Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

Erm no

We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.

There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
and open source software more important.


Oh come on , what percentage of PC users even own a C++
compiler let lone know how to use it ?

For an increasing number of application spheres -- note I'm not
claiming for everything -- open source is the best solution for the
job. Web servers being a good example.


I'll grant you that for server aplications UNIX is clearly superior

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.

I am only commenting on the reality of our customers
preferences, personally I prefer Unix but the reality is
most end users dont,

Have most end users even used Linux?

No, which is rather the point.

I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,

But they lack the market share

without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
with Microsoft.

Dell had it as an option on their
PC's for a a while, they dropped it from the Desktop range
due to lack of interest

Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
(those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.


Microsoft have at least as good a selection of foreign fonts
and character sets as any implementation of Unix I've seen


Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
anywhere else.


Actually thats where third party software is most succesful

If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
developments.

But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.


Its even easier to go bust ignoring what your customers
demand, we can sell em Unix versions tomorrow, we
still support it for existing customers and they are on the
price book but I dont expect to sell any.

Keith

phil hunt wrote:

Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
with Microsoft.

Linux is a great OS. I really prefer Unix (Solaris/Linux) to a Windows
platform.

But I think a lot of the caution amongst business in using Linux is the
view of it being "hacker software" with no one "in charge". Business
needs someone always available to help solve OS problems and the view
is that isn't there with Linux. Asking a newsgroup isn't the same as
having MS available a telephone call away. Not certain what Linux
tech support actually is though.

MS is trashed by many a programmer, but I think they do make reasonably
good products (although their concepts of system security seem almost
a non-concern at times). It's plenty good enough for most users.

Attribute it to my increasing anti-European attitudes, but I think the
Euro move away from MS is primarily intended to undercut US economic
power. It's one of the "quiet agenda items" on the EU plate IMHO,
although God knows MS's licensing and ownership demands can be infuriating!


SMH

"phil hunt" wrote
Paul Austin wrote:

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.

Best to use UAVs for bombing.

That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term. Especially with
SEAD, time lines are short between detection (either way) and the time
to take the shot. UAVs make the man more distance in the
sense-decide-act loop and give REMFs more opportunity/requirement to
review shoot decisions "to prevent collateral damage". Higher feels
comfortable with a manned platform making the final "shooter"
decision. It will take a lot of hands-on experience before the command
chain feels comfortable with UCAVs roaming the battlefield looking for
something to kill on their own recognizance.

Doctrine for UAV and UCAV use is still in early days. The USAF sees a
gaggle of strike UCAVs operating in company with and under the control
of a manned two seat platform (F-15E currently). The USN sees UCAVs
primarily as sensor platforms. The Typhoon/F-22/F-35 generation is
likely to be the last manned fighter/attack aircraft generation but
even so, military operators are a long way from settling on doctrine
for UAV use. After all, UAVs are not yet cleared to operate in
national controlled airspace.

If anything, UCAV use in autonomous air to air roles would be easier
from a collateral damage standpoint. The only reason you don't hear
about it is that the air forces don't no how want Killer Robot
Fighters roaming the sky and killing-them-by mistake. Bomb the
occasional own-side ground pounder or civilian? That's a risk of war.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
"Paul Austin" wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote
(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.

Unfortunately, the USAF specified that the AIM-9X use the same
motor,
warhead and fuze at the current AIM-9M with TVC added to roughly
the
same planform. I don't expect much different kinematics in the
AIM-9X.

It's been WIDELY reported that the -9X is significantly better.
For
one thing you don't have those huge tail fins and canards (drag and
weight) nor those rollerons (mroe drag and weight). I don't know
how
tail control compares to canard control as far as efficiency goes
but
judging by the fact that one of the advantages touted of AMRAAM over
Sparrow and 9X over 9M,L, etc. was that they WERE tail controlled,
would seem to indicate an advantage. Come to think of it I've seen
the same advantage mentioned in regards to ESSM over -7.

Widely reported where? If you look at the Raytheon site
http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ you'll see that the canard
configuration is similar to the AIM-9M. The tail fins are smaller but
the TVC vanes are a loss element in terms of total impulse. Some
improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable. ASRAAM
and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers not
tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse can
be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.

