of sources indicates you
are not correct.

>
> > What?! You actually think they are going to field that number of J-10's
> and
> > FC-1/JF-17's over the next couple of years? Holy crap, Batman--the FC-1
> just
> > had its maiden rollout last year (and is intended to meet export market
> > requirements--no indication yet it will enter into PLAAF service)!
>
> There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
> reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown earlier
> (perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless), then
it
> was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
> specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first
time
> only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).

Provide proof.

> Consequently, they are ahead of what it appears they are. BTW, the PLAAF
> very much plans to have the JF-17 in service. For example a total of eight
> should enter service by 2006 (remaining planes from the first batch are to
> reach Pakistan by June or July that year) and three times this number
should
> form the first regiment one year later.

Wow! Eight?! Please show a source that states the PLAAF plans to introduce
the FC-1 into its force (preferrably in a greater number than *eight*).

>
> So, if we do not count J-10s, and China discontinues purchasing Su-27/30s
> from Russia after those currently ordered are delivered by the end of the
> next year (which is not only unlikely, but - according to Russian
reports -
> the PLAAF and the PLANAF want to acquire around 700 Flankers by 2007 or
> 2008), there are going to be a total of 430 Su-27/30s, 20+ JF-17s, and
over
> 200 J-8II and (I forgot to mention them earlier:) JH-7s alone in service
> by - let's say - 2007. That's a total of 650 fighters, most of which are
> going to be compatible with the R-77, but a large number of which is going
> to be armed with even better stuff of Chinese design (and not to talk
about
> all the Kh-31s, Kh-58s etc.).

Forget the J8--it is an anachronism. And you have yet to show where they
will have over 700 fourth generation aircraft in service by the time the
F/A-22 enters into operational service next year; in fact, your quick
backpeddle on the alleged 300 J-10 and FC-1's entering into service by that
time period kind of puts your allegation to rest, with a stake in its
proverbial heart. Lots of sources indicate the current total force of
Su-27/30's in service does not exceed 150 aircraft at present, and you have
not shown any source that indicates otherwise. Nor have you accounted for
training/operational losses since they started flying the Sukhois (and that
may well indeed account for the difference between 150 and the total number
of Sukhois/J-11's thus far delivered).

>
> ROCAF is by the time still going to have a fleet of roughly 200 F-16s and
> Mirage 2000s, and the USAF is not going to have more than two squadrons of
> F-15s at Okinawa, plus four USN Hornet squadrons and four USMC Hornet
units
> _in Japan_ (i.e. also thousands of kms away), for a total of 36 USAF and
96
> USN/USMC fighters - "somewhere in the area". Oh, yes, and 20.000km+ away,
in
> CONUS, the 1st TFW is going to have something like 25 F-22s....

Last I knew, F-15 squadrons were still flying between 20 and 24 aircraft,
except those in the ANG. And I guess your view is that we are bounf by some
kind of "can't reinforce" clause, which presumably goes along with that
whole "US has to fight defensively if the PRC strikes first" idea you
postulated earlier? What about the F-16's as Misawa--they can't forward
deploy? Nor can the F-15's from Alaska? There would be a prohibition of USAF
assets heading into ROCAF sites? The B-1B's and/or B-52's sitting on Guam
can't play? Kind of convenient scenario you have set out for yourself
there...

>
> Hell, I'm really talking about very unrealistic things: this all are pure
> dreams. Please, disregard my nonsence then you obviously need to feel
better
> by bashing me at any opportunity.

Finally, you recognize that you are spluttering a bunch of nonsense...

>
>
> > The J-10
> > has been a pretty slow program--last I heard they were still dicking
> around
> > with which engine to mount in it, and there is some doubt as to whether
or
> > not it will *ever* enter into major frontline service with either PLAN
or
> > PLAAF units in anything other than nominal numbers.
>
> I see you are first-class informed about the current condition of the J-10
> Project, so I'm not going to disturb you with any such nonsence like
citing
> reports about acceleration of the J-10-production - from April this year.
>

Please show where this "accelerated production" is going to yield 300
aircraft by next year.

> > That statement is even more preposterous than your assertion that the
USN
> is
> > involved in redefining the air-to-air arena to support fielding of the
> > F/A-22.
>
> That's your own construction: feel free to continue developing it even
> further.

YOUR words: "The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after
they realized
that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled..." Note the use of "and", and
"they".

>
> > That you have chosen to completely disregard the contribution of the
ROCAF
> may be convenient for your agenda, but it is a ludicrous oversight.
>
> I only asked if the ROCAF is now to fight for the air superiority for the
> USAF and the USN. You have my most humble apology if that was wrong to do.

Stupid question.

>
> > In an environment where nothing short of at least a 1:6 exchange
> > > ratio would be needed, but where anything beyond 1:3 is actually
> unlikely
> > > (at least according to calculations based on current data), not a very
> > > brilliant prospect.
> >
> > If the aforementioned numbers are representative of your "data", then
> excuse
> > me for not buying into the validity of your assertion (which also
> discounts
> > PLAAF losses due to ADA, SAM, and interdiction efforts, I presume).
>
> Yeah! Hell, the Su-27/30 family has such a minimal combat range and
> endurance, and China is not in a position to pick up the time of the
fight.

With all of those AWACS platforms...they still don't have, right?

> For this alone - but especially because I am so obviously anti-US - it
must
> be that most of them are going to be destroyed in interdiction efforts
or -
> especially - shot down by SAMs.... ;-)))

SAM's will undoubtedly account for some of them, if they want to press the
fight. EW is not exactly the prime forte of the PLAAF, now is it?

>
> > > But OK; feel yourself as "winners": obviously warning about such
matters
> > is
> > > considered here as "anti-US", so I guess somebody has first to hit the
> > wall
> > > head-on... (it wouldn't be the first time, but at least that functions
> for
> > > sure).
> >
> > You have to be able to present a credible case--you have fallen far
short
> > thus far. Merely playing Chicken Little, without a decent set of
> supporting
> > data, is not going to get you too far.
>
> Consequently, I do not understand why are you still so upset? You are
doing
> so well: all my "data" is wrong, because I am a Chicken Little, and cannot
> support it. I contradict myself all the time, express myself so that
nobody
> can understand it, and - most important of all, obviously - I am so much
> anti-US that I must be wrong all the way - and you MUST be right (if for
no
> other reason then because of my signature). ;-))))

I am not upset--I just don't approve of your taking half-baked figures,
tossing in unrealistic assumptions, and then labeling them as "fact". You
said they'd have 700 plus fourth generation aircraft in service by the time
the F/A-22 enters into service--but you have yet to show where that is
anywhere near possible.

Brooks

>
>
> Tom Cooper

[Denyav]

>As for strikes against Chinese targets, thats
>what stand off and cruise missiles are for.

Well,first of all "The Chinese Threat Theory" is only a carefully invented
deception,there is no Chinese threat and there wont be any Chinese threat in
foreseable time.
But US politicians and officials could not openly discuss "The Threat Europa"
or "The Threat Japan" as it would be politically incorrect and financially
devastating even though they try to prepare US for that possibility by all
means
So,US-Chinese conflict is a purely a academic conflict
Chinese have surely Brainpower to develop post paradigm shift weapons and
judging from openly available chinese R&D efforts HPM weapons are very high in
their priority list.
So,they are not stupid and China is not a country like
Panama,Grenada,Afghanistan,Iraq etc so US will not try to attack China even if
they invade Taiwan tomorrow.
Thats the real politics.

[Alistair Gunn]

Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
> neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed
> with AIM-54s in combat

Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians
are still servicable though? Most people seemed pretty sure it was down
to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there
was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how
many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!)

There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the
Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution
(either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans
or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too
western") ...

[1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the
capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Denyav]

>We're not
>talking here about a Mao-times air force that couldn't get anything else.
>It's perhaps these two types of which only "80 front-line aircraft" are

Before 90s chinese RMA advocates were pretty weak but during 90, with changes
in chinese society they got a big boost and were able to develop their
ingenious concepts like Assains' Mace weapons.

Surely they have Brainpower to develop and design them (many of
scientists,cutting edge researchers here in US are imported from China)and they
have also industrial infrastructure to build them now.

