In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
good RHAWS of its own?

This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
picked up out the back? I

No more so than ordinary monitors. There are rules about how close they
can be sited to unclassified machines (no less than a metre, or
thereabouts) but that's to make it difficult to siphon off data with a
null modem cable. (And typically, where you have classified and
unclassified networks in the same office, you'll have one network's
wiring run in the ceiling and another along the floor)

TEMPEST-shielding monitors isn't done: what *is* typical, is putting the
fence far enough out that eavesdropping on screen content isn't
feasible, and having security move any suspicious vehicles along in good
time.

'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
transmitting radar or radio.

You need to put out enough power, coherent enough, to be detectable at
distance. I'm sure even the F-22 puts out an interesting collection of
low-level EM radiation, but by the time you could detect it you could
*see* it.

Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?

From it's LPI radar. In that scenario though it really comes down to
can the Meteor or AMRAAM track an F-22.

Good question, and not one with an unclassified answer

From the theory, the answer is "yes, eventually, but how close does it
have to be?"

The Typhoon can stare at the
sucker all day long but if it can't guide a weapon to it without firng
up the radar. . .

No need to light up the radar, PIRATE's good enough to let you heave a
missile at the target. But is it good enough for the missile to be able
to acquire, track and home? Good question.

The speed gives you a lot more options though. There were many times
in Desert Storm when they saw aircraft running for Iran but couldn't
get fighters there fast enough because either A) The couldn't get the
speed with their external tanks or B) the didn't have the range if
they punched off the tanks.

That's a pretty narrow set of circumstances, and it's worth noting that
the aircraft were running away and not coming back. Even if none had
been intercepted, they were still all losses to Iraq.

Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting

But you can cover a bigger area with the same reaction time.

Depends how supercruise compares to simple light-burners-and-dash in
terms of fuel consumption, time taken and ground covered, and what
sensor coverage is, and other issues...

Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.

Yeah top speed is important but unless you have the tankers flying
around to refuel you you aren't going to get very far without external
tanks which drags your speed down. I doubt the numbers are public but
it would be interesting to see the numbers for a simulated 400 mile
intercept flown by an F-22, Eurofighter, F-15, and Mig-31.

What's cuing the intercept at that range?

They have
to fly out, deal with the target, and fly back to base with no
tankers. Who gets there first and who makes it back to base? The
enemy could have stand off weapons so the further out you intercept
the better. It would be interesting to see the results. My money
would be on the Mig.

Don't know the numbers, but it's a Soviet sort of question (honking big
GCI nets backed by large interceptors) and the MiG-31 is a good answer
to it.

I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
the original problem)

Last time I checked there are still Su-27s and Mig-31s flying. Come
to think of it there are probably more countries flying Flankers these
days then those generals back in the 80's might have imagined in their
worst nightmares.

True, but how many of those are serviceable and how many hours a year of
realistic training do the pilots get?

Or are you saying that since Russia never built the
1.42 or Berkut that we should stick with the thirty year old F-15?

No, you're stuck with the F-22 (whose main drawbacks are its cost and
the reverence in which it's held, hardly catastrophic) as your
next-generation fighter.

The idea is to be *better* than the other guy not wait until he can
kick your ass before you try to achieve parity.

True - it's just that the end of the Cold War means that the threat the
F-22 was intended to address, has not materialised. (Hence, among other
things, its reinvention as the 'F/A-22' - is that still being pushed?)

It does have serious potential for tactical recce, mind you. Fast, long
range, low observable, highly survivable: stick an imagery package in
the weapons bay and you've got the RF-22 PhotoRaptor.

The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
opponent to prevail).

I don't know. It's pretty tough to over rate stealth. If those were
stealthy Me-262s. . .well back in those days I suppose "invisible"
would have been more appropriate. . . how well would P-51s have
faired?

Depends "how invisible". The tactic of simply mobbing their airfields
and ambushing them in the pattern would still be effective even if they
were hard to see.

The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.

Actually the ATF came about because the Flankers and Fulcrums were
seen as such a threat.

True, but the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen were designed against the
same threat and manage to overmatch it at lower cost.

There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
Raptor and Typhoon started life.

I would say different not less. How many countries have S-300s?

That's a nasty beast, but not a driver on your fighter procurement
program (how much of your Air Force will still be non-stealthy? Will the
enemy AD crews resemble Iraqis, or Serbs?)

How
many have Flankers? And just because it may *appear* to be less now
doesn't mean it will remain that way. The F-22 is intended to be
viable for the next thirty or more years.

As are its contemporaries.

It keeps coming back to the problem
that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.

I don't know. How well would a Typhoon do against Su-37s armed with
KS-172s?

Pretty well, would be the short answer .

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk