Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:00:06 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
Too vague to be useful, then.

It's some use. 1/4 would mean detection range is decreased by 30%

At what frequency and over what extent? Is this a narrow little null, an
averaged plot, or actually a nasty nose flash?

You're just not going to get *useful* RCS data in the public domain.


--
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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:00:06 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
Too vague to be useful, then.

It's some use. 1/4 would mean detection range is decreased by 30%

At what frequency and over what extent? Is this a narrow little null, an
averaged plot, or actually a nasty nose flash?

Unless there's some exteme qualifiers, you have to assume it's a fairly
general average. With even moderately ambitious stealth, you can get a
good reduction in cross section across the board (even a 10% reduction
gives you several extra miles of "shoot first" at long ranges). By
keeping in mind that you're limited in the frequency ranges you have to
deal with for long and short range radars, it's reasonably easy to
handle everything.

The big problems on aircraft are the intakes and exhausts. By using RAM
in the intake, along with moderate intake duct work, you can minimize
that aspect pretty nicely (by 1/4, for example - this was late-stage
design "add on" for the Eurofighter). To get a bigger reduction on the
intakes, you have to do some fairly radical ducting and materials work,
or design the aircraft around the problem (this makes the plane much
bigger internally, and is part of the reason the Raptor is so bulky for
its mass).

You're just not going to get *useful* RCS data in the public domain.

But it shows you where to bet. Having an overall RCS of 1/100 of a
"typical" fighter, but with a few spikes and odd flashes, makes the job
incredibly easier, especially when it comes to breaking lock on incoming
missiles (or in not being acquired in the first place).

Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*, and manage to not get shot down
(except for one case when they got nailed in a low-level raid by
visually-sighted AAA). And it's practically obsolete, in most "stealth"
respects. The F-22 may have a couple of weaknesses (the aforementioned
intake and exhaust), but even those are relative.

Dogfighting is cool, but the missile is currently reigning supreme. And
when the other guy can fire six shots before you even have a good idea
where he's at, you're not going to come out ahead of the game.

--


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

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

That's true BUT RAM ingredients aside all that shaping and stuff is
pretty much open and using those criteria the Eurofighter comes up
short in MANY ways. In Ben Rich's book "Shunk Works" he mentioned
that during the developement of Have Blue there was an incident where
ONE screw was protruding an eight of an inch and it made the
difference between not being detected to having the RCS blown to ****
and being easily detectable. One screw an eight of an inch. Just
speaking from looking at the two aircraft visually and comparing
surfaces, discontinuaties and edges, there is no comparison.

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:43:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:



So the fact that people don't apparently want to use the Unix
version of *one particular software package*, is somehow meant to
indicate that the govmts of these countries haven't set up
initiatives to switch some or all of computers in govmt use to
Linux?


Erm no

We are a multinational who write MANY software packages.
But feel free to browse the web for commercial software developed
for Linux and compare that developed for Windows.

If that's the state of your logic, I hope they don't employ you as
a programmer! BTW, the last car I owned was made by an American
company; this proves that no companies outside the USA manufacture
motor vehicles.


I am only commenting on the reality of our customers
preferences, personally I prefer Unix but the reality is
most end users dont, Dell had it as an option on their
PC's for a a while, they dropped it from the Desktop range
due to lack of interest

For specialist applications some organisations withing those
countries may well choose Linux, we use it for our web
servers but I'll bet that 90%+ of the PC's on desks in
those nations are running Windows

Yes, you're probably right -- after all, if no-one was using
Windows, then there would be no desire to switch from Windows. The
question is, what will they be using in 5 or 10 years time?


If I knew I'd be investing in it not talking about it, that said
governments have a poor track record in forecasting IT
developments. The fact that the French Government backed
Linux would hardly be a confidence builder.

Keith

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
the details.

That's true BUT RAM ingredients aside all that shaping and stuff is
pretty much open and using those criteria the Eurofighter comes up
short in MANY ways.

Depends what it's claiming, doesn't it?

This is one of the problems - if you say that 'reduced RCS' means
'invisibility' then the US wasted a _lot_ of money on signature
reduction for the DDG-51s. But if you mean "confuses anyone trying to
analyse the returns and form a track from them and identify what they're
looking at" then they got their money's worth.

In Ben Rich's book "Shunk Works" he mentioned
that during the developement of Have Blue there was an incident where
ONE screw was protruding an eight of an inch and it made the
difference between not being detected to having the RCS blown to ****
and being easily detectable. One screw an eight of an inch.

After ten years of hard squadron service, you're promising the F-22 will
still be immune to such errors? Meanwhile, the Typhoon has less to lose.

Again, "reduced RCS" is useful because it makes your ECM much more
effective and is easier to keep. Invisibility is glorious while it
lasts... but harder to achieve and maintain.

Just
speaking from looking at the two aircraft visually and comparing
surfaces, discontinuaties and edges, there is no comparison.

Compared to each other? Or compared to the threat?

--
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

"Chad Irby" wrote:

Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*, and manage to not get shot down
(except for one case when they got nailed in a low-level raid by
visually-sighted AAA). And it's practically obsolete, in most "stealth"
respects. The F-22 may have a couple of weaknesses (the aforementioned
intake and exhaust), but even those are relative.


The F-117, serial 82-806, was not flying a low-level mission. It was on
egress from Serbia when it was shot down. The claim of the F-117 goes to the
3rd Division of the 250th Rocket Brigade and its SA-3 Goa missiles. The
250th Rocket Brigade AD received the National Hero Medal, the highest
military medal for their service during the war. Here are some of the
interesting parts of the "For Free Sky" documentary that was shown on
Serbian TV to mark the first anniversary of the conflict during 2000. These
are the interviews given by the Air Force staff for the occasion coupled
with some information given by the commander of the 250th AD brigade that
operated the Neva-M system (SA-3). Apparently all the SA-3 missiles had
girls names stenciled on them! Tanja, Ivana and Natalija have been
identified as fired missiles.

During 2001 a further interview with a 250th Rocket Brigade battalion
commander, Lt. Col. Bosko Dotlic, highlighted that an SA-3 named Natalija
downed the F-117.

From the 2000 documentary "For Free Sky" Colonel Zoltan Dani explained:

"When whole crew were on their positions and when the new wave was on, the
target was detected on azimuth 195 suddenly appearing and that was an very
important reference upon which we concluded that it may be a new target.
Crew done the rest routinely, since we are well trained. The speed was that
counts. Practically the F-117 was downed in less than 18 seconds"

Dragan Matich (standing in front of Neva missiles):

"In the war I have been tracking officer on 4 missile launches among them
the biggest success was the downing of the F-117 and F-16"

Further evidence is on display at the Yugoslav Aeronautical Museum, Belgrade
International Airport where the remnants of the SA-3 missile and missile
booster used to shoot down the F-117A can be found.

Serbian TV video of 82-806 shows the tell tale fragmentation damage to the
wings and tail that comes from SAM warhead damage. This was initially
commented on as being from AAA damage, but the fragmentation warhead
consists of tungsten balls which would cause similar damage as indicated on
the video. There is not one mention from any of the interviews or 250th
Rocket Brigade commemorative websites of anything other than an SA-3 being
responsible. The only unit accredited was the 250th Rocket Brigade for both
the USAF F-16CG lost on the 2nd May and the F-117A.


TJ

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

I'd be more interested in a demonstration. Which Raptors is this
"advanced camouflage" flying on?


I think what he's referring to is one of two things. (Keeping in mind
I'm not in the industry and all I've read is what's been made public
and what I can see with my own eyes). The first is I've read that
the paint scheme is designed to make it difficult for IR seekers that
look for edges to find them. The second (and this is just something
I've noticed) is that haven't you ever noticed the paint on the F-22
just looks. .. strange? In many pictures it almost looks like bare
metal. I've been looking through a bunch of pictures and Raptor 01
was painted with "normal" paint and the rest appear to be painted with
the other kind. I'm not saying just because it's different that it's
something special or anything BUTthere is definitely something unusual
about it. First of all it's reflective unlike the paint on other
fighters (and yeah I know everything relfects which is why we can see
it- that's not what I'm talking about.) It's not like glossy paint
reflective but more like burnished metal reflective. Secondly,
unless they frequently repaint Raptor 002 it *appears* to do something
funny when it comes to color. I'm not saying it actively matches it's
surroundings. But maybe it has an affinity for picking up the color
of the light that hits it. Who knows? I've posted several photos of
002 in various lighting conditions to show what I mean. In photo one
you could almost convince yourself the far vertical stab is made of
glass and you can see through it. Pictures 1 and 8 show what I'm
talking about to best effect. Pictures 5,6,7 show it flying with
Raptor 01 which has *normal* paint. Now I'm not one to think the
Raptor is made of parts from Roswell or anything like that, I've just
noticed that the paint seems unusual. Or am I on crack?


