Yes, you got it. Unrepairable disadvantage of:- The crossing rate; even with good relative altitude and speed, a fighter launched AAM of any category is at a HUGE disadvantage against a crossing target versus a 6 o'clock or 12 p'clock shot. The more the missile has to turn the more energy is lost (shortening the range) and the more difficult it is to track the target. All of this is true of SAMs PLUS the standing start. Think of yourself shooting clays - those double shots towards you or away from you are pretty easy, almost seem to hang there; then take up one of the center positions between the two towers and try the crossing shots - much mor difficult! Same principle. Terrain masking remains a big problem both search and track. You correctly said it is less relevant for ships, but the sea state matters - on one sweep you can be looking at waves, on the second at satellites in orbit - I am not joking! Your questions:- 1. US Army runs many programs for many reasons and given our budget size there is so much inertia that you mustn't believe there is always any logic behind it; could just be politics. I'll suggest a few reasons:- (a) SAM and anti-tank programs are all the army missile guys have left; time was that the Redstone Arsenal was the leader in our misile tech until Eisenhower created NASA, the first act of which was to take over all the ballistic programs; then the Cold War ended and no-one needed Honest John or Lance tac nukes. From thousand mile missiles to tens of miles in 50 years. So, unless they become just an anti-tank shop they have to make the case for some SAM. Of course, you can understand how dumb the air force and navy find this but what the hell it the army can convince congress.... (b) Land-Air Doctrine works, but some in the army (artillery perhaps?) figure they should buy some insurance (however inefficient) even if only to make the ground troops feel less dependent on the air force - it is simply a morale factor. (c) Most of the SAM programs originate in California (remember Pres Reagan, ex Gov of California?) - dont even THINK about cutting defense appropriations here; California Congressmen EAT four star generals. Did you see the recent bill requiring over 50% US content in all defense programs? Yup, Californian Republicans. Remember how the SR-71 Blackbird was retired by the air force and ordered back into commission by the Senate Appropriations Committee? Yup, made in the Skunkworks, California. Doesn't matter a damn whether it corresponds to what the generals want or believe; our law makers really do TELL generals what to do. As a former chairman of the Senate Appropriations said once: " you know, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we're talking real money". SAMs ar inefficient and contrary to doctrine but the programs are just small change. 2. "Fixed installations on a 100' mast" Good idea for search and track, but only if the missile has the range to engage in that area. Otherwise you are just advertising "Kick Me!" Better to MINIMIZE your radar signature to the effective engagement range, ideally inside the nap of the earth up which enemy aircraft will fly - i.e. on a valley side at a similar expected altitude to the enemy. Then of course you have the whole terrain masking and crossing rate problems. Conclusion Most data points to high volume ground fire (of any caliber) being the best way of defeating (or really upsetting) enemy air over the battle field because there are a lot of guys with weapons on the ground and someone will always have a tail or head shot on the aircraft. For all other situations fighter cover is best. Medium/heavy SAM got a lot of currency when high latitude bombing was the vogue and guns wouldn't reach and then it got extended because no one had the aircraft to match the Warsaw Pact numbers and because the technology got a little better every year, as did the aircraft weapons. Ultimately it became a cheap way of saying you had a cost effective air defense (read FS) when all the evidence showed that SAM was not keeping up with even the 90 year average attrition rate against air attack (10%) but was getting to the low single digits. As long as no-one calls your bluff you can still say you have air defense. The army like it (artillery jobs) the manufacturers love it (volume production and it's only expected too work to a fraction of the demands on an aircaft) and the troops believe they're defended. Everyone is happy. Of course, "grouse shooting" against fast jets makes no sense but we, the US have never had to rely on it.

We don't have any reliable figure on attrition rate because the only system we were confronted since the seventies were not up to date system. "crossing target versus a 6 o'clock or 12 p'clock shot" I'm perfectly aware of that and it is why 360 degree system (vertical launch) and missile with more energy are mandatory.Also why multiple batteries separated geographically but networked are more efficients! Even with GPS a sead missile will not hit a radar which have moved between two scanning especially when there is multiple networked radars.And you do not answer on passive IR tracking. Your comparison with fortress is a little weak. In Iraq you did have aircraft with 2003 technology against air defense system or seventies and begining of the eighties! Today air attack are above 15000 feet level to avoid gun and short range SAM which give also additional range to bombs so aircraft stay out of most medium SAM enveloppe. And you did not answer on navy air defense why you used T45/42 argument and numbers to say that French navy was less protected and SH2 useless! I had worked in THALES and I know what are potential system and performances!

