Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:30:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
You mean before or after the redesign to eliminate just that hotspot?

What "redesign"? (not being sarky here, I would really like to know
:-))

Early 1990s. Some say it was a panic reaction to Desert Storm and "we
gotta be stealthier", others that it was a wise move taking advantage of
German delay to significantly reduce the RCS, truth probably in the
middle.

Why? Are we expecting to fight F-22s?

No, that would be suicidal. But you will need at least five Typhoons
to equal one F-22.

On what measure?

Trouble is, both seriously outclass current and projected threats - but
for a given budget, you're a lot more likely to have Typhoons available
to throw at the threat: means more Red raids intercepted, and more
offensive sorties generated.


--
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

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:30:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"

On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
Raptors...

They will need them.

Why? Are we expecting to fight F-22s?

No, that would be suicidal. But you will need at least five Typhoons
to equal one F-22.

So you are saying it will be cheaper to buy the Typhoons to do the job than
the F-22? :-p

But seriously, what is the F-22 buy number down to now? and what is the unit
price up to?

Paul Austin wrote:

"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.

Exactly right. That, and they had a lot of AIM-9s (at least half of the
24,000 in stock) available to convert. FWIW, here's some data from the
Air International article "Battle of the Missiles" by John Fricker in the
Feb. 1997 issue:

"Two Sidewinder-derived reduced airframe drag configurations were
proposed by the Pentagon in April 1993, as AIM-9X options. From the USAF
came the wingless Box Office concept, using very small (28cm/11 in span)
all-moving tail-mounted fin controls, with no foreplanes, plus digital
autopilot stabilisation, while the Naval Weapons Center's relaxed
stability Boa project employed a clipped canard and fin configuration
(40.64cm/16 in. span each), with a similar autopilot."

"In broad terms, Box Office was expected to halve the drag of the current
AIM-9M8/9 and double its 8km (4.3nm) range. A speed increase of up to
Mach 1.3 over the original Mach 2.5 was also sought, with doubled
g-limits. Boa has higher drag and hence a reduced range and maximum
speed, but it has less speed loss in turns. . . ."

"AIM-9X seeker performance targets included increasing clear sky target
acquisition range to 13-16km (7 - 8 3/4 nm) and 6.6km (3 1/2 nm) in
ground clutter. . . ."

He then goes on to give descriptions of the Iris-T, ASRAAM, P4 and Magic
2 and their variants on offer, and says why each was rejected. The
design eventually selected was a Hughes version called Box Office 2 Plus,
although it seems to have the clipped canard/fins Fricker attributes to
Boa.

Guy

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...


The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn expensive.
Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.

There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."


The luftwaffe towards the end of WWII were actively pursuing a
strategy of resistance which might involve conflict without access to
any natural or synthetic oil resources. That tends to suggest that the
Luftwaffe not only sought miracles but were planing on those miracles
the same way the allies depended on routine logistics.

"lisieux" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...


The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn
expensive.
Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.

There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."


The luftwaffe towards the end of WWII were actively pursuing a
strategy of resistance which might involve conflict without access to
any natural or synthetic oil resources.

If by that you mean their aircraft were grounded for lack of fuel
I'll agree. As I recall they issued ground crews with rifles and
used them as infantry.

That tends to suggest that the
Luftwaffe not only sought miracles but were planing on those miracles
the same way the allies depended on routine logistics.

It sounds more like they were out of fuel, pilots and options
to me, everything was in short supply except propaganda.

Keith