Widely reported where?

This is going to sound like a copout but I read a LOT. It could have
been any number of places but I know I've seen it numerous times and I
RARELY rely on company propaganda for information. Usually company
sites are good for photos or videos (except for the exceptionally lame
Northrop Grumman site).




If you look at the Raytheon site
http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ you'll see that the canard
configuration is similar to the AIM-9M.

The canards are much smaller and fixed.



Some
improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable. ASRAAM
and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers not
tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse can
be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.

IIRC all the rest of the entries for which the -9x as-is was selected
had bigger motors too.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:24:06 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges).

To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.

What sort of formula are you using for this?

acquisition_range = k * rcs^0.25

where (k) is a constant. Basically it's the inverse-square law, both
from the radar to the target, then from the target back to the radar
again.

So for every 1% you increase the RCS, you increase acquisition range
by 0.25%

I don't consider 40 miles
"long" when we're looking at airborne missiles with ranges of over 100
miles. 40 miles is "medium." At 100 miles that's still a couple of
miles of extra time before acquiring,

2.5 miles

Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*,

Oh? Did Serbia and Iraq have modern AA systems? I think not.

The phrase you're looking for is "golden BB."

Never heard of it.

But with the number of
missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies.

Don't understand you.

And since
you're claiming that stealth isn't that important,

I don't recall ever making that claim -- perhaps you could vremind
me where I did.

we should have lost
them on a regular basis. We didn't.

How detectable is the F-117 (and F-22) using visual or IR sensors?

With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
distance.

What do you mean by "safe distance"?

If you're in a plane, you're not going to be using image
magnification to find the other guy, unless you know right where he's
coming from in the first place.

I more had in mind an observer on the ground.

Even with that, you have camouflage for
the human optical frequencies,


and pure IR is not very useful for very
long ranges.

Why not? Is is more or less useful than visual? Does it make a
difference whether it is day or night? And what do you mean by "lonh
ranges"?

A quick BOTE calculation suggests that with clear air conditions, a
F-22 would in principle be detectable at 100 km with the sort of
digital equipment you can buy in a high street shop (a 10 m wide
object would produce an image 10 pixels across, assuming a 1000 mm
lens and a focal plane with 100 pixels/mm) though I'm sure in real
life conditions wouldn't be good enough to spot it in daylight.
Spotting the exhaust at night might be easier, especially for IR
sensors.

"Detecting" versus "acquiring and identifying," I'm afraid.

I don't think so. Once something hase been detected, finding its
exact position should be relatively easy. If we are using visual
sensors, we could have several point towards it and use parallax to
get the exact position. (Here I'm only considering using passive
sensors in an air defence system, since they are immune to
anti-radar missiles and anti-radar stealth. (Obviously they are not
immune to making the aircraft smaller, but there are practical
constraints to doing that).)

Once the position is got, the defenses can fire a missile to
intercept, using ground-controlled mid-course guidance, and active
radar (or IR) terminal homing.

Identifying is fairly easy. Either use IFF or the known positions of
friendly aircraft to know whether it's hostile. If you know it's
hostile, use the size of sensor returns to guess more or less what
it is (cruise missile/ small fighter/ big fighter/ AEW), though the
precise nature isn't very important, since in all cases the response
would be the same.

Narrowing
down the field of view enough to make visual ID makes for a lot less
coverage per sweep. If you know where the target is, it gets fairly
easy, but you have to look in the right direction first, and hope
there's no clouds or haze in the way.

Yes.

And if you can manage to "detect" a 10 pixel object, you still have to
figure out what the heck it is.

Why? You only have to detect whether it's hostile or not.

--
A: top posting

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:47:44 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

Erm no

We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.

There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
and open source software more important.

Oh come on , what percentage of PC users even own a C++
compiler let lone know how to use it ?

Firstly you don't need to have (I don't use the word "own" because
if its a proprietary C++ compiler, you never own it in any
meaningful way) a C++ compiler to use open sourcve software, since
for many packages they are either asvailable with the distribution
on CDROM/DVDROM, or can be downloaded in compiled form.

For example, I am composing this message on an open-source text
editor which is running as part of an open-source nntp reader; I
didn't have to compile either program.

Secondly, when someone (e.g. a network administrator) does have to
compile, it's usually no more complicated than:

../configure
make
make install

These commands are easy to learn, and the same for the vast majority
of open source packages written in C/C++. For packages written in
scripting languages (Perl, Python), or web applications (PHP), no
compilation is necessary. For Java packages, distribution is
typically using Java's JAR format: you just put the .jar file in the
relevant directory.

I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,

But they lack the market share

For now.

The world's most populous country is going for Linux in a big way.
How much market share will open-soruce apps have in 2010?

Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
(those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.

Microsoft have at least as good a selection of foreign fonts
and character sets as any implementation of Unix I've seen

Perhaps. Though there is at least one language I'm aware of (Farsi)
for which the quality of MS character sets is poor enough to
incentivize people to create Linux/X11 character sets for. I'm sure
there are other languages/charsets for which this is true.

And it's not jsut the characters, it's the words. If you speak a
less-well-known language, then MS won't supply a version of Windows
or Office using commands, emnu items etc in your language. And
there's nothing you can do about it -- in the Microsoft would, you
get what Billy**** says you can have, and if you dson't like it,
tough.

In the Linux world, it's different. If the KDE or GNOME front ends
don't have support for your preferred language, you can just write
them yourself.

Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
anywhere else.

Actually thats where third party software is most succesful

Yes, running on the Microsoft OS. That's really the only area that
Linux is inferior right now. On the PC I'm using to write this, I
use Linux for everything except playing games, when I switch over to
Win98.

If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
developments.

But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.

Its even easier to go bust ignoring what your customers
demand,

I don't see govmts going bust, that's not really a consideration for
them.

we can sell em Unix versions tomorrow, we
still support it for existing customers and they are on the
price book but I dont expect to sell any.

So what sort of products are we talking about here?

--
A: top posting

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:55:33 -0400, Stephen Harding wrote:
phil hunt wrote:

Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
with Microsoft.

Linux is a great OS. I really prefer Unix (Solaris/Linux) to a Windows
platform.

But I think a lot of the caution amongst business in using Linux is the
view of it being "hacker software" with no one "in charge".

That's true to some extent, but it's a lot less true than it used to
be.

Business
needs someone always available to help solve OS problems and the view
is that isn't there with Linux. Asking a newsgroup isn't the same as
having MS available a telephone call away.

No, it's better, in my experience anyway.

When I have a computer problem, if I can't fix it, I use
Google (both on web and groups) to see if anyone's had the same
problem. That usually turns up a fix. If it doesn't, I read the
manual (sign of desperation!) If that doesn't work, I ask on relvant
ngs and/or mailing lists. After doing all this, i will typically
have an answer, if an answer exists.

When I telephone helplines, I usually get someone assumeing I'm too
thick to describe the symptoms of my problem correctly (which is
probably true for many callers), or when stuiff from two suppliers
is concerned, each blames the other's products. If it's MS, the
usual advice is "reboot", or "upgrade to the latest version", oh and
I think they charge something like $99 per incident, whether they
can fix your problem or not.

Not certain what Linux
tech support actually is though.

You can actually buy support contracts for Linux.

MS is trashed by many a programmer, but I think they do make reasonably
good products (although their concepts of system security seem almost
a non-concern at times). It's plenty good enough for most users.

Attribute it to my increasing anti-European attitudes, but I think the
Euro move away from MS is primarily intended to undercut US economic
power.

To some extent. But I think undercutting American spying
capabilities is probably a more common motive -- the German security
ministry funds open-source encryption software partly for this
reason. MS is perceived as having secret backdoors that the USA
could use to spy on computers, and that's one of the main reasons
the Chinese govmt is going over to Linux for all its own computers
(the other is a desire to use local products).

Of course, this isn't a reason why lots of Americans are
increasingly using Linux. In the USA, as elsewhere, Linux+Apache is
the most common web server platform.

--
A: top posting

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:25:39 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote
Best to use UAVs for bombing.

That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term.

It's happening already. What do you think cruise missiles are? Or
fire-and-forget AT missiles like Brimstone?

