Re: Are aircraft cost-effective for defensive purposes?

[Chad Irby]

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.

[tim gueguen]

"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

[phil hunt]

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?

[phil hunt]

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?

[Leslie Swartz]

"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?


>

[Chad Irby]

"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.

[phil hunt]

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?