twilight2000-digest Wednesday, February 23 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 096 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: PLA aircraft TRADEMARK ISSUES Re: PLA aircraft Re: PLA aircraft RE: PLA aircraft Re: PLA aircraft RE: PLA aircraft Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Where to find TW2K stuff? Re: PLA aircraft Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: Soviet TOE Re: PLA aircraft Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Re: PLA aircraft Re: PLA aircraft Re: PLA aircraft Re: PLA aircraft Re: PLA aircraft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:23:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 At 04:31 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: >Then how does it attack ground target? On land, you don't need radar to attack ground targets--in fact, radar from the air to the ground doesn't work very well at all without some highly specialized equipment. If you look at any plane used for naval attack, you'll find they all have special radar, and also are modified to carry anti-ship missiles. >As far as vectoring in on target, >that could usually be taken care of the combat control officer, whether in >an AWACS, or on a friendly ship or what... There are times when you don't have that luxury, especially if the enemy is using jamming. Also, I believe there are some weapons that can only be targeted with the plane's own radar. >Granted, the primary design is >for sole air-combat, but it has been fitted for surface attack. It's RADAR >may not have surface search capabilities, but is a pulse-doppler, and is >capable of picking out targets at tree-top level. It also can carry >external sensor packages, which may give it some other ship-attack >functionality. I know it can carry at least two types of anti-radiation >missiles. True, those may not carry the punch to severely damage a ship, as >they are mainly meant to knock out surface radar, but they could still have >a suppression value. And it looks like the Norwegians arm theirs with an >antiship missile (isn't that what the Penguin is?) So it obviously has >capability. With an air-controller vectoring them in, how hard would it be >for them to spot a carrier or destroyer? Smaller ships, maybe... But I >think it can serve in an ship warfare capacity. Probably better to use an >F-15, or definitely a Hornet. The Falcon would be put to better use in Air >Superiority role. But, if that's all you have... > The bottom line is, the F/A-18 and the Japanese plane in question are purpose-designed to be naval attack planes--they're better at it than an F-16 would be. For the record, the F-16 and F-18 were originally designed to the same specs, in the Air Force competition for a light-weight fighter. The F-16 won, but the F-18 was redeveloped for the Navy's later competition, and hence is a later and more advanced design overall--but certainly it would be by far the superior choice for anti-ship missions. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:18:15 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: PLA aircraft probably was ROC, though I really thing it was out of a fiction or even a T2K timeline, but in regards to selling PLA American technology, with the current administration anything is possible, and it didn't have to be above board. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:49:55 EST From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: TRADEMARK ISSUES I'm finally creating my own website, but I need the permission and trademark guidelines from Tantalus. Can someone please give me the real Tantalus website address? My search engine found many Tantalus', but they weren't the one I needed. I'm also going to host Behind Enemy Lines (the old WWII rpg), but The Companions went bust a long time ago. Does anyone know where I can find, and if I need, their permission? Any help is most appreciated, Billy Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:57:40 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: PLA aircraft At 06:18 PM 2/22/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >probably was ROC, though I really thing it was out of a >fiction or even a T2K timeline, but in regards to selling >PLA American technology, with the current administration >anything is possible, and it didn't have to be above board. Um...no. There's no evidence at all to support that assertion. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:06:33 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: PLA aircraft Roger that __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:09:08 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: PLA aircraft >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott David Orr >Subject: Re: PLA aircraft >>At 06:18 PM 2/22/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >>probably was ROC, though I really thing it was out of a >>fiction or even a T2K timeline, but in regards to selling >>PLA American technology, with the current administration >>anything is possible, and it didn't have to be above board. >Um...no. There's no evidence at all to support that assertion. That's right the just released FBI report said that according to the Vice Prez (We *KNOW* that we can believe the "creator" of the WWW) he and the Prez's both have a predilection for drinking mass quantities of iced tea during their wonk meets. This *REQUIRES* that the both of them to go the bathroom together. This is why they missed key discussions about the source and results of Chinese campaign dollars. They DID NOT know where that money came from or the access it bought...um I mean granted. SHAME on you GRAEBARDE 4 your chiding of the mere appearance of impropriety! Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:16:32 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: PLA aircraft In a message dated 02/22/2000 6:56:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << At 06:18 PM 2/22/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >probably was ROC, though I really thing it was out of a >fiction or even a T2K timeline, but in regards to selling >PLA American technology, with the current administration >anything is possible, and it didn't have to be above board. Um...no. There's no evidence at all to support that assertion. >> It was ROC, and as for selling US technology to the PRC, it's been going on since Tricky Dick went to China back in the '70's. "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of business. peace orrin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:18:34 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: RE: PLA aircraft 40 lashes with a wet noodle at dawn on the company parade.. full dress blues, tennis shoes, and a light coat of oil. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:25:55 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 I kinda think your both off a little and maybe someone with more details can fill in the blanks. You can make any aircraft do any mission based on weapons and their supporting electronics being installed. Im pretty sure the limiting factor of a F16 over F18 is under wing stowage (wieght). And tactical radius at max payload. AGM-84 Harpoon has a launch wt of 1400lbs As opposed to AGM -65 maverick of 460lb or HARM 790lb AAMs are Sparrow 500lb and Sidewinder 180lb, AIM 120 is 325lb F-16 has hard points that could take Harpoon, two of them. The F-18 could handle 4 with a drop tank giving it a radii of 520+mi. The F-16 with 2 Harpoon and 2 drop tanks 350. So they could both do it. Just the F-18 just does it better for cheaper I think, I have no clue what the stickers are on them. Ground attack is out of my arena but I think the discussion is something similar. (This is based on less than current AC stats, a tad old, but the point still applys) Loonz > At 04:31 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >Then how does it attack ground target? > > On land, you don't need radar to attack ground targets--in fact, radar from > the air to the ground doesn't work very well at all without some highly > specialized equipment. > > If you look at any plane used for naval attack, you'll find they all have > special radar, and also are modified to carry anti-ship missiles. > > >As far as vectoring in on target, > >that could usually be taken care of the combat control officer, whether in > >an AWACS, or on a friendly ship or what... > > There are times when you don't have that luxury, especially if the enemy is > using jamming. Also, I believe there are some weapons that can only be > targeted with the plane's own radar. > > >Granted, the primary design is > >for sole air-combat, but it has been fitted for surface attack. It's RADAR > >may not have surface search capabilities, but is a pulse-doppler, and is > >capable of picking out targets at tree-top level. It also can carry > >external sensor packages, which may give it some other ship-attack > >functionality. I know it can carry at least two types of anti-radiation > >missiles. True, those may not carry the punch to severely damage a ship, as > >they are mainly meant to knock out surface radar, but they could still have > >a suppression value. And it looks like the Norwegians arm theirs with an > >antiship missile (isn't that what the Penguin is?) So it obviously has > >capability. With an air-controller vectoring them in, how hard would it be > >for them to spot a carrier or destroyer? Smaller ships, maybe... But I > >think it can serve in an ship warfare capacity. Probably better to use an > >F-15, or definitely a Hornet. The Falcon would be put to better use in Air > >Superiority role. But, if that's all you have... > > > The bottom line is, the F/A-18 and the Japanese plane in question are > purpose-designed to be naval attack planes--they're better at it than an > F-16 would be. For the record, the F-16 and F-18 were originally designed > to the same specs, in the Air Force competition for a light-weight fighter. > The F-16 won, but the F-18 was redeveloped for the Navy's later > competition, and hence is a later and more advanced design overall--but > certainly it would be by far the superior choice for anti-ship missions. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:37:05 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > At 04:31 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >Then how does it attack ground target? > > On land, you don't need radar to attack ground targets--in fact, radar from > the air to the ground doesn't work very well at all without some highly > specialized equipment. Correct. > If you look at any plane used for naval attack, you'll find they all have > special radar, and also are modified to carry anti-ship missiles. Not true the sensor in question is FLIR or a Thermal array, no body on modern battle field lights them safe up like that. When the ground sights do they get HARM delivered. > >As far as vectoring in on target, > >that could usually be taken care of the combat control officer, whether in > >an AWACS, or on a friendly ship or what... > > There are times when you don't have that luxury, especially if the enemy is > using jamming. Also, I believe there are some weapons that can only be > targeted with the plane's own radar. Thats exactly how they do it 24/7, AWACS or ground control. The attacking aircraft are guided to target around suppressed AAA or aloft interceptors. It's all coordianted as best as possible, even sorties (single aircraft) have oodles of support. > > >Granted, the primary design is > >for sole air-combat, but it has been fitted for surface attack. It's RADAR > >may not have surface search capabilities, but is a pulse-doppler, and is > >capable of picking out targets at tree-top level. It also can carry > >external sensor packages, which may give it some other ship-attack > >functionality. I know it can carry at least two types of anti-radiation > >missiles. True, those may not carry the punch to severely damage a ship, as > >they are mainly meant to knock out surface radar, but they could still have > >a suppression value. And it looks like the Norwegians arm theirs with an > >antiship missile (isn't that what the Penguin is?) So it obviously has > >capability. With an air-controller vectoring them in, how hard would it be > >for them to spot a carrier or destroyer? Smaller ships, maybe... But I > >think it can serve in an ship warfare capacity. Probably better to use an > >F-15, or definitely a Hornet. The Falcon would be put to better use in Air > >Superiority role. But, if that's all you have... > > > The bottom line is, the F/A-18 and the Japanese plane in question are > purpose-designed to be naval attack planes--they're better at it than an > F-16 would be. For the record, the F-16 and F-18 were originally designed > to the same specs, in the Air Force competition for a light-weight fighter. > The F-16 won, but the F-18 was redeveloped for the Navy's later > competition, and hence is a later and more advanced design overall--but > certainly it would be by far the superior choice for anti-ship missions. They both can do it. F-18 does it better. Please no more RADAR theorems their Clancy-ish. Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:21:47 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 At 10:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > >I kinda think your both off a little and maybe someone with more details can >fill in the blanks. > >You can make any aircraft do any mission based on weapons and their >supporting electronics being installed. You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a lot of space. >Im pretty sure the limiting factor of a F16 over F18 is under wing stowage >(wieght). And tactical radius at max payload. > >AGM-84 Harpoon has a launch wt of 1400lbs > I think actually that a plane has to be specially fitted to carry the Harpoon--though as you say, this is probably just a matter of electronics. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:26:50 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 At 10:37 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > > >> At 04:31 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: >> >Then how does it attack ground target? >> >> On land, you don't need radar to attack ground targets--in fact, radar >from >> the air to the ground doesn't work very well at all without some highly >> specialized equipment. > >Correct. > >> If you look at any plane used for naval attack, you'll find they all have >> special radar, and also are modified to carry anti-ship missiles. > >Not true the sensor in question is FLIR or a Thermal array, no body on >modern battle field lights them safe up like that. I'm afraid that in fact it is true. Naval attack planes do often carry an infrared sight of some sort, but they always carry a surface search radar (the two aren't exclusive). The FLIR is nice for stealthy night attacks, but it doesn't have the range of a radar. As a matter of fact, a lot of times a naval attack plane isn't really that concerned about stealth (and the need to refrain from emitting), because it's just awfully hard to hide on the ocean--there's no terrain. [Snip.] >> >As far as vectoring in on target, >> >that could usually be taken care of the combat control officer, whether >in >> >an AWACS, or on a friendly ship or what... >> >> There are times when you don't have that luxury, especially if the enemy >is >> using jamming. Also, I believe there are some weapons that can only be >> targeted with the plane's own radar. > >Thats exactly how they do it 24/7, AWACS or ground control. The attacking >aircraft are guided to target around suppressed AAA or aloft interceptors. >It's all coordianted as best as possible, even sorties (single aircraft) >have oodles of support. > Yes, that's one way to do it--but you can't count on it working all the time. >> >> The bottom line is, the F/A-18 and the Japanese plane in question are >> purpose-designed to be naval attack planes--they're better at it than an >> F-16 would be. For the record, the F-16 and F-18 were originally designed >> to the same specs, in the Air Force competition for a light-weight >fighter. >> The F-16 won, but the F-18 was redeveloped for the Navy's later >> competition, and hence is a later and more advanced design overall--but >> certainly it would be by far the superior choice for anti-ship missions. > >They both can do it. F-18 does it better. Please no more RADAR theorems >their Clancy-ish. > Excuse me? