Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400, wrote:
check with Janes.........

Can you bev more specific?

BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
against Usenet conventionds.

--
A: top posting

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

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:22:42 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

Yep, the USAF isn't convinced there's a real mission for AAMs with
that range.

A and B are at war. A and B operate the same fighter, but A has 100
km range missiles, and B only has 20 km.

Some A fighters intercept some B aircraft on a bombing mission
(assume they are flying herad-on courses). A fires AAMs at 60 km.
If B doesn't know the missiles are launched, they won't take evasive
action, and are likely to be hit. If they do know, the fact that
missiles are firing towards them will have a large effect on their
mental state, making them behave cautiously. Probably they'll turn
and run -- but certainly they are likely to be less threat to A's
aircraft than if the missiles weren't flying.

Now consider they meet, both sides on an air superiority mission.
Again, the fact that A gets its missiles off first gives them a big
advantage in air-to-air combat.

If this argument is wrong, what's wrong with it?

--
A: top posting

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

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.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:29:46 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
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.

For this comparison to be meaningful implies a war between the USA
and Europe, which is unlikely. More meaningfdul is how
cost-effective the planes are. An F-22 costs the same as 2.5
Typhoons or 6 Gripens. The F-22 is likely a very capable plane; but
it is that much better?

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.

Given that the signal level at the target aircraft will be billions
(or more) of times stronger than the signal that gets back to the
radar, I suspect that's unlikely.

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),

According to http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/aircraft09.htm,
276 are being purchased.

while England only
currently plans to buy 232 Typhoons.

England is buying none. The UK is buying 232. Total orders for the
Typhoon are 638 (including the Austrian order but not the Greek
one).

--
A: top posting

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

On 14 Sep 2003 14:58:02 -0700, baffet wrote:

Both Israel the Arab nations use US early warning systems, including
E-2s, and in the case of SA, E-3s (which the Israelis *don't* have.

What about IAI Phalcon 707, "The world's most advanced AEWC&C system"
according to Federation of American Scientists?

I would point out that the FAS website often sounds like it is just
regurgitating manufacturers literature.

--
A: top posting

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

Yes, the Typhoon project left much to be desired (10 years behind
schedule, non stealthy airframe and doubtful future development) but it
can't be that bad.

Future weapons systems,eg Meteor are still a few years away. The
Europeans (Brits included) can't do anything without quarrelling first,
so don't hold your breath.

Note even though it can fire the AMRAAM, it is doubtful that the US will
allow the release of codes for a non NATO country ( Middle East or
Singapore).



Passerby wrote:

I hope that every country surrounding Israel will purchase full complements
of
those EF2000. It will deplete their budgets and will render their airforces
useless
without Israelis haveing to shoot a single antiaircraft missile. According
to all reports
EF2000 is the most expensive heap of non-airworthy trash ever built.


"Quant" wrote in message
. com...


(Jack White) wrote



I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
watch the replies.




The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
East including Israel.


The Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.


So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
at least 135 km. Why do you think that future American or Israeli made
missiles won't have those capabilities? Why do you think that in the
tiny Israeli airspace medium/long range missiles are more important
than short range ones? Israel clearly has superiority in the short
range. Also, successful tactics, good pilots and electronic measures
and counter measures are very important. While Israel will know the
exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have
and would fit its planes with appropriate counter measures, the Saudis
won't have a clue about Israel's unique technological modifications
because Israel is doing a lot of those modifications itself.




The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
Typhoon is there.


The info will probably come from early warning systems. Israel is
relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
its best technology to these Arab countries (and I doubt it will
happen). and again, electronic measures and counter measures are
important here and Israel's own industry gives it the technological
superiority over its neighbors.





The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.
The JSF would certainly be a huge improvement for Israel over F-15Is
and F-16Is though.
An Israeli pilot plus a JSF would probably be
better than a Saudi Pilot with a Eurofighter Typhoon, but with equal
pilots, ONLY the F-22 Raptor is better than the Eurofighter Typhoon
from what I've read.
F-22 Raptors are VERY EXPENSIVE, I don't know if Israel can afford
them even with free US taxpayer money.
I'd think that Israel would probably go for the JSF in the future.




Israel is already part of the JSF project.


Summing this subject I think that none of us could answer the
hypothetical question about air force superiority in the Middle East
in case the Arabs will have Eurofighters.

It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.







--
AL
New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
http://www.alfredivy.per.sg

who cares,

As I said read Janes, they have it all,

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400,
wrote:
check with Janes.........

Can you bev more specific?

BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
against Usenet conventionds.

--
A: top posting

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

the Pakis did not fly against the IAF at any time. the story stating it was
nothing more then some chest puffing BS......

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

wrote in message
...
who cares,

As I said read Janes, they have it all,

As a matter of fact, if at all, the Jane's has the least useful information
about the Iranian Air Force: their recently published book of "World Air
Forces" is very poor to this topic.

To keep the long story short: no, it wasn't the "Irangate" nor Oliver North,
but many other factors which kept the Iranian F-14-fleet afloat, in working
order, and extremely useful and dangerous. Approx 60 airframes remain
serviceable: while a number is circled through storage, so to better
distribute the number of hours flown per airframe, and also always have an
attrition reserve in peace, the IACI (Iranian Aircraft Industries) and other
Iranian companies, as well as the so-called "Self-Sufficiency Jihad Team" of
the IRIAF - meanwhile developed the capability to produce no less but 95% of
spare parts for their Tomcats. Consequently, the fleet not only massively
participated in the IPGW against Iraq (scoring at least 130 kills against
Iraqi MiG-21/23/25s, Mirage F.1EQs, Su-20/22s, and Tu-22s), but is still
very much active and operational.

As a matter of fact, just last year the Iranians started production of a
reverse-engineered AIM-54, which even the USN considers equal to its latest
AIM-54Cs.

Nothing of this can be found in Jane's, of course: their reporting about
Iran in the recent years was simply sad.

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:23:55 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote:

We're not talking some of the less able Arab nations, but Egypt, who
has no problems keeping it's F-16s at a fairly high availability, and
the Saudis, who also manage to keep their E-3s and F-15s in the air.

Not according to, well, everything I've ever read, heard and seen. The
current mission-capable rate on the Saudi F-15s is supposed to be less
than 50%, and that's just birds they can get into the air, not what the
US calls "combat capable."

Cite?

Years of hanging around guys who have worked with the Saudis. A couple
of old friends went to work training their techs. The general view is
that they just plain don't have any good flightline techs, except for a
handful of expatriates.

Saudi Arabia is kinda like a guy who buys a top-line Mercedes, never
reads the owner's manual, doesn't change the oil, and lets their cousin
Bob do the tuneups...

Hm, interesting to hear something of this kind: not that I would say the
situation is "completely" different, but there are people ("authoritative
experts", and those "who know") who complain that the Saudis are flying
their jets "too much", and then others who say they are also crashing them
too much - even when there is absolutely no evidence for either.

And then, there are people who said that Iranians can't keep their F-14s
operational without the US help.... from what I can recall, those who said
this were also US technicians - and also higher ranks - working in Iran in
the 1970s...

I guess, somebody should finally go there and find out the truth. ;-))

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