"you are focusing on the shortcomings of one system" And you are missing the points:- (1) Ground based air defense has not improved in RELATION to the air threat for 90 years! The proportion of Zeppelins shot down by ground fire over London in WW1 was 10% of missions; in WW2 this rose over the UK and Germany to 11%; in Korea it fell to 7%, in Vietnam it rose to 12%, Falklands 3% (8% incl navy), GW1 was 1%, Kosovo 1%, Iraq <1%. Air power has beaten ground based systems into a negligible resource. 2. Modern SAM have exactly the same problems; THE BEARING RATE! You cannot track and launch fast enough from the ground to hit all but a tiny fraction of crossing targets; they are only useful for point defense. 3. Nothing, absolutely nothing provides air defense like a fighter. 4. It is a sine qua non of operations - Iraq, Kosovo, GW1, Falklands - that ground forces do NOT operate out of range of air cover. You may think modern SAMs would be nice to have but they are almost irrelevant when the Prime Doctrine is Air Dominance.

So we are left with a military which is nothing but a paper tiger unless we have aircraft flying in the region? Great...

"when ground forces are out of range of RAF FAA" And when will this be under the Expeditionary Doctrine? And if they ever are, a modern SAM will perform no better against modern fighters than Rapier did in 1982. By contrast, HVM etc will perform much better because they are more nimble. Sure the army will have some Rapier for a while - because its main role is making troops FEEL they are protected while the senior officers and opposing air force KNOW medium SAM is useless. And when exactly is an RAF base in the UK going to be attacked? It wasn't that plausible in 1985 so why now? What is the point of

"Military paper tiger unless we have planes flying" No. Where did you get that idea? The army closes with and engages the opposing army. Each side tries to prevent the opposing air force interfering and THE BEST way to do that is have fighter cover. REAR AREAS. Medium SAM from fixed sites around headquarters or rear areas have a ludicrously small chance of hitting anything (especially a crossing targte) and have a relatively low volume of fire. FRONT LINE. By contrast, HVM etc. cannon and small arms producing a dense volumeof fire and used close to the battle where enemy are LOW ALTITUDE, coming head on or crossing your positions are very effective detterents. May not hit anything but they may not hit you either. Medium SAM just doesnt work well. In the 1980s when we were lucky to have even Local Air Superiority, anything was better than nothing. As we moved to Total Air Superiority and now to Air Dominance, medium SAM is just a target waiting to be scorched. That's why "JOINT OPERATIONS" are joint. You cant do what the air force can do; and they cant do what the army can do. You have to do it together. Which is why the UK supreme commander in GW1 was an air force officer! Hey, the Middle East was an RAF Command as far back as 1920. As for the politics, of course the Artillery will squeal! They've squealed since they lost anti-tank guns to the infantry, and then they lost anti-tank missiles to the infantry; and then the R Marines started using shoulder SAMs (how soon do they lose that job to the infantry); and now Rapier does't work well so it's not needed. Soon they'll have only guns and MLRS left. Of course they moan. As for the RAF Regt, sure they'll complain; what are they waiting for? The Red air force? And if you want to blame the manpower cuts blame the RAF Commanders who kept too much base land...didn't they understand the MOD accounting system? That's why the bases and manpower are being cut so hard. Too much real estate, too little work.

Is RBS-70 a true MANPAD. It is a pretty big system, and while it can be lugged about it seems inconceivable that it could be lugged far. At least not in the same fashion as Stinger/Starstreak/IGLA - admittedly less capable systems. Thoughts? Massive Ps. I would think a couple of your beloved Hawk 100s with a couple of Aim-9s and a gun pod would be better than HUMRAAM...although I am on your side re the purchase of such a system.

"And if they ever are, a modern SAM will perform no better against modern fighters than Rapier did in 1982. By contrast, HVM etc will perform much better because they are more nimble." Why are you so against the short-medium range clas of SAM's, yet support manpads? I mean, more nimble? What hogwash! A manpad can not hope to be nearly as capable as a system such as Spyder. The best evidence you are giving to support your claim of the types are that of Rapier in 1982, you resting a hell of a lot on one outdated system! A missile such as the Python 4 will never be as capable when shot from the ground as when it is shot from the air; however that does not stop it from being a capable system, able to give far better results than a manpad, or preying to God that you have an aircraft directly over head. A SAM can stay wit the mobile units; an aircraft can not.

For the British , to get air dominance suppose a combined operation with US.If they go alone they would lack their airdefense agaisnt a potent opponent. Medium SAM not efficient : like in Yom Kippour maybe! In fact no western army have been opposed to modern air defense since the seventies. What did they got (iraqis, serbs ..)? .. 30 years old SAM6/SAM2!No powerfull ground ECM!no modern camouflage immune to radar and IR thermal..

Wait Chinese or Iranian SAM technology improve and they sell their weapon everywhere and it would change.3 batteries of a medium SAM system with both IR and EW autodirectors and mixed IR trackers and electronic scan radars would have a prodigious efficiency today.Only Russia have close to modern system available on the market and they don't sell them in massive quantitites under US pressure. Today medium SAM are vulnerable to antiradiation missiles, and jammers and their real effective range is only about 30 km.Their rate of fire is also limited except for Patriot, SA300 and Aster30. A SAM missile cost 2 m$ including tracking systems (and cheap training), a plane 60 m$ including weapons plus 2m$ training per years. To have for a country 6000 missiles more potent than patriot 2 would cost 12 billion $ in 10 years the same price of only 150 modern fighters. I prefer for a medium country to have 6000 medium SAM (of 80 km effective range against 5 g manoeuvering aircrafts) plus 150 fighters than 300 fighters and no medium SAM.Challenge for US or British would not be the same.

"why are you so against..." You make it sound like an emotional choice. Why are you having difficulty comprehending the data? "more nimble, what hogwash" You really dont get it do you? Effectiveness, is not about the bright shiny technology; it is about tactical employment. MANPADS and other MOBILE short range systems are useful (repeat myself) BECAUSE they can be USED close to the front line by operators engaging targets swiftly. i.e they are nimble systems. Medium SAM have rarely been USED closer than brigade/regimental HQ and are a division/corps asset, precisely as Rapier was used by Britain. It is a static system (doesn't respond well to rapid movement) for rear defense. Aircraft do this better. "A SAM can stay with mobile units" Short range, tactically useful, mobile, "nimble", like your Stormer for example, but not medium systems. Medium wont keep up with an armored or helibone advance. "aircraft cant" Where have you been for the last 10 years?

Knew you couldn't resist. But you re missing the point. SAM/ground defense has got weaker while air power has got stronger. "like in Yom Kippur maybe" And since then? Rememeber the Bekaa Valley turkey shoot, what the IAF did to the Syrians? "In fact no western army has been exposed to modern air defense since the 1970s." Wrong. Argentina used Crotale and Roland in 1982 - not good - the Rheinmetall cannon were more effective. Iraq used Crotale in 1991 - better but still not up to the advertized standards. Former Yugoslavia had a very good air defense system - wasn't a problem in Kosovo. You cannot blame the failues of SAM on the quality of the operators. SAM is immobile, air power is mobile and YOU know that mobile warfare will always overcome fixed defenses.