Paul Michael Brown wrote:
observed:


AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.


If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

"Non-kinetic attack" is another name for Electronic Attack (EA). This
typically means jamming (e.g. radar jamming, referred to in the ancient
days of history as ECM), but there are other things you can do with it-
it does not involve shooting down a plane with a beam of microwaves, or
a laser, or anything like that. It usually involves disrupting the
gathering or passing of information (jamming your radar or your radio,
for example), but generally does not do any physical damage in and
of itself- hence non-kinetic. Non-kinetic attacks attempt to defeat
a target, as opposed to destroying it.

See

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...e_Rethinks.htm

for a short discussion on electronic warfare as a non-kinetic capability.

Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call