“And you did not answer on navy air defense why you used T45/42 argument and numbers to say that French navy was less protected and SH2 useless!” The fact is French Stratege that having the Sea Harrier F/A Mk.2 operating in the front lines in a contemporary environment, before the Harrier GR.9A, is not logical. Strike missions are now the lions’ share of carrier operations and it was deemed that the Harrier GR.9A was more suited to the now ubiquitous ground attack role that had become pretty much the mainstay of the naval based aircraft of Joint Force Harrier in operations over the past few years. That is not to say they that the SHAR won’t be available if the situation requires they be used but otherwise the more ‘relevant’ GR.9A will take over Fleet Air Arm fixed wing aircraft duties during deployments. When Sea Harrier is withdrawn from the frontline and put into reserve in 2006, they will be based at RNAS Yeovilton as part of a retasked 801 and 899 squadron where they can be redeployed on the carriers as part of Joint Force Harrier if the strategic need merits it. The SHAR is simply not as relevant as the GR.9A in today’s operational climate. In regards to the Type 45 Class Destroyers, they will provide a far more flexible, phased air defence capability over the existing Sea Dart deployed on the Type 42’s, indeed with the Sampson MFR, they should be one of if not the best Naval Air Defence systems deployed. I also noticed that you mentioned, the French Air Force operate Apache, which you claim the RAF have no comparable system…The RAF operate the both the Brimstone and Storm Shadow CASOM, which is infact an MBDA developed, precision guided, improved version of the Apache, optimised for the RAF’s requirements and has the added benefits of ensuring aircrews no longer have to enter heavily defended enemy airspace in order to destroy high value targets. I believe it is also to be deployed with the FAF as the SCALP EG. I also noticed that you make no mention of the value added we achieve from deploying TLAM. http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/a_slong.html#brimstone

"Good idea for search and track, but only if the missile has the range to engage in that area. Otherwise you are just advertising "Kick Me!" I guess I'm thinking of Australia's specific situation, where small to medium numbers of cruise missiles are likely to be the only systems that will get as far as our airbases in the medium term, due to their reletive stealth. The countries we are likely to face are unlikely to have the capablity to get a fighter and SEAD escorted package through, as we have a very capable over-the-horizon radar network, fighter force and offensive counter-air capability, which we will shortly be supplimenting with AWAC's. Also, our terrain is flat so high-aerials would work especially well, whereas there aren't to many "naps" in the earth to hide low powered systems in. AMRAAM's would probably do the trick until cruise missles with SEAD submunitions proliferate, then we may have to move to a longer range system. It would be worth a system per airbase and port(probably half a dozen all up), as an insurance policy against an inconvenient temporary incapacitation by a CM in the middle of a runway or a sunken ship blocking the main channel of a harbour and a good way to free up fighters for other operations. However, outside of specific scenario's that suit SAM's like this one I 100% agree with your assesment. I would have previously suggested HUMRAAM's to cover the army, but think now we are probably better just keeping our RBS-70's and mabye introducing some quick firing guns, of which we don't have any. If you think about it, Medium SAM's are probably over-rated for most countries because of their success in the 15 years or so before those fighting them came up with good countermeasures. Even in the 60's and early 70's, their real utility was to force operations at lower levels, where most of the kills were made by AAA. They may have been able to perform in this way well after the mid-70's for the Soviets, because they had so many SAM's that they would probably have kept the allied aircraft off the back of their huge ground force long enough to push them off the edge of Europe. However, this is another specific reason why they were suitable for a particular theatre, that doesn't apply to most of the countries that these systems were sold to(as the Iraqi's and the Serbs found out!) . They are inflexible in the sense that they only suit particular strategic circumstances which might change. In contrast, fighters are able to be used in most types of war which makes them a better buy for most.

