Are aircraft cost-effective for defensive purposes?

In article ,
Hobo wrote:

If a country had zero interest in offensive actions and was only
interested in defense, would putting money into military aircraft
instead of a SAM system make any sense?

Yep.

Pure defense doesn't really work that well in the long run.

Special-purpose hardware (antiair missiles) is much easier to defeat
than general-purpose (aircraft). Flexibility almost always wins.

--


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

"Hobo" wrote in message
...

If a country had zero interest in offensive actions and was only
interested in defense, would putting money into military aircraft
instead of a SAM system make any sense?

Of course. A SAM has only one use, namely shooting things down. A combat
aircraft can for example intercept an unidentified aircraft, and execute a
range of options depending on what it encounters.

tim gueguen 101867

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:01:41 -0700, Hobo wrote:

If a country had zero interest in offensive actions and was only
interested in defense, would putting money into military aircraft
instead of a SAM system make any sense?

Consider a vast country with lots of empty spaces, such as Russia,
Australia or Saudi Arabia. It'd beb uneconomic to put missiles
everywhere on such a country (even if they just covered the
borders), you'd have to use patrol, AEW, and interceptor aircraft.

But for smaller targets, for example a nation's capital city and its
environs, missile defence may be viable. However, missile defence,
if it uses radars, can be destroyed by anti-radar missiles, and I
don't know of any long-range SAM systrems that use only passive
sensors (such as visual and IR).

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:05:49 GMT, tim gueguen wrote:

"Hobo" wrote in message
...

If a country had zero interest in offensive actions and was only
interested in defense, would putting money into military aircraft
instead of a SAM system make any sense?

Of course. A SAM has only one use, namely shooting things down. A combat
aircraft can for example intercept an unidentified aircraft, and execute a
range of options depending on what it encounters.

That's a good point. Of course, a relatively cheap aircraft, e.g. an
advanced jet trainer such as the Hawk, fitted with a few missiles,
would be adequate to investigate (and possibly) destroy any civilian
aircraft intruder.

If the intruder is a military aircraft, it can automatically be
assumed to be hostile and shot down without needing to inspect it
(unless it's a type the country's air force operates, in which case
it may just be a cock-up).

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:01:41 -0700, Hobo wrote:

If a country had zero interest in offensive actions and was only
interested in defense, would putting money into military aircraft
instead of a SAM system make any sense?

Consider a vast country with lots of empty spaces, such as Russia,
Australia or Saudi Arabia. It'd beb uneconomic to put missiles
everywhere on such a country (even if they just covered the
borders), you'd have to use patrol, AEW, and interceptor aircraft.

But for smaller targets, for example a nation's capital city and its
environs, missile defence may be viable. However, missile defence,
if it uses radars, can be destroyed by anti-radar missiles, and I
don't know of any long-range SAM systrems that use only passive
sensors (such as visual and IR).

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?


A: wading through ten miles of thread you already read in order to find the
new contribution

Q: what's the most annoying thing about stupid people on the 'net?

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote:

A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Q: Why should I get a real newsreader, instead of Outlook Express??

A: wading through ten miles of thread you already read in order to
find the new contribution

The other solution is to learn about the "page down" and "end" keys on
keyboards...

Q: what's the most annoying thing about stupid people on the 'net?

They top-post.

--


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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:28:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote:

A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Q: Why should I get a real newsreader, instead of Outlook Express??

Does Outhouse even run on a Mac?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?