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:31:11 GMT, "Tom Cooper" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The USAF and the USMC/USN aircraft are, by a large margin, the best
>> in the world. The rumored "multi-static" radars are vapor ware, and the
>> "new" Russian aircraft are either simply rumors or prototypes that will
>> never enter production. The F-22 and F-35 will give the US Military
>> absolute air dominance.
>
>Well, what you apparently refuse to see is that there are plenty of
>Su-30-clones around _in service_ right now, but that the F-22 and the F-35
>are still years away from being available to operational units. But, I guess
>this doesn't matter to you.
>
>If you consider that there are over 200 Su-27/30s supported by several AWACS
>in Chinese service alone right now, how do you think could the USAF and the
>USN help defend Taiwan - just for example - with two squadrons of F-15s (on
>Okinawa) and few squadrons of Hornets on the carrier based in Japan?
>
>> Sorry that the facts interfere with your anti-US ravings.
>
>Yes, Al,
>very good: just continue adding fuel on fire of those that really hate the
>USA and consider the Americans for a bunch of ignorant and undereducated
>idiots. The Europe is full of such people, and they are all happy when they
>can read something like your post here - especially when somebody reacts in
>the way you do against people who live in the Europe.
>
>The problem is only that you've found yourself a wrong one - like usually in
>such cases: so now there are going to even more of those here who also think
>that most Americans can't even read properly... sigh...
>
>Tom Cooper
>Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
>Vienna, Austria

You simply cannot understand that SU-XX, flown by the Chinese, cannot
effectively counter F-15's and Super Bugs. When was the last time that
US built and flown a/c suffered a significant defeat?? The latest Mig
"super planes" did not help Saddam, did they?

And, if you had not noticed, the SU is about as stealthy as a 747.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:37:54 GMT, "Tom Cooper" > wrote:

>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > If you want to bang
>> > > someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job
>> of
>> > > wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist"
>you
>> > > should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.
>> >
>> > Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or
>what,
>> > Kevin?
>>
>> How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether
>through
>> very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them,
>and
>> then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like.
>Sad.
>
>So, it is my signature after all, Kevin? ;-)))
>
>Thanks a lot for confirmation - otherwise you wouldn't come babbling about
>"bold-faced" statements, then I don't know where have I posted such.
>
>BTW, I don't remember to be in a need some kind of special permission from
>you for what I'm doing - here or anywhere else - and I have also not
>misunderstood this NG for some courtroom. So, I'm telling it again: go and
>find yourself somebody else to play - or keep on playing with yourself. I'm
>not the least interested.
>
>Tom Cooper
>Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
>Vienna, Austria
>
Actually, you are "not the least" qualified.

Al Minyard

[Denyav]

>And, if you had not noticed, the SU is about as stealthy as a 747.

If you had still not noticed, f22 and B2 are about as stealthy to multistatics
as a B52 to backscatterers.

Heck,in year 2004 we have still difficulty to explain some things that the
Germans and Brits knew in 40s to some people.

You can reduce backscaterers by hard body shaping very significantly,but
unfortunately you CANNOT do the same for the forward scatterers.That was the
lesson that Germans and Brits learned in 40s.
Thats also the reason why multistatic RCS of B2 is even greater than frontal
backscatterer RCS of B52.

Even Yale graduates should be able to understand that.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:53:25 GMT, "Tom Cooper" > wrote:

>Pete,
>
>> No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think the
>> USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe at
>> the same time.
>
>Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years,
>it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening.
>
What an utter fool.

PLONK

Al Minyard

[Tom Cooper]

> Actually, you are "not the least" qualified.
>
> Al Minyard

Of course I'm not, Al: as you expertly explained, I'm "anti-US" and that
disqualifies me in all possible areas.

But, I'm relieved that you're "qualified". :D

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Tom Cooper]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets
in
> the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back
in
> the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
> against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
> there...

Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you read
any of my previous posts indicating this before?

> You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
> will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still
awaiting
> delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the
> Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).

Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units, it
is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic.

So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any
kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic?

I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty of
them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you
anything else?

Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to ask.

> Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
> that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in
the
> same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you
> can't seem to grasp that little fact.

Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you seen
this coming?

> Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm
anti-US and not qualified.

> > There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
> > reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown
earlier
> > (perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless),
then
> it
> > was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
> > specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first
> time
> > only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).
>
> Provide proof.

See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US -
like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal?

And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts....

It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on
Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste from
them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and
anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting electrons.
Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe.
Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more. :D

Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing
list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8

Cheers,

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog,
anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on
demand)
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Tom Cooper]

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
> > neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed
> > with AIM-54s in combat
>
> Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians
> are still servicable though?

Of course: none. You know, ignoring potential threats, talking and -
foremost - guessing and wishing them away functions at best: the US history
confirms this beyond any doubt - and in quite some lenght.

> Most people seemed pretty sure it was down
> to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there
> was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how
> many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!)

How should I know? You were so kind to explain that I'm twisting electrons,
so I obviously can't answer your question without doing the same again.

I suggest you to ask Al instead: he'll confirm you that I'm not qualified to
answer any questions at all - not to talk about such stuff - and then he'll
explain you how many F-14s are there in Iran.

> There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the
> Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution
> (either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans
> or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too
> western") ...

Of course: you know, while being confinned to their living spaces in the
days while waiting some plane to fly them out of Iran for something as
laughable as threats for their life, in the winter and spring of 1979, the
US contract personnel (of course, especially "Grumman technicians"!), CIA
agents etc. - you know: everybody who wanted - could walk around the IIAF
airbases at free, and sabotage whatever they wanted to sabotage. And so they
had all the time of the world and plenty of opportunities to sabotage no
less but 77 F-14s and something like 260 remaining AIM-54s distributed on
three different airfields and (in the case of the AIM-54s) even in
underground facilities. Of course, it's a little bit funny (if not outright
silly) they sabotaged them only so that they could not use AIM-54s, even if
the AWG-9s remained intact and functional so that all the "experts" could
later report that Iranians use their F-14s as "mini-AWACS"....But, heh, who
cares about this being logical or not?

Oh, and the wolf ate Little Red Riddinghood. True story! (I've seen it on
TV)

> [1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the
> capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ...

Clear stuff: how can one expect the Mullahs to know what to do with that
large chunk of titanium and other metals that the Kafirs in the West call
"F-14" (spelling?) - or something like that?

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

[Alistair Gunn]

Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
> "Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
>> > neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed
>> > with AIM-54s in combat
>> Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians
>> are still servicable though?
> Of course: none.

That was actually a serious question ... However I see it was a question
that seems to be beyond your ability to answer ...

>> Most people seemed pretty sure it was down
>> to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there
>> was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how
>> many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!)
> How should I know?

In your earlier post (MsgID: >) you
claimed "in 2007 or 2008, the IRIAF is going to stand alone with the
longest-ranged air-to-air missile world-wide" ... Clearly assuming that
you had some facts (such as current, approximate, numbers of servicable
Tomcats) to back up this statement was an error of mine ...

> You were so kind to explain that I'm twisting electrons, so I obviously
> can't answer your question without doing the same again.

So you object when I attribute things you said to you? <shrugs> Each to
their own I guess ... but if you wheren't prepared to have your words
attributed to you, why did you say them in the first place? <grins>

> I suggest you to ask Al instead: he'll confirm you that I'm not qualified to
> answer any questions at all - not to talk about such stuff - and then he'll
> explain you how many F-14s are there in Iran.

Well, clearly the number of servicable Tomcats is going to be somewhere
between 79 and 0, and given they've been in service (or not, as the case
may be), including combat time, for over 20 years with only minimal spares
support at best it would seem reasonable to assume they've been subject
to at least *some* attrition.

Now given that Tom has now confessed that he has no idea how many, if
any, are still servicable does anyone else want to take a stab?

>> There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the
>> Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution
>> (either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans
>> or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too
>> western") ...
> Oh, and the wolf ate Little Red Riddinghood. True story! (I've seen it on
> TV)

Conflicting - To be in opposition; to be contradictory.

Hence, "there also seems to be conflicting reports about $THING" means
some say $THING happened others don't, or say it didn't happen ...

>> [1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the
>> capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ...
> Clear stuff: how can one expect the Mullahs to know what to do with that
> large chunk of titanium and other metals that the Kafirs in the West call
> "F-14" (spelling?) - or something like that?

