Singapore down selects three fighters...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:28:53 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:05:02 -0500, Alan Minyard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:17:10 +0200, guy wastiaux
wrote:

Rafale also has an IRST : it's called OSF : it's got a true IRST and
another tracking device (dunno how it's called though. It ressembles a
bit the one used on initial production F-14As). Besides, Eurofigther
isn't as versatile as the Rafale, considering mainly ATG capability.
Otherwise, the Eurofighter seems to be like THE air defence fighter.

Neither Rafale nor Eurofighter is even in the same league with the
F-22 and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafae are capable aircraft, but not
capable of living in the same sky with the -22 or -35.

Then why isn't Singapore considering the F-22 or F-35?

As far as the F-22 goes *cha-CHING*

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:50:21 -0700, Harry Andreas
wrote:

Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
head to head?

That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.

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?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:34:11 -0700, Harry Andreas wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:50:21 -0700, Harry Andreas
wrote:

Interestingly models of aircraft operated by the Malaysia and Indonesia
did not make it to the shortlist. There are a million ways to interpret
this. One of them is to avoid any hesitation by the pilots when going
head to head?

That's certainly a consideration. Plus the recognition factor when US forces
are in the area. USN a/c not likely to fire on an F-15.

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.

--
"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 in message


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.

Depends a lot on radar capability and intiial detection rhage. if the JSF
is significantly stealthier than the Typhoon , it could get clsoer before
benig vulnerabel to counter-fire. That's one part fo the logic of the
F/A-22 and MARAAM -- put the complexity ni the airframe, not the missile.


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:48:10 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
rg

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.

Depends a lot on radar capability and intiial detection rhage. if the JSF
is significantly stealthier than the Typhoon , it could get clsoer before
benig vulnerabel to counter-fire.

Possibly. If the F-35 is using its radar, that may well give it
away. If it isn't, thne it might be able to pick up the Typhoon's
radar before the Typhoon knows it (that's likely that the opposiite
scvenario, since the F-35's radar reflection is smaller). But if
the Typhoon switches its radar off too, then the advantage
disappears, and both aircraft are limited to what they can sense
through IR, or what information is passed to them from sensors
elsewhere (for example, on the ground, or on AWACS aircraft).

I think warfare iscreasingly going to be a competition to see who
spots who first, and the first one to get spotted loses. So I see
passive sensors becoming more prominent, and active sensors less so.

That's one part fo the logic of the
F/A-22 and MARAAM -- put the complexity ni the airframe, not the missile.

I'm not sure that's wise, since a missile will always be faster
and more maneouvrable than a manned aircraft.

--
"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).

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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.

According to
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html,
Typhoon can use infra-red to detect aircraft at a range of 30-50
nm (48-90 km), and possibly up to 80 nm (148 km).

By comparison, AMRAAM has an estimated range of "17+ nm" (32 km).
(From http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=79).

--
"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).

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

"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. ;-)