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:00:49 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Coffin Subject: Where to find TW2K stuff? Greetings all- This being my first post to the list, I'd just like to say hello to everyone out there... I've got a question. I've been trying to gather up all the TW2K material I can find for my group before they become impossible to find. Does anyone know of a good place to find modules, sourcebooks, etc. Or, alternately, does anybody have any extras they'd like to rid themselves of? I'm looking for the "Last Submarine" series of adventures, the "Going Home" module, the "RDF Sourcebook," the last edition of the NATO Combat Vehicle Handbook, among others. Can anyone help?Thanks. Daniel Coffin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:35:12 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: PLA aircraft At 10:16 PM 2/22/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 02/22/2000 6:56:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< At 06:18 PM 2/22/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: > >probably was ROC, though I really thing it was out of a > >fiction or even a T2K timeline, but in regards to selling > >PLA American technology, with the current administration > >anything is possible, and it didn't have to be above board. > > Um...no. There's no evidence at all to support that assertion. > >> > >It was ROC, and as for selling US technology to the PRC, it's been going on >since Tricky Dick went to China back in the '70's. "Enemy of my enemy is my >friend" type of business. > We do sell some commercial technologies sometimes, but AFAIK not classified military stuff. However, some dual-use stuff that probably shouldn't have has slipped through. As you say, this isn't new with this Administration--the satellite technology that everyone was so worked up about last year was part of a project that, as I recall, had been going on since the Reagan Administration. Of course, equating campaign contributions to selling passing military secrets is just silly. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:10:49 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 >At 02:47 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: >>Are you saying that F-16's couldn't shoot at boats? >> >Basically, yes. It doesn't have things like a surface search radar that >you need for that role. > I'm not sure I would agree with that, Norwegian Air Force F-16's are capable of carrying and launching the Penguin Mk3 anti-ship missiles. Also late model (Blk 50/52) USAF F-16C's are cleared to carry Harpoons. The AN/APG-66 on the F-16A/B's might not have been very capable, the AN/APG-68 on the newer C/D models includes several air to ground modes including a maritime mode. Respectfully, JC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:49:26 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 At 12:10 AM 2/23/00 -0700, JC wrote: > > >>At 02:47 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: >>>Are you saying that F-16's couldn't shoot at boats? >>> >>Basically, yes. It doesn't have things like a surface search radar that >>you need for that role. >> > >I'm not sure I would agree with that, Norwegian Air Force F-16's are capable >of carrying and launching the Penguin Mk3 anti-ship missiles. Also late >model (Blk 50/52) USAF F-16C's are cleared to carry Harpoons. The AN/APG-66 >on the F-16A/B's might not have been very capable, the AN/APG-68 on the >newer C/D models includes several air to ground modes including a maritime >mode. > When was that version first produced? At any rate, it wasn't considered an option during the late 80's, when the Japanese were making the decisions: the choices were either the FSX program (what produced the F-2), preferred by the Japanese, or the F/A-18, urged by some in Congress. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:33:57 +0200 (EET) From: Janne Kemppi Subject: Re: Soviet TOE > Dear List, > > In an attempt to answer a quesiton posed by my brother on the typical size > of a Russian infantry squad in a Mech Inf unit, I ran across a site with the > FULL TEXT to FM 100-63. Thats the "INFANTRY-BASED OPPOSING FORCE: > ORGANIZATION GUIDE". > > It has the best TOE charts (Table of Organization and Equipment) I've ever > seen in a non-classified source. It lists EXACTLY every piece of major (and > even some minor stuff) equipment the Soviet Army issues to Infantry > Divisions and Motorized Rifle Divisions. All the way down to squad level of > every sub-component! It's a must have resource for game referee's! Chapter > 4 is probably the most useful, since it has mostly the small sub-units in > it. Soviet TOEs are available in various sources. The best publicly available places are FM100-2 series US Army did in 1984 (and another set was being published in 1990). They are the real deal. They do not, however, have them in the internet. And they are outdated so they probably will not be published in internetnet anymore There is also a Krasnovian army BattleBook, that is very much similar (I'd say copy) of real Russian TOEs. It was available in Internet some years back (1996) and I guess they still use it in US Army Military intelligence for training. FM 100-60 series is composite enemy structure. If you look at it you notice it allows building basicly various enemies from three basic sets. FM100-60 is the soviet army, FM 100-63 is third world army and FM 100-65 (or was it 66?) is the terrorist, guerilla, drug dealer etc. TOE. The enemies are roughly following: FM 100-63 with bad end is Cuba FM 100-63 with good equipment is North Korea FM 100-60 is Soviet Union. FM 100-65(66?) is Somalia. They are however, composite forces and with mixing the TOEs from FM100-60 and FM100-63 you can get fairly mixed set of units. The TOEs in FM100-63 are closer to soviet army in early 1980's and those in FM100-60 are closer to 1990 situation. The potential for war gaming is nothing short of amazing... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:45:18 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - -----Original Message----- From: DukeRoyal@aol.com To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000 10:25 Subject: Re: PLA aircraft >The Japanese F-16 variant is actually BETTER than the one that is flown by >the U.S. Air Force. > >Chris Nah, its different. The F-2 should be an excellent antishipping aircraft, but would probably be a worse dogfighter due to the heavier weight. PG *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:30:59 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 - -----Original Message----- From: JC To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000 18:11 Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > > >>At 02:47 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: >>>Are you saying that F-16's couldn't shoot at boats? >>> >>Basically, yes. It doesn't have things like a surface search radar that >>you need for that role. >> > >I'm not sure I would agree with that, Norwegian Air Force F-16's are capable >of carrying and launching the Penguin Mk3 anti-ship missiles. Also late >model (Blk 50/52) USAF F-16C's are cleared to carry Harpoons. The AN/APG-66 >on the F-16A/B's might not have been very capable, the AN/APG-68 on the >newer C/D models includes several air to ground modes including a maritime >mode. > >Respectfully, > >JC The F-16A APG-66 radar has two sea search modes. These were added at the request of the European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Holland and Norway) in the mid-1970s, as they wanted more of a multirole aircraft. The original F-16 was more a lightweight dogfighter. I have a write-up on the Norwegian F-16 Penguin mission from 1989, using its radar to designate for the Penguin missile. The APG-68 also has sea search modes. Egypt, Singapore and Taiwan have either ordered or requested Harpoon missile conversion kits for the F-16. The Japanese F-2 is an F-16C/D with a 45 cm fuselage stretch, a bigger composite wing and a strengthened airframe for sustained low level flight. A further two pylons have been added to the wings. Japan is having serious problems with the composite wing technology which has delayed the program by at least 3 years. Part of the FSX deal was that the US shares any Japanese technology, Japan showed the US the radar and the US wasn't impressed. PG *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:47:11 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - -----Original Message----- From: OrrinLadd@aol.com To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000 10:27 Subject: Re: PLA aircraft >In a message dated 02/22/2000 5:52:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, >strategist_2000@yahoo.com writes: > ><< ....Just in case anyone is in China for their campaign.... >> > >well thats what I'm gathering the info for...well a T2k Korea campaign >anyways. =) What timeline are you using for this campaign. v1, v2 or your own? What year is it set in. I have some info on China's Air Force plans. PG *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:06:11 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - -----Original Message----- From: OrrinLadd@aol.com To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Tuesday, 22 February 2000 15:25 Subject: PLA aircraft > Just finished reading "Future Wars" by Trevor Dupuy. An interesting book, >IMHO. Anyways, one of the future conflicts is a war between Russia and >China. He writes >that the PLA Air Force has several types of western aircraft, notably AV-8A >(listed as Q-7), simplified Tornado F-2 (J-9) and modified Mirage 2000 >(F-10). Is this true or conjecture on his part? > >Anyone know of any other western military equipment used by the PLA? > >thanks China was talking with the UK about a licence production of the Harrier in the 1970s, but it never came to anything. China has around two dozen JH-7 two seat attack aircraft which are sometimes described as Jaguars. The JH-7 might be dropped, due to the superior Su-30MKK entering service. The J-10 might be a virtual copy of the Israeli Lavi, but again might be dropped and the funds diverted to the Su-27SK project. PG *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:53:55 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000 10:08 Subject: Re: PLA aircraft >At 10:26 AM 2/22/00 -0000, Mark Oliver wrote: >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Scott David Orr >>Subject: Re: PLA aircraft >> >> >><<< It's not a knock-off--it's an F-16 derivative designed under license >>(the Japanese wanted to develop their aerospace industry). >>> >> >>Don't know how much truth there is in it but in the Tom Clancy book "Debt of >>Honour" the