The only difference is that if you have your UAV carrying a
laser-guided bomb (instead of being the bomb), you can re-use it.

Especially with
SEAD, time lines are short between detection (either way) and the time
to take the shot. UAVs make the man more distance in the
sense-decide-act loop and give REMFs more opportunity/requirement to
review shoot decisions "to prevent collateral damage". Higher feels
comfortable with a manned platform making the final "shooter"
decision. It will take a lot of hands-on experience before the command
chain feels comfortable with UCAVs roaming the battlefield looking for
something to kill on their own recognizance.

That's true.


--
A: top posting

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

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:47:44 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

Erm no

We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.

There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
and open source software more important.

Oh come on , what percentage of PC users even own a C++
compiler let lone know how to use it ?

Firstly you don't need to have (I don't use the word "own" because
if its a proprietary C++ compiler, you never own it in any
meaningful way) a C++ compiler to use open sourcve software, since
for many packages they are either asvailable with the distribution
on CDROM/DVDROM, or can be downloaded in compiled form.

For example, I am composing this message on an open-source text
editor which is running as part of an open-source nntp reader; I
didn't have to compile either program.

Secondly, when someone (e.g. a network administrator) does have to
compile, it's usually no more complicated than:

./configure
make
make install


All of which negates the point of open source which is to
be able to make changes. Frankly all Joe Blow wants
is to be able to pop his CD in the drive and hit
the OK Button when its asks if he wants to install it.

These commands are easy to learn, and the same for the vast majority
of open source packages written in C/C++. For packages written in
scripting languages (Perl, Python), or web applications (PHP), no
compilation is necessary. For Java packages, distribution is
typically using Java's JAR format: you just put the .jar file in the
relevant directory.


Java is however horribly resource intense and its garbage
collecting strategy is quirky to say the least


I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,

But they lack the market share

For now.

The world's most populous country is going for Linux in a big way.
How much market share will open-soruce apps have in 2010?


That depends on whether or not they software writers ever get
paid for their work, that market is notorious for piracy.

Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
(those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.

Microsoft have at least as good a selection of foreign fonts
and character sets as any implementation of Unix I've seen

Perhaps. Though there is at least one language I'm aware of (Farsi)
for which the quality of MS character sets is poor enough to
incentivize people to create Linux/X11 character sets for. I'm sure
there are other languages/charsets for which this is true.

And it's not jsut the characters, it's the words. If you speak a
less-well-known language, then MS won't supply a version of Windows
or Office using commands, emnu items etc in your language. And
there's nothing you can do about it -- in the Microsoft would, you
get what Billy**** says you can have, and if you dson't like it,
tough.


True to a large degree for Windows but certainly not so for Office

With MS Office you can write add-ins that replace
all the menus with your own in your own language, make
your own buttons with bitmaps and add new functions.

The object model is fully documented and you can even
hook into the events and methods and write your own handlers.
Been there, done that.

If you dont want to use a compiler you can do it with
VBA, done that too. We use Excel as a front end to a
whole group of analysis programs just because its
so easy to interface and the object model is so well
defined.

In the Linux world, it's different. If the KDE or GNOME front ends
don't have support for your preferred language, you can just write
them yourself.


Take a look at COM Add-ins for Office some time

Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
anywhere else.

Actually thats where third party software is most succesful

Yes, running on the Microsoft OS. That's really the only area that
Linux is inferior right now. On the PC I'm using to write this, I
use Linux for everything except playing games, when I switch over to
Win98.

If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
developments.

But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.

Its even easier to go bust ignoring what your customers
demand,

I don't see govmts going bust, that's not really a consideration for
them.


Governments arent the main customers for software.
We sell in France , Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
the USA, UK etc etc,few if any of the licenses we sell
are to national governments. A few are to nationalised
indusries like EdF but thats a minority and they are
switching from Unix to Win2K


we can sell em Unix versions tomorrow, we
still support it for existing customers and they are on the
price book but I dont expect to sell any.

So what sort of products are we talking about here?


Process Simulation, Equipment Design , Supply Chain
Management, Conceptual Design, Collaborative Engineering
etc etc

http://www.aspentech.com/

Keith