Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

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 message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:02:28 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
Have you seen the plots, Al, or just LockMart propaganda? What aspect
and frequency are we discussing?

No, I have not seen the plots, but looking at, for instance the
forward aspect, the inlets and turbine blades are going to light up a
radar at quite a range.

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

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

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

They will need them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:43:03 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

No problem either, and regardles the range. The second kill scored by
AIM-54
ever was against an Iraqi MiG-21RF, escorted by two MiG-23MS. The Phoenix
blew the 21 after travelling over 60kms

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

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

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


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

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

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:

I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much better than
previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly higher as a
result.

That sounds very plausible.

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

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


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

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

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?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:23:57 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

Or unless the Europeans do.

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

What about al-Yamamah?

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

For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

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

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

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

I.e. no real reasons to worry about...

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

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

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

Indeed.

--
A: top posting

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

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

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

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

Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive historical lesson about the backgrounds
of the Six Day War. Certainly badly needed


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


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


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

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

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



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



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

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


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


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


Has Egypt blocked
the Tyran Straits just few days back, or should it this time be the talk
about the Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s?

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



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

"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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