Japanese had put their own hardware and software inside the >>aircraft. That does sound reasonably plausible, the book however then went >>on to add that the new systems were incredibly far advanced. >> >>The systems had the ability to use the radar waves reflected by a target >>from a transmitter as if it was their own radar. To whit knowing their >>exact position, the exact position of the transmitting aircraft, some pretty >>precise timing measurements and some basic trigonemetry. All the advantages >>of active radar from a passive system. This is called bi-static radar and probably isn't as easy or precise as the technothrillers lead us to believe. >>How far advanced the stuff is may be questionable but it does seem >>reasonable to assume that the Japanese stuff is more advancd than what comes >>in the US models. I read an interesting book on the Japanese military. Most of their gear is behind current day US tech. They have some high tech gear. The book made the point that Japan has no recent military experience to call upon whilst designing new equipment. No lessons to incorporate. A lot of their equipment is licence US built. >>Anyhow if anyone knows the truth in this then I would be interested to >>know..... >> >That's not all that adavanced, in principle--I think it's how a semi-active >radar homing missile works. I don't know of any aircraft that have used Semi-active radar is from the firing aircraft, no complicated trig or signal timings to work out. >it, but then I think that's because there's been no particular reason to >use it: radar has traditionally worked to just over the horizon, and so >the AWACS plane could just relay positions to the other units. Stealth >technology is probably changing that, and I wouldn't be surprised if the >U.S. has something like this under development. > >Scott Orr A recent 'Flight International' article has the USAF talking about using the Global Hawk UAV as a bi-static receiver for the E-3 AWACS. This could possibly double AWACS radar range. PG *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:01:58 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - -----Original Message----- From: Josh Baumgartner To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000 0:49 Subject: Re: PLA aircraft >> Anyone know of any other western military equipment used by >> the PLA? The pre-1989 plan was for the US to supply the F-16 APG-66 radar for a developed version of the J-8. Italy was supplying the Aspide AAM. Both were cancelled after 1989. >The only advanced aircraft entering PRC service in numbers is >the Su-30 (sometimes I've heard it referred to as the J-11 when >referring to Chinese-built examples). China is building them, >but merely as a license copy, not their own modification--as of >yet. They have the Su-27SK in service, and have ordered the two seat Su-30MKK strike version. >The only other major project that is likely to see any >production in the near future is the FC-1, borne out of the old >Super-7 project (itself a mod of the old MiG-21). This is a >lightweight fighter designed to replace a good number of the >PRC's old J-6s. The FC-1 will probably never enter service with the PLAAF, it may enter service with the Pakistani AF. >As of 1999, the PRC operates (combat a/c only): > >500 J-5 (MiG-17 Copy) >2800 J-6 (MiG-19 Copy) A lot of these are no longer flown, but probably remain in reserve. >550 J-7 (MiG-21 Copy) >100 J-8 (Domestic Fighter Design) >24 MiG-31 Foxhound (Russian-built) Much rumoured but never delivered. >50 Su-27 Flanker (Russian-built, soon to be joined by >Chinese-built examples -- 200 planned) These are in kit form, assembled in China. The program is underway, China is having trouble and it wraps up in 2010. All engines and radars will be produced in Russia. >600 Q-5 (Attack development of MiG-19) >350 H-5 (Il-28 Light Bombers) Again, most of these are out of service. >120 H-6 (Tu-16 Bombers) > >....Just in case anyone is in China for their campaign.... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:51:04 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter To: Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:53 AM Subject: Re: PLA aircraft <<< This is called bi-static radar and probably isn't as easy or precise as the technothrillers lead us to believe. >>> It's plausible but very complicated. It's a very simple concept. Three ppl stand in a darkened room. One points a torch at another, the third party can see the second and knows their location without having to shine a light themselves. If I recieve a radar echo on a bearing and I know the location of the transmitter and the time the radar pulse was sent you can use basic trig to work out the exact location of the object that caused the echo. However given that planes hurtle around the sky at hundreds of miles an hour it all becomes a little tricky. You also need a secure method of making the detecting aircracy aware of the exact location of the transmitting aircraft so that no one else can listen in on it. Otherwise if the enemy knows where the radar transmitter really is then they can use the signals that rebound off of party who is trying to do the tracking themselves. I guess that you could also have double echoes where a pulse you recieve had been bounced off of two reflectors between the transmitter and the reciever. Confusing..... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #96 ************************************