Ah, so to your mind all 25 of those Tomcats where fully servicable in all
respects? I'd be interested as to what leads you to that conclusion,
indeed such interest was largely the reason for my original posting.
Personally I'd say that the fly-past proves they had at least 25 that
could fly (on that particular day), but it says nothing about their
capabilities wrt the AWG-9, Pheonix capability, functioning afterburners,
wing-sweep capability ... etc
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets
> in
> > the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown"
back
> in
> > the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
> > against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
> > there...
>
> Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you
read
> any of my previous posts indicating this before?

Strange as it may seem, many of us do not hang upon your every word--I can
only go off what you say *now*, and that was, to quote: "...the first blow
in such a scenario would obviously be delivered by the Chinese; and in that
case the USAF would not be in offensive, but on defensive right from the
start..."

>
> > You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
> > will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still
> awaiting
> > delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed
the
> > Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).
>
> Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units,
it
> is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic.

Considering that your numbers, not to mention your conclusions, contradict
what many other sources indicate, including the latest DoD report, which
indicates that the PLAAF *might* be capable of taking on a joint USAF/ROCAF
force sometime after 2010: "The PLAAF's primary strength remains its
size--approximately 3,000 combat-capable aircraft. Also, the PLAAF and
PLANAF are undergoing significant upgrades, whichinclude acquiring
fourth-generation aircraft, air defense systems, advanced munitions, and
C4ISR equipment. These upgrades eventually will improve the PLAAF's
capability to conduct both offensive and defensive operations. In addition,
air combat tactics continue to evolve, and training is becoming more
advanced, though both remain behind Western standards. By 2010-15, the PLAAF
will have made additional progress toward becoming a modern air force and
will be equipped with modern weapons that most likelywill enable the PLA to
execute the regional combat operations its current military doctrine
envisions."

That is a far cry from what you have been braying about, and it would be
hard to point to the DoD's accessment as being overly optimistic--this is
after all one of the foundation documents trotted out when budgeting comes
to the table.

>
> So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any
> kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic?

Because you have a habit of tossing out unspupported "facts" that do not
jive with other available sources.

>
> I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty
of
> them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you
> anything else?

An idiot, perhaps? But then again, you remain firmly convinced your version
of reality is quite different from that portrayed by folks like the DoD,
right?

>
> Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to
ask.

Apparently he hit the nail on the head in this case--anyone claiming that
the PLAAF would field 300 J-10/FC-1 aircraft over the next 12 to 18 months,
as you have, is obviously a bit lacking in qualifications, namely common
sense.

>
> > Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
> > that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in
> the
> > same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry
you
> > can't seem to grasp that little fact.
>
> Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you
seen
> this coming?

I am guessing english is not your first language-- that last question makes
no sense whatsoever.

>
> > Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:
>
> Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm
> anti-US and not qualified.

From what I have seen thus far, only the latter really applies here.

>
> > > There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
> > > reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown
> earlier
> > > (perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless),
> then
> > it
> > > was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
> > > specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the
first
> > time
> > > only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).
> >
> > Provide proof.
>
> See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US -
> like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal?

So, another unsupported "fact" you have trotted out--figures. Your
dedication to the practice of snipping all of that stuff you don't like from
the conversation, even though it is still the subject of debate, is another
little trait of your's that gets a bit tiresome, though since you have a
demonstrable tendency of denying your own previous statements it is probably
understandable--why make it easy for your opponent to zing those direct
quotes back at you, eh?

>
> And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts....
>
> It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on
> Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste
from
> them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and
> anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting
electrons.
> Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe.
> Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more. :D

Actually, you seem to fit quite well into the mold of "New Journalism"--the
facts be damned, your personal views and "hidden sources" are paramount. You
might want to drop a resume off at the New York Times--they have
demonstrated a recent propensity to like journalists with that kind of
philosophy.

Brooks

>
> Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing
> list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom Cooper
> Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
> Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog,
> anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on
> demand)
> Vienna, Austria
>
> *************************************************
>
> Author:
> Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
>
> Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875
>
> Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585
>
> African MiGs
> http://www.acig.org/afmig/
>
> Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550~ser=COM
>
> *************************************************
>
>
>