"However, this is another specific reason why they were suitable for a particular theatre, that doesn't apply to most of the countries that these systems were sold to(as the Iraqi's and the Serbs found out!) . They are inflexible in the sense that they only suit particular strategic circumstances which might change. In contrast, fighters are able to be used in most types of war which makes them a better buy for most." -- AG ----- But not for the Iraqis and the Serbs, anyway. Displacedjim

I guess it could be argued that had the Iraqis and Serbs invested all that which had gone into their intergrated air defence system into their airforce, with force multipliers like AWAC's and advanced EW, that they might have have stood up better against the US. I don't think it would have made a difference in the end though, because of America's overwhelming technological superiority, with systems like cruise missiles and stealth aircraft being able to cripple opposing airfields with reletive ease. The Israeli/Syrian conflict in Bekea Valley is probably the best example of how two reletively evenly matched countries in terms of wealth and superpower ties, can adopt different air warfare doctrines with dramatic results. This conflict comprehensively proved the superority of the Western offensive air superiority/SEAD approach, over the Soviet approach with its greater emphasis on ground based air defence, in anythign but specific strategic circumstances.

Apache missile is dedicated to anti airfield purposes with submunition dedicated to destroy runways.A weapon UK do not have. For Worcester: We have 80 M2000 D +60 Atlis pods on F1 or Jaguar plus 50 Supertendard with PGM.So a number about 190.When you compare our air assets you have to include our navy as you do with harrier in UK. http://www.senat.fr/rap/a04-077-7/a04-077-74.html#toc40 You would notice that we still have nearly 500 aircraft in active squadrons (430 in air force and 70 in navy) compare to roughly 300 for UK. You have to know that (not in this document) 15 Rafale have been delivered at F2 standard in November to armée de l'air (with PGM).

Absolutely, and I'd say the deciding factor in the two competing doctrines is the Israeli/Western reliance on pilots intensively trained in independent action v. the Syrian/Communist reliance on near-total ground control. It's the old "if they swaped equipment, the Israelis still would kick their ass" argument, and it's true. A more conclusive scenario would have been if the Syrian Air and Air Defense Forces were the same in quality, doctrine, equipment, training, etc., as well as total money spent as the Israelis, but only devoted say two-thirds of their budget to the flying portion and spent one-third on the ground-based air defense portion. The results over the Bakaa and Syria would have been quite different. But then, the war probably wouldn't have happened because for that scenario to occur, the Syrian society, economy, etc. would have to be more democratic, in which case they would have rejected that butcher Hafez al-Assad and made peace with Israel! Displacedjim

“Apache missile is dedicated to anti airfield purposes with submunition dedicated to destroy runways. A weapon UK do not have.” Did you bother reading the material I gave you? From the RAF: “Storm Shadow is an air-launched, conventionally-armed, long-range, stand-off, precision weapon, which is deployable at night or day, in most weather and operational conditions. It has been developed to attack and destroy a wide variety of static, high value 'hardened' targets such as Command and Control facilities, airfield facilities and bridges.” http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/a_slong.html#stormshadow This from MBDA: “The system is based on the flight-proven French Apache air vehicle and is optimised to meet UK requirements.”…“Following the British selection of Storm Shadow, France selected a system based heavily on its design called SCALP-EG also from BAE Dynamics and Matra.” http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/common/AG/ss.html

Yea, the independent action thing was a big deal, especially since the Israeli's jammed the Syrian's radars and comms most of the time, leaving them stuck without instructions from their ground controllers. However, some of the more independently minded Syrian fighter pilots showed that they were better off ignoring the ground controllers anyway. Apparently they would loiter just at the edge of Sparrow range, goading the Israelis into firing on them and allowing the bombers they escorted to get through. They didn't get any kills against the F-15's or F-16's, but had done their job of allowing some bombs to hit their targets. Anyway, I think it as about a conclusive scenario as we are going to get and is pretty illustrative really. Apart from the financial side, it probably tells us that free nations are going to be better at air superiority most of the time, because teaching somebody to handle the most powerful weapons systems in the world involves trust, not a big feature in Arab dictatorships or Communist State's.