Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:02:12 +1000, L'acrobat wrote:

"Paul Austin" wrote in message
.. .

I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.

It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles because
of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding for
F-22

Why? I'd have thought the opposite would apply. The F-22 is
stealthed, which means it can remain undetected faster than
unstealthed opponents. If it can fire long-range missiles, wouldn't
that complement its air-to-air capability?

BTW, is it rigfht that the F-22 missile bay is too small to hold
Meteor? Might that be a reason?

--
A: top posting

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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
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),

Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're using.

but
it's nothing like the full stealth plane the Raptor was designed to be.

Over what aspects?

Just *looking* at the two planes makes that pretty bloody obvious.

"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
the details.

Again, source for this claim?

Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
read up on it.

I get paid for knowing about 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).

With good reason. Over what aspects, at what frequency, with what
variation? (You won't get a proper RCS from public sources)

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.

Note that the Raptor crew are a little coy about that themselves. (2D
vectoring nozzles are not stealthy, for instance)

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.

However, life isn't that binary.

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),

Yes, the idea of "camouflage" is not new.

infrared (the Raptor has IR-dispersal tech built into the
exhaust),

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.

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.

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)

The Raptor is a damn good aircraft, but even it has to obey the laws of
physics.

The Eurofighter has, well, more composites than older planes, and a
little bit of stealth design in the fuselage.

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 then they hang all of
the weapons on the outside

Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

and give it a few ECM bits.

"A few"? You're definitely reading too many LockMart sales brochures.

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.

Like I said - the RAF is signed up. How many has the USAF committed for?

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."

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.

--
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

"L'acrobat" wrote in message ...
"Paul Austin" wrote in message
...

I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.

It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles because
of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding for
F-22

Sounds fishy, as the AMRAAM, which will be the F/A-22's primary
armament, is already BVR. Why would a longer range WVR missile argue
against the F-22 (which has plenty of better justified arguments
against it)?

Brooks

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:38:45 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
"Tom Cooper" wrote:

I find it estranging that you put yourself into a position of representing
anybody but you here, and then, based on "educated guessing" about "what we
all know" about the Arab air forces, you conclude that the Saudis have a
poor air force "too"....

How much do you actually know about their air force, if you don't mind me
asking?

Read my other posts. Nobody outside of the Saudi press thinks the Saudi
air force is any good.

Is this a climbdown from your original claim that all Arab military
units are no good?[1]

Since you're the expert,

Tom clearly comes across as more of an expert than you, since he
uses sources and facts, and not just his prejudices.

give us some of your sources for claiming that
they're any different from any *other* military in the Arab world.

[1]: Ah I see not.

--
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:
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),

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.

but it's nothing like the full stealth plane the Raptor was designed
to be.

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.

Just *looking* at the two planes makes that pretty bloody obvious.

"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
the details.

No, it's usually in the gross structure. Sure, you can screw up a
stealth plane by missing things like antennas and such, but that's a
two-edged sword. Carrying missiles internally versus externally, for
example.

Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
read up on it.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Note that the Raptor crew are a little coy about that themselves. (2D
vectoring nozzles are not stealthy, for instance)

You gain a lot when you mask them with external plates of radar
absorbing material. The aft aspect is probably the worst aspect on the
plane, and it's certainly better than the unmasked nozzles on the
Eurofighter. If you can manage to get a tail-on shot at the F-22 for
free, you deserve the kill.

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.

However, life isn't that binary.

But it's certainly the way to bet.

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),

Yes, the idea of "camouflage" is not new.

But advanced camouflage is. Once again, read up in it.

infrared (the Raptor has IR-dispersal tech built into the
exhaust),

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. Supercruise is good for more than fuel economy.
If they're throwing on afterburner, they probably have to worry about
little bits of high-speed metal coming at them at a few thousand rounds
a minute from other planes.

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.

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?

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 Raptor is a damn good aircraft, but even it has to obey the laws of
physics.

And once you understand those laws, you get a lot of wriggle room.

The Eurofighter has, well, more composites than older planes, and a
little bit of stealth design in the fuselage.

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."

And then they hang all of the weapons on the outside

Semi-submerged, actually. Sufficient for purpose.

Only for basic loadouts, and only really sufficient if all of your
missiles are stealthy, too. Cruciform tails on missiles are very much
*not* a stealth feature. As you said, the Devil is in the details, and
semi-conformal weapons are pretty big details. That's why the head-on
aspect of the Eurofighter is emphasied, but the lower and side aspects
are very definitely *not*.

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.

and give it a few ECM bits.

"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.

One might also point out that you've been reading the Eurofighter
brochures a bit too much...

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.

Like I said - the RAF is signed up. How many has the USAF committed for?

22 for the first production run, more as the money comes for later runs.
We're recovering from the big budget cuts of the 1980s and 1990s, and
it's taking a while to get back into an acquisition cycle.

And then, a couple of years from now, when half of the Eurofighter
orders get cut back for one reason or another, the numbers won't seem so
bad.

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. 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.

And then us poor, sad Americans proceed to blow the crap out of whatever
the "new" threat was, and they start looking for excuses...

--


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

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:34 +0800, AL wrote:

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).

What codes would be necessary?

--
A: top posting

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

I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.



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 for all practical puropses the -9X is a BVR missile.
Not doubting your assertion about the ASRAAM but the thing is with
AMRAAM almost always being carried with it why would you need the
extra range? I guess they figured the saved $$$ was worth giving it
up else they'd have picked that Raytheon entry with the 6" airframe
and rotating seeker. (My favorite)

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Paul Austin" wrote in message
...

I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.

It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles
because
of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding
for
F-22



Huh ?

How would that work ?

The argument is that if you can kill from very long range (beyond that of
the enemy) you don't need stealth to get in close for a kill.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
"Paul Austin" wrote in message
...

I'm really unkeen about an AAM that locks on after launch. Both the
Python and ASRAAM airframes have much better kinematics than AIM-9X
with comparable (identical in the case of ASRAAM) seekers. The USAF
seems to see little utility in long range, which is odd.

It has been argued that the USAF has avoided longer ranged missiles
because
of the fear that they could be used as a justification to cut funding
for
F-22

Sounds fishy, as the AMRAAM, which will be the F/A-22's primary
armament, is already BVR. Why would a longer range WVR missile argue
against the F-22 (which has plenty of better justified arguments
against it)?

The comment was made in light of the "The USAF seems to see little utility
in long range, which is odd." part of the quote.

latest newsbyte:-

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...r/09_16_1.html



"LONDON [MENL] -- Saudi Arabia has advanced in negotiations for the
purchase and upgrade of fighter-jets from Britain.

British industry sources said the Saudi kingdom has been negotiating a
huge folo-up order to refurbish Riyad's fleet of Tornado fighter-jets.
They said the order could include 100 new and upgraded aircraft in a
$4.5 billion deal with BAe Systems.

"The deal calls for a review of Saudi Arabia's Tornado fleet," an
industry source said. "Those aircraft deemed as suitable would be
upgraded. Older model jets would be replaced with new advanced
aircraft."

The new aircraft, the sources said, could include the Eurofighter,
which is also manufactured by BAe. Last year, the kingdom was
presented with a proposal to purchase 50 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft
in a $2.25 billion deal. "


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 :-

Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk