>>
Waynos - i allways thought that one of the key features of the ALARM was it *remembered* the location of the transmitter and could attack it anyway?
>>

Secondary inertial homing has been a feature of heavy ARMs since the AGM-78 Standard (which also had a smoke marker and, in some versions, a radiolink wardet indication.

The problem with both HARM and ALARM is that they were designed in an era of electromechanical gyros and no GPS while operating with a seeker that is effectively one giant twist-spiral antenna into which various wavelength subreceiver elements are plugged.

With only a limited quality autopilot IMU facility and no gimballed antenna (no room in a 10" missile body diameter with severe taper) to measure changing off angle inflight, conventional ARMs suffer increasing aimpoint error relative to launch distance and trajectory program as much as the time the Emitter wises up and dummy loads.

Now, having said that, IF the ARM arrives after a 50-70nm loft (25-35 in the case of the ALARM, another sign of 'badi ideaism' in a supposedly lightweight missile that is in fact less than 150lbs under the 785lb HARM) a smart proximity fuze can often shower the entire area with a laser-characterized height profile selection/optimization relative to manmade objects fitting the signature type.

This too is a characteristic of BOTH weapons, since the HARM C at least, and is a function of the need to structurally damage (shred) rather than simply 'poke holes in' the aperture face and any command van which may or may not be underneath it.

It doesn't change the reality that the ARM may have a target footprint expectation zone of more than a mile across and if there are no signatures (or if another decoy or secondary emitter comes up, often MORE than a mile away, hence the HARM flight into Albania) the chances of your actually shotgunning anything on a mumbledepeg basis remain /incredibly/ small.

Which is why a highspeed system with a GPS/INS _coordinate_ tag taken from offboard (20ft long) SAR aperture patch 10m patch map is better. And if you can, improving the (high value) targeting yet further by adding a seeker which can flush decoys and select among multiple possible (similar chassis vehicles as with the SA-10/19) targets to find the engagement radar is even better.

The alternative is to take one of the Israeli approaches and use long range (artillery class= Nimrod or Popeye) missiles fired from heavy helos or ground sites and cue them on with ground teams and UAV.

As opposed to a TRUE (half hour or more) loitering/lethal decoy system like Delilah, MALD and LOCAAS.

Both of which offer independent and datalink (MITL) search options that make the ALARM look /pathetic/.

Waynos,

You may or may not care to believe me. But the look of the AST-103 (in between the precursors changed dramatically when influenced by TKF90 and that 'data' came out of cooperation with Northrop on a light-fighter in the Gripen/Bushwacker class.

Anybody with an ounce of know-how realized that the route to stealth was simplification and canards are so far from being that as to be moronic.

At best the canard lets you cut the aft end off a jet which is okay if you can trade trim drag and CG shift fundamentals without blowing out the ruling. But you can't. And you end up paying through the nose for 'wide shoulders' worth of structural frame loading and longerons to connect.

And that's before the signature trades.

Canards are worthwhile when you have huge ones for a pure turn machine like the Lavi. Or large coupling separation with a tail effector like the X-31. Both of which lack the fuel to be more than PDI 'dogfighters' (your ninja moves, my sniper rifle).

But for a _cruise_ (sub or super, with correct IFF and motor/radar technology BVR will always win so long as the enemy cannot effectively /shoot down/ the missile) platform, foreplanes are not worth the hassle on a jet which has effective TVC and the European industry didn't even /try/ to pioneer the technology base until after they had fixed the FEFA configuration in stone. Something they gleefully chose to do based on the driving U.S. airpower model.

Only fools try to compete in a sled race for which only the lead dog cuts fresh snow. That's stupid, because not only 'does the view never change', but the ability to take shortcuts and trade the Iditarod for the Indy 500 never enters into the equation.

The Flubber is an F-15 shaped like an ATF paper plane concept jet. The Rafale is not even that and FOAS is shaping up to be 'half a Raptor' in the F-35.

All very poor choices which synergistically perform ineffectively in the fighter mission against any true optimized A2A asset. And are less than worthless in the strike role because they don't carry enough, far enough, long enough, to make a difference vs. a pure missile or bomber concept.

And that's just sad. Most especially for Saudi which /no one/ will allow to fold and whose air force (at least relative to it's participation in 1991) is thus little more than a show piece.

If Saudi buys anything, it's market standing will increase (150-200 F-16C.50+ to replace the F-5E a few years back drove Lunchmeat's stocks through the roof). But such is hardly a mark of excellence with either contender in this case.


KPl.

ch1466, the thing is, as I seem to find with all your posts, is that you mix several excellent and completely correct points in with other wildly innaccurate, maybe even bigoted if that is not too strong a word, assumptions, plus maybe 1 or 2 factual errors, and you emerge at the end with a gospel you believe absolutely.* At least thats how it looks.

I know trying to tell you different to what you believe is pointless so I will leave it there and wish you a happy holiday, along with everyone else on here.


* but I guess that could be any one of us too.


[edit on 26-12-2005 by waynos]

Stealth Spy, can't you think of anything NEW to write about? This is just speculation and has already been addressed by the MoD and I wrote about it in this very thread AGES ago. Don't you read other peoples posts?

23/12/05

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
It is also interesting that these eurofighters to be sold to the Saudis will be taken out of the RAF's Eurofighter quota ...

Just FYI, there is nothing sinister in this, it is normal for the RAF to defer delivery of its aircraft to allow earlier delivery for exports, this same facility was offered to Singapore and was widely but wrongly reported as the RAF offering to sell its own aircraft or cut its order, both wrong. The RAF would simply take delivery at a later date, further spreading the cost.

