Singapore down selects three fighters...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:03:32 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

They'd be well advised not to fire on a Typhoon either, since it's
better than anything the USN is likely to have for some time (and I
think the F-35C falls in that category).

Is it better than an Amraam?

Would the F-35 even get close enough to fire an AMRAAM? Meteor is
longer range, and since the Typhoon is faster it could (depending on
the tactical situation) decide whether to break contact.

Speed doesn't matter as much when the opposing platform is stealthy.
If you can't "see" it you can't shoot it, so speed does not dictate the
engagement anymore.


Nice theory in a two dimentional world, until they make Runways
invisible the aircraft will have to be at a specific location some of
the time , bomb that location and (invisible of not) there toast.

Visual stealth is the next big thing as you can see a fighter from
tens of miles away... the right sort of paint scheme reduces this
but!!!.


As long as you can detect the target at longer range than the targets
weapons range then you 99% safe, after that you have to commit to the
fight, your chances are then reducing depending on ESM ECM ECCM of the
respective aircraft and the skills of the individual pilots.

In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??



Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
g
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.

What's that, and how is it different from other radars?

LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random spread-spectum
signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.

Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?


Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:31:33 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:17:55 +0100, Ian Craig wrote:
Thats the same as the Harrier ziff (sp?) manoeuvre?

You mean VIFF ("Vectoring in forward flight").

BTW, can resepct usenet convention and post new comments below
what you're replying to, please?


VIFFing is possible (though from what I hear it isn't used much) in
the Harrier because the four posts stradle the center of graviity. If
the X-35 were fitted with a vectoring nozzle it would be used more
like an elevator.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
g
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.

What's that, and how is it different from other radars?

LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
spread-spectum
signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.

Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?


Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

It will not be long till someone thinks up a way around them. Especially if
an enemy of America is using it

Aussies use both Amraam and Asraam for the F 18 so on the other side of the
Ocean (the pond is on the other side of the yanks) we can get it

"AL" wrote in message ...
This side of the pond, you can buy the AMRAAM, but you can't get it
delivered. Something to do about not introducing the latest weapon in
the region.

Israeli stuff is really good and they no qualms about releasing source
code. My theory is that they are not so hot on world domination.

phil hunt wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:33:45 +0800, AL wrote:


phil hunt wrote:



On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +0800, AL wrote:



It is all about putting all your eggs in one basket. Everybody knows
about the Congress idiosyncrasies.


"Everyone"? I don't.



The stopped sale of laser ring gyro for the A4, you can buy but you
can't have AMRAAM . Just to mention the few that is in public domain.



Why wouldn't the USA sell AMRAAM?

Still, your main argument is right: Europeans have few problems
selling the latest military kit to people.





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

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:17:55 +0100, Ian Craig
wrote:
Thats the same as the Harrier ziff (sp?) manoeuvre?

You mean VIFF ("Vectoring in forward flight").

BTW, can resepct usenet convention and post new comments below
what you're replying to, please?

Sure no problems.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

phil hunt wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
[regarding the F-35]
Weight and apparently they think the big wing isn't necessary. Weight
is the main issue for the STOVL version.

That makes sense.

To be specific, the navy version has the most fuel and is thus the heaviest
version, but it needs a larger wing (adding weight again) to make a carrier
approach at a sufficiently slow speed. The extra weight naturally decreases
performance in other areas, as well as boosting the cost and complexity (it
folds). If you don't need it, why pay for it or haul it around? Some countries
(e.g., Australia) may well want/require the extra range, but ideally would prefer
to have the larger wing in a non-folding version. Since they'd likely have to
foot the bill for the development and production of that all by themselves, it's
unlikely to happen.

You have to keep stealth in mind. The Typhoon likely wouldn't get to
USE it's superior manueverability (assuming it will have it).

If the F-35 is using its radar, the Typhoon will probably be able to
detect it. If neither plane is using radar, there is no advantage to
stealth.

It also assumes that the a/c aren't getting any info from offboard sensors, which
is increasingly unlikely. Stealth matters, especially for BVR. Depending on the
particular situation, it may or may not be more important than other factors. In
the situation you describe above, it would matter a lot.

Guy

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
rg
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.

What's that, and how is it different from other radars?

LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
spread-spectum
signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.

Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?

I don't know for a demonstrated (to me) fact, but in theory, it's danged
good.
Current LPI radar is one that has been adapted to spread spectrum technology
which works well in radios and is hard to direction find against: good clues
that it can be made to work as radar and is hard to intercept.

I believe the B-2 has a LPI ground mapping radar and one of
the early concepts for the JOINT STARS mission placed a
LPI equipped plane (Tacit Blue) near or over the front edge of
the battle line.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:13:12 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:49:37 GMT, Thomas Schoene
wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
g
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

That's assuming the Typhoon can detect an LPI radar.

What's that, and how is it different from other radars?

LPI = Low probability of intercept. Usually a psuedo-random
spread-spectum
signal that looks like random noise to a typical radar warning receiver.

Do you (or anyone else) have any estimate on how effective this is?


Here's something from Gulf War 1. In the book Gulf War Debrief by
Airtime Publishing they were interviewing a Tomcat pilot. He made the
comment that whenever the Iraqis detected a Tomcat's radar they'd
split but they never seemed to react to the F-15s (F-15s got the
majority of the kills, Tomcats got a chopper I think). Later I read
that the F-15s that went to the Gulf had LPI radars.

I had not heard that, do remember a source?

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
In short stealth is nice but lots of other factors come into play, eg
Aircraft A is 100% invisible, but aircraft B has a 100% effective
defensive decoy system.

Who wins??

The stealth plane, because he's got a cannon and you can't
decoy ballastic rounds. ;-)