Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--


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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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

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

And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
completely different class.

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

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

Again, source for this claim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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

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

And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
completely different class.

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

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

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

Again, source for this claim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--


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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
substantiated.

Here's a better one: the Eurofighter has *never* been claimed to be a
full stealth fighter (except in a few brochures, where they stretch the
definition of "stealth" to include a smaller airframe and smokeless
engines). It has a somewhat reduced radar cross-section (about a
quarter of an F-16 from head-on, which isn't really saying much),

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

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

Over what aspects?

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

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

Again, source for this claim?

Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
read up on it.

I get paid for knowing about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, life isn't that binary.

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

Yes, they also use the Eyeball Mk1 (the Raptor has some camouflage work
done in its paint job which makes it a bitch to see at even medium
range),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then they hang all of
the weapons on the outside

Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

and give it a few ECM bits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
substantiated.

Here's a better one: the Eurofighter has *never* been claimed to be a
full stealth fighter (except in a few brochures, where they stretch the
definition of "stealth" to include a smaller airframe and smokeless
engines). It has a somewhat reduced radar cross-section (about a
quarter of an F-16 from head-on, which isn't really saying much),

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

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

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

Over what aspects?

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

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

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

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

Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
read up on it.

I get paid for knowing about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, life isn't that binary.

But it's certainly the way to bet.

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

Yes, they also use the Eyeball Mk1 (the Raptor has some camouflage work
done in its paint job which makes it a bitch to see at even medium
range),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then they hang all of the weapons on the outside

Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

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

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

and give it a few ECM bits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--


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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.

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

Too vague to be useful, then.

Over what aspects?

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

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

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

No, it's usually in the gross structure.

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

I get paid for knowing about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, life isn't that binary.

But it's certainly the way to bet.

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

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

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

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

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

Considering that the F-22 won't need afterburners until past Mach 1.2,
that's not a big worry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

Only for basic loadouts,

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

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

Same as the F/A-22, then.

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

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

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

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

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

...and because you misstated the effeciveness of the American-built
planes.

You're kidding, right?

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

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

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

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

Considering that the F-22 won't need afterburners until past Mach 1.2,
that's not a big worry.

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

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

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

--


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

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:00:06 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.

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

Too vague to be useful, then.

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


--
A: top posting

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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

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






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

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


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


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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad
Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're
using.

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

Too vague to be useful, then.

Over what aspects?

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

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

....

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

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

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

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