But SS has a point there? How do the U.K.-Israeli realtions stand w.r.t. this?

Hmm, yes BUT it is nothing more than media speculation as usual, for instance the figure of 200 Typhoons is wildly optimistic.

It is much more likey that the Saudi's will buy, say an initial 40-50 and then maybe double the order AT BEST. If they buy 200 then so much the better for BAE but I seriously doubt it.

Yet again this is an example of the press merely extrapolating a story from a very few facts while choosing to ignore others;

example - Completely ingored in the piece is the fact that the MoD has already explained (as it did many months ago with the Singapore order) that diverting aircraft from planned delivery schedules to the RAF is designed to make the purchase more attractive to the customer by them not having to wait too long to get their first aircraft. Also ignored is the statement that this does not signal a cut in the UK's Typhoon order and that the total of 232 will be made up by acquiring aircraft further down the line.

Neither of these statements makes a good newspaper story, unlike the 'RAF JETS SOLD OFF TO SAVE MONEY!!!) alternative that they predictably chose to go with.

Likewise, the RAF insiders quoted don't necessarily reflect the general opinion held in the service, only their own personal opinion and lets face it, they could be the lowest of the low in the service with an axe to grind for all anybody knows.

I recall you ripping into some Indian newspaper story a short while ago with the rejoinder that they only publish trash and shouldn't be believed, yet here you give your agenda away by so readily believing newspaper trash when it is what you are looking for, ie negative Typhoon publicity.

What a shame your critical faculties are so selective about which newspaper trash is acceptable. Newspaper sources are NEVER to be taken at face value, except by muppets.

Daedalus, unlike America, I don't think the UK is all that bothered about what Israel thinks.

edit to reply to Stealth Spy's edit; don't make the same mistake as many of trying to tie this down to anything specific. The £40Billion will relate not just to the aircraft, their equipment maintainance and spares (over maybe 25 years) but also to training, the costs of maintaining UK defence expertise in Saudi Arabia and so many more things that trying to look at it as a purchase price for however many airframes is completely hopeless.

[edit on 30-12-2005 by waynos]

Point taken, waynos.

Now i get it ... some of the media in the UK is as DDM as some obscure Indian papers and tabaloids

One thing that they seem to have in common is to quote "senior sources" to spread their word.

Happy New Year


[edit on 30-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Quite so, if any of this is reported by Jane's, Flight, or any of the other highly reputable professional publications then fair enough, but I stopped believing the newspapers many years ago

Happy New Year to you too my friend, here's to many more frank exchanges of opinion in 2006

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Now i get it ... some of the media in the UK is as DDM as some obscure Indian papers and tabaloids

- You're there dude!

It's the same as with the previous massive (record, even) £20 - 25 billion Al Yamamah arms deal.
These deals are vast and complex (with a lot hidden you can be sure).
All that money wasn't just spent on the 130 or so Tornados that were originally reported and that they bought.

One thing that they seem to have in common is to quote "senior sources" to spread their word.

- Yeah well they all love to drape even the tiniest sliver of credibility over their reports - it helps keep their readers quiet and 'loyal'........... and it makes their readers feel less like they have been so blatently 'had' when things work out so much different to how they were assured.

Happy new year to you and yours.

Salam All

i saw this topic and you people argueing about the sales of Typhoons by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia so i decided to join to make some few things clear for you my friends ..

the contract name is Al Yamamah III ( Al Yamamah is an Arabic word means " The Dove " ) and it will contain plenty of things that remains classified . the price is about 10.6 Billion $

however this is the main things of the new contract which have been shown till now :

1. Technology transfer and manufacture plan ( most important part of the contract but it remains unclear and classified yet ( same as the past al Yamamah contracts when these parts of the contracts were classified till now ) ) . this might include the AA missiles factory that KSA has and builds the old Skyflash missiles to be upgraded to build BVRAAM's .

2. Buying 48 typhoons with an option of 72 . ( more fighters might be bought later in future contracts .

3. training thousands of Saudis for the new jets systems to absorb the new technologies that doesn't exist in the older American and British jets like the stealth technologies .

there are other things which are unsure or might belong to older contracts :

1. upgrading the Tornado IDS GR1 to GR4 which will remain in service till 2020 . ( this have started already and will finish this year but i don't know if this is a part of Al Yamamah II or Al Yamamah III ) .

2. possibile exchange . Saudi Arabia might get rid of 200 old American and British planes . ( mostly training jets and Tornado ADV's ) .

notes :

1. the Royal Saudi Air Forces did not use and might never use any French jet fighter .

2. KSA has future plans to depend on itself in the military production . therefor it does not want to buy weapons only . but to transfer the technologies itself . that is why Saudi Arabia builds all electronics of the following : F-15S , F-16 Block 60 , M1A2 Abrams Tank and Pavway II LGB's plus several jamming systems .

3. KSA tried to get a license to build the F-15S on Saudia's soil in the 90's but this was unfortunately been refused by the USA till now . however , Saudi Arabia might do it and get the license in the comming years .

4. it is unknown if the USA will sell its F-22A's outside . some reports says sales of F-22A might occur in the comming years for United Arab Emarat and Israel . but no reports of any sale of that plane to replace the Saudi F-15's .

5. there is no doubt that the UK Typhoon is better than the French Rafael .

Thank you all

[edit on 23-1-2006 by SaudiArabian]