http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/1.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/2.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/3_(002_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/4.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/5(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/6(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/7(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/8(This_one_is_006).jpg


(for some reason that "(" is causing the whole name not to show in the
link. Just do a copy past into your browser)




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.

Part of it is their cross-section and that ^ poking to the rear will
cause the exhaust to mix with the surrounding air quicker. Which
isn't to say it would be invisible but that it would dissipate quicker
than a convenctional round nozzle.






Dish. Aerial. Antenna. Plate. That emitter-thingy gizmo in the pointy
end. (That blasts out kilowatts of coherent microwaves)

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).


Not to mention radomes that are transparent at only certain
frequencies. That with the LPI and low side lobes of an AESA radar
go a long ways toward making it more difficult to detect.


(after that it was difficult to follow who said what :-) )

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:38:14 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
"Just looking" is often a deceptive activity. For RCS, the devil is in
the details.

That's true BUT RAM ingredients aside all that shaping and stuff is
pretty much open and using those criteria the Eurofighter comes up
short in MANY ways.

Depends what it's claiming, doesn't it?

This is one of the problems - if you say that 'reduced RCS' means
'invisibility' then the US wasted a _lot_ of money on signature
reduction for the DDG-51s. But if you mean "confuses anyone trying to
analyse the returns and form a track from them and identify what they're
looking at" then they got their money's worth.

In Ben Rich's book "Shunk Works" he mentioned
that during the developement of Have Blue there was an incident where
ONE screw was protruding an eight of an inch and it made the
difference between not being detected to having the RCS blown to ****
and being easily detectable. One screw an eight of an inch.

After ten years of hard squadron service, you're promising the F-22 will
still be immune to such errors? Meanwhile, the Typhoon has less to lose.

Again, "reduced RCS" is useful because it makes your ECM much more
effective and is easier to keep. Invisibility is glorious while it
lasts... but harder to achieve and maintain.

Just
speaking from looking at the two aircraft visually and comparing
surfaces, discontinuaties and edges, there is no comparison.

Compared to each other? Or compared to the threat?



I think when it's said that the Eurofighter is stealthy most people
equate that to mean the manufacturers are implying it's stealthy like
an F-22 not stealthy like a Super Hornet (which would be a more
accurate comparison).

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

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 sounds very plausible.

Unfortunately, the USAF specified that the AIM-9X use the same motor,
warhead and fuze at the current AIM-9M with TVC added to roughly the
same planform. I don't expect much different kinematics in the AIM-9X.
IIRC, Raytheon proposed an optional 6 inch motor but the USAF
declined.

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

Too vague to be useful, then.

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.

Okay, there's the disagreement. You're looking for "real stealth",
we're
looking for significant RCS reduction. Invisibility gets expensive
fast:
there are other ways to improve your odds.

....

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.

Depends if your mantra is making the aircraft invisible, or making
it
harder to detect, tricky to track and a lot more difficult to hit.

Paul, this is silly. As you say, F-22s are highly unlikely to do
battle with EUian Typhoons in this universe at least.

That said, you know as well as I that detection range is a 4th root
function of RCS. That means that small changes in RCS make_very_small
changes in detection range. While no-one is publishing "official" RCS
measurements, Typhoon is likely to have an RCS on the same order as an
F-18E/F while the F-22 has been described by official sources to be in
the F-117 range. The difference in detection ranges between the two is
likely to be at least a factor of 10, militarily important especially
when each type, now retasked to air-to-mud, has to deal with things
like SA-10/20s.