Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

"phil hunt" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:23:57 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Errr, one remark 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.

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

Or unless the Europeans do.

IMHO, this is the "largest" problem 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?

Who cares about the past?

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

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

For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regardless the sum, it's your bet.

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

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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

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

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

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

Your obsession with stealth is ignoring many other operational
aspects.

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

(Quant) writes:

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Bull

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

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

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

Keith

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:45 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

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

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

That sounds very plausible.

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

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


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

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


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

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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:11:24 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

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

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

Here in Austria, we spend EUR 40 million a day for stuff that is not needed,
and structures too old and unable to modernize.

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

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

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

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

Greece has been historically in adversity with Turkey.

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

Well, that's the difference between the US producers, and the EADS: the last
will have little problems in supplying the full technical and software
documentations to their clients. The US are frequently reluctant to do so.

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


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

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

So Eurofighter will supply the relevent information, yes?

IMHO, this is the "largest" problem 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?

Who cares about the past?

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

For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regardless the sum, it's your bet.

Not sure what you're getting at.

--
A: top posting

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Repo...91/9107040.htm

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

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...91/9104034.htm

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

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

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm

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

Brooks



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any 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

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


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


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

Nonsense

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

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

Keith

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:43:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

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


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


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

Nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

--
A: top posting

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

In article ,
Alex Walton wrote:

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

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

Your obsession with stealth is ignoring many other operational
aspects.

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

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

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

--


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