Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:55:33 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:
phil hunt wrote:

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.

Linux is a great OS. I really prefer Unix (Solaris/Linux) to a Windows
platform.

But I think a lot of the caution amongst business in using Linux is the
view of it being "hacker software" with no one "in charge".

That's true to some extent, but it's a lot less true than it used to
be.

Business
needs someone always available to help solve OS problems and the view
is that isn't there with Linux. Asking a newsgroup isn't the same as
having MS available a telephone call away.

No, it's better, in my experience anyway.

When I have a computer problem, if I can't fix it, I use
Google (both on web and groups) to see if anyone's had the same
problem. That usually turns up a fix. If it doesn't, I read the
manual (sign of desperation!) If that doesn't work, I ask on relvant
ngs and/or mailing lists. After doing all this, i will typically
have an answer, if an answer exists.


all of the above are available for MS Products too and the Microsoft
knowledgebase while flawed is a useful resource.

Keith

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:24:06 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
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?

acquisition_range = k * rcs^0.25

So for every 1% you increase the RCS, you increase acquisition range
by 0.25%

Okay, I'll go with this. Sounds like a good bottom range.

At 100 miles that's still a couple of miles of extra time before
acquiring,

2.5 miles

Okay, a couple and a half. Noting, of course, that the F-22 has an RCS
in the 0.01 meter^2 range over most aspects...

The phrase you're looking for is "golden BB."

Never heard of it.

It's what a civilian would call a "lucky shot."

But with the number of
missiles around Baghdad in GWI and II, it easily qualifies.

Don't understand you.

Lots of missiles and radar = "heavily defended."

And since you're claiming that stealth isn't that important,

I don't recall ever making that claim -- perhaps you could vremind
me where I did.

By trying to show that it's not that effective, and imagining odd ways
of detecting a plane with non-radar techniques that won't work.

With pure visual, planes are pretty hard to find at anything like a safe
distance.

What do you mean by "safe distance"?

Far enough away so they won't kill you.

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.

I more had in mind an observer on the ground.

"Hey, a plane just flew over!"

"Great, where is it?"

"Uhhh... it went west..."

and pure IR is not very useful for very long ranges.

Why not? Is is more or less useful than visual? Does it make a
difference whether it is day or night? And what do you mean by "lonh
ranges"?

See the comment I made about long range above. Call it 100 miles, like
I mentioned earlier in the post. IR isn't good in atmosphere without a
*big* detector, for long ranges, for the same reasons as visual sighting.

I don't think so. Once something hase been detected, finding its
exact position should be relatively easy.

Exactly. But you have problems with detecting first, then with
identifying the target without having to resort to radiating or active
measures.

If we are using visual sensors, we could have several point towards
it and use parallax to get the exact position.

Each of which would then have to find the very tiny object. That's
covered below.

(Here I'm only considering using passive sensors in an air defence
system, since they are immune to anti-radar missiles and anti-radar
stealth. (Obviously they are not immune to making the aircraft
smaller, but there are practical constraints to doing that).)

You also lose them for 1/2 of the day (pure optical sensors are not too
good at night), on cloudy days, if there's smoke in the way, if the
sun's behind the target... and you need a *lot* of them. With the
curvature of the Earth in the equation, you're going to need a linked
ground observer station every 20 miles or so - at *best*.

Once the position is got, the defenses can fire a missile to
intercept, using ground-controlled mid-course guidance, and active
radar (or IR) terminal homing.

All of which are vulnerable to spoofing or jamming. Oops.

Identifying is fairly easy. Either use IFF or the known positions of
friendly aircraft to know whether it's hostile. If you know it's
hostile, use the size of sensor returns to guess more or less what
it is (cruise missile/ small fighter/ big fighter/ AEW), though the
precise nature isn't very important, since in all cases the response
would be the same.

So the other guys pop up a plane or two and get you to actively ID them,
or you target them with a long-range radar (that doesn't work because
they're too stealthy), because some guy saw something the couldn't
really identify... and then they kill you between reloads, because the
other "Wild Weasel" plane is at 50,000 feet, above the clouds, unseen by
your ground observers, watching where the missiles came from. Later
that night, they kill your launchers.

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.

Yes.

....and *that's* why people don't use visual acquisition and targeting.
A system with a useful "uptime" of a couple of hours a day is a loser in
so many respects...

And if you can manage to "detect" a 10 pixel object, you still have to
figure out what the heck it is.

Why? You only have to detect whether it's hostile or not.

And you don't even know what it is...

All the enemy has to do is toss up a few low-end decoys, and you spend a
half hour picking out the one that will kill you. If he wants you
crippled, he drops a few incendiaries on the surrounding terrain, and
you're blind for hours.

They used to have civilian ground observers in WWII, you know. They
stopped using them because it really doesn't work that well.

--


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

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:25:39 -0400, Paul Austin
wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote
Best to use UAVs for bombing.

That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term.

It's happening already. What do you think cruise missiles are? Or
fire-and-forget AT missiles like Brimstone?

Really useful against targets with known positions, and pretty useless
when you're out hunting for others? And completely bloody useless if
the other side has actual fighter planes in the air and you don't?

--


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

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

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,

But they lack the market share

So does Ferarri.

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
. nz...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

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,

But they lack the market share

So does Ferarri.


Actually Ferrari has a good share of the luxury sports car
market.

Keith

(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(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".

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. WRMEA is NOT a
"Palestinian" organization. The current chairman of the trust is
Reverend Dr. L. Humphrey Walz, former associate executive of the
Presbyterian synod of the Northeast (or are you gonna claim that all
Presbyterians are Palestinian?).


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?

Are you actually claiming that these quotes are inaccurate? That Begin
did *not* make thse statements? Maybe if you read them from different
sources...

"In June l967, we 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." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
February 28, 1968 )

I guess you are going to claim that the NYT (not exactly known as an
anti-Israel outlet last I heard) and Le Monde are "Palestinian" as
well?


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...

LOL! Sorry, but snipping is not my game, until it gets to the point of
rants. Now, are you gonna put up or shut up? Did the NYT and Le Monde
make up those quotes?

Brooks

(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(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".

Why do you post the EXACT same response twice to different posts?
Sighhh...well, here it is again:

General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
February 28, 1968 )

Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfoli:
a.. "In June l967, we 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." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

Again, are you now gonna claim that the NYT and Le Monde are
"Palestinian" fronts? LOL!

Brooks




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

In article ,
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

Why do you post the EXACT same response twice to different posts?
Sighhh...well, here it is again:

General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
a.. "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which
he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde,
February 28, 1968 )

With the obvious implication that "if he didn't want war, why did he do
something so bloody stupid?"

What Nasser really wanted was for Israel to roll over and play dead
without a military confrontation. Oops.

--


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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote

Some
improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable.
ASRAAM
and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers
not
tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse
can
be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.

IIRC all the rest of the entries for which the -9x as-is was
selected
had bigger motors too.

Yep, they did. The USAF perhaps feels less need for a long range IR
missile since AIM-120 fills that range bin.

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
. nz...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

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,

But they lack the market share

So does Ferarri.


Actually Ferrari has a good share of the luxury sports car
market.

Doesnt matter how much spin you try to put on it ---

Linux has a small share of the computer market.
Ferarri has a small share of the auto market.


BOTH lack market share

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine