Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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).

To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.

Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*,

Oh? Did Serbia and Iraq have modern AA systems? I think not.

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.

How detectable is the F-117 (and F-22) using visual or IR sensors?

A quick BOTE calculation suggests that with clear air conditions, a
F-22 would in principle be detectable at 100 km with the sort of
digital equipment you can buy in a high street shop (a 10 m wide
object would produce an image 10 pixels across, assuming a 1000 mm
lens and a focal plane with 100 pixels/mm) though I'm sure in real
life conditions wouldn't be good enough to spot it in daylight.
Spotting the exhaust at night might be easier, especially for IR
sensors.

--
A: top posting

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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:52 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

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.

There's a lot less for Linux. But Linux's market share is growing
anyway. Why? Because commercial software is getting less important,
and open source software more important.

For an increasing number of application spheres -- note I'm not
claiming for everything -- open source is the best solution for the
job. Web servers being a good example.

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,

Have most end users even used Linux? I contend that for many tasks
-- examples being browsing the web, reading email and Usenet, doing
word processing, Linux-based systems do the job perfectly well,
without the issues of cost, insecurity and vendor lock-in associated
with Microsoft.

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

Indeed. I'm not saying Linux will conquer the desktop tomorrow.
It'll make headway on servers first, and in middle-income countries
(those that are rich enough to have lots of computers, but poor
enough that the cost of MS Windows and Office is problematic). It'll
also make headway in cultures where localisation is a problem and MS
don't have adequate solutions with local fonts, translations etc.

Then it'll make big headway in the office in western countries.
Microsoft is likely to hold onto the games market longer than
anywhere else.

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.

But it's easier to predict the future if you make it.

--
A: top posting

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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:51:53 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
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/8(This_one_is_006).jpg

There certainly appears to be something going on. It reminds me of
the camoflage used on ships in WW1 and WW2.


--
A: top posting

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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Gernot Hassenpflug" wrote in message
...
(Quant) writes:


1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
1967.
2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
waged an aggressive war.... Gee!


Bull

Japan had lots of choices that would have avoided war in 1941,
they werent prepared to quit invading other countries but
that was a matter of choice. There were no armies ranged
along their borders threatening invasion and genocide,
rather they had invaded Manchuria, China and
French IndoChina killing millions of civilians in the process.

They then decided to attack the US and British to pave the way
for their invasions of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

If the Israelis attack the USN in Bahrain preparatory to an
invasion of Saudi Arabia that will be analagous to Pearl Harbor,
the 6 day war was not.

Menachem Begin, Ben-Gurion, and Rabin, along with at least one other
prominent Israeli cabinet minister at the time, apparently disagree
with you if you are claiming that Israel had no choice in 67. There
was no immenent threat of direct conflict with Egypt.

"Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...91/9104034.htm

Begin: "Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November
1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to
destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence
of the state...In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
decided to attack him."

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm

Brooks



Keith

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:37:15 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

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

Masybe. OTOH, F-4s have fought F-14s. If both planes are widely
exported, then maybe they'll have lots of operators in 20 years
time, and lots of potential clashes.


--
A: top posting

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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:37:15 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

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.

Best to use UAVs for bombing.

--
A: top posting

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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:14:00 -0400, "Paul Austin"
wrote:


"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.

It's been WIDELY reported that the -9X is significantly better. For
one thing you don't have those huge tail fins and canards (drag and
weight) nor those rollerons (mroe drag and weight). I don't know how
tail control compares to canard control as far as efficiency goes but
judging by the fact that one of the advantages touted of AMRAAM over
Sparrow and 9X over 9M,L, etc. was that they WERE tail controlled,
would seem to indicate an advantage. Come to think of it I've seen
the same advantage mentioned in regards to ESSM over -7.

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:26:04 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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).

To be precise, 1 mile at 40 miles range.

What sort of formula are you using for this? I don't consider 40 miles
"long" when we're looking at airborne missiles with ranges of over 100
miles. 40 miles is "medium." At 100 miles that's still a couple of
miles of extra time before acquiring, and you're probably really looking
at closer to ten miles at long range.

Consider the old-tech F-117. They fly it through some of the most
heavily-defended airspaces, *ever*,

Oh? Did Serbia and Iraq have modern AA systems? I think not.

The phrase you're looking for is "golden BB." But with the number of
missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies. And since
you're claiming that stealth isn't that important, we should have lost
them on a regular basis. We didn't.

How detectable is the F-117 (and F-22) using visual or IR sensors?

With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
distance. If you're in a plane, you're not going to be using image
magnification to find the other guy, unless you know right where he's
coming from in the first place. Even with that, you have camouflage for
the human optical frequencies, and pure IR is not very useful for very
long ranges.

A quick BOTE calculation suggests that with clear air conditions, a
F-22 would in principle be detectable at 100 km with the sort of
digital equipment you can buy in a high street shop (a 10 m wide
object would produce an image 10 pixels across, assuming a 1000 mm
lens and a focal plane with 100 pixels/mm) though I'm sure in real
life conditions wouldn't be good enough to spot it in daylight.
Spotting the exhaust at night might be easier, especially for IR
sensors.

"Detecting" versus "acquiring and identifying," I'm afraid. Narrowing
down the field of view enough to make visual ID makes for a lot less
coverage per sweep. If you know where the target is, it gets fairly
easy, but you have to look in the right direction first, and hope
there's no clouds or haze in the way.

And if you can manage to "detect" a 10 pixel object, you still have to
figure out what the heck it is. I just took a photo of an F-22 (from
below, against a high-contrast light background - pretty much the ideal
ID angle) and shrank it to a 10 by 10 image. It looks like someone
squashed a very tiny bug. You can't even tell that it's an aircraft,
much less what sort of plane it is. With lower-contrast photos, it's
just one 10 x 10 pixel gray blob.

--


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

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Gernot Hassenpflug" wrote in message
...
(Quant) writes:


1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
1967.
2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

Well, the Japanese had no choice either in 1941, they were in much the
same position as Israel, and yet people seem to still think Japan
waged an aggressive war.... Gee!


Bull

Japan had lots of choices that would have avoided war in 1941,
they werent prepared to quit invading other countries but
that was a matter of choice. There were no armies ranged
along their borders threatening invasion and genocide,
rather they had invaded Manchuria, China and
French IndoChina killing millions of civilians in the process.

They then decided to attack the US and British to pave the way
for their invasions of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

If the Israelis attack the USN in Bahrain preparatory to an
invasion of Saudi Arabia that will be analagous to Pearl Harbor,
the 6 day war was not.

Menachem Begin, Ben-Gurion, and Rabin, along with at least one other
prominent Israeli cabinet minister at the time, apparently disagree
with you if you are claiming that Israel had no choice in 67. There
was no immenent threat of direct conflict with Egypt.

"Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...91/9104034.htm

Begin: "Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November
1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to
destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence
of the state...In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
decided to attack him."

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm

Brooks



Keith



Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
"washington-report".

One only needs to enter their site in order to realize that their
reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
minister (Sahaf).

http://www.wrmea.com

Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?

Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
that I just disproved. So don't bother...

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote


So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?

Because it was Israel who planted the "news" about the concentration of
Israeli units, preparing to strike Syria, into the Soviet intel system. The
Egyptian actions - starting with the blockade of the Tyran - was a reaction
to this, prompted by Moscow informing Cairo about the "Israeli intention to
attack Syria".

1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
1967.
2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

I don't see this as a "no choice war". Not right from the start. Once Nasser
blocked Tyran and started threating with destruction of Israel, yes, there
was not much other choice but to start a war. The question is only which
kind: had the whole Sinai to be occupied in order to re-open the Tyran?

Even more so before that there was other choice: before the war there was
still a possibility of negotiation and that is what even Washington urged
Aba Ebban and the others to do.

A bit of research via Google will reveal some interesting later
acknowledgements by key Israelis that support your statements:

"Nevertheless, Israel's leaders did not regard Nasser's acts as
threatening. As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli
government, said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was
invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the
annexation of new Arab territory." "

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Repo...91/9107040.htm

"Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...91/9104034.htm

Even Begin agreed that both the 56 and 67 wars were "wars of choice"
on Israel's part, and that it initiated the combat:

"It was 12 years ago when Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in
public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,"
meaning Israel started the wars. Begin's admission came in a speech
delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense
College. His purpose was to defuse mounting criticism of Israel's
invasion of Lebanon, which had begun two months earlier on June 5 and
was clearly one of Israel's wars of "choice." The others were in 1956
and 1967...[Begin Begin quote] "Our other wars were not without an
alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to
war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a
danger to the existence of the state...In June 1967, we again had a
choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do
not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest
with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of
self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of
National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the
initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the
security of Israel and the future of the nation."

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm

Unfortunately, conventional wisdom, as exhibited by continual Israeli
pronouncements and the meager coverage provided by a main-line media
that prefers to stick with the original "Israel was forced into war"
concept, means that many today still cling to the old notion that
Israel had no choice in its wars with its neighbors that have netted
them the land originally mandated to the Palestinians, along with a
chunk of Syrian territory.

Brooks




Google search reveals that your quotes appears only in the Palestinian
"washington-report".

One only needs to enter their main page in order to realize that their
reliability is not bigger that that of the former Iraqi information
minister (Sahaf).

http://www.wrmea.com

Why the quotes you brought doesn't appear not even in one reliable
neutral or Israeli source acroos the net?

Also, debating with you in the past, when I proved something to you,
you just snipped it and few posts later repeated your unproven claims
that I just disproved. So don't bother...





I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
were not the aggressors.

Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
first".

In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.

I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.

If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
why were all these things done?

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
anything but an aggressor in 1967.

If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.

I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
this regards.

It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
regarding that war.

Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.

The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.

1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.

I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.

2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
then the answer is no.

To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.

3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
Israel.

Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
"defence purposes"...

So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any mo I'm getting sick of such and
similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.

4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
is why I started this thread. To get more information.

Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
in fighting against Israel?

Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
indicate the same.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585