Purely Defensive.

[PeterCrisp]

As anti-aircraft missiles are now so advanced do any nations rely solely on a network of missiles to protect their airspace rather than a rather more expensive air force? If the UK were to go purely defensive would we be able to defend the UK just with ground based systems for example?
I just ask as it seems like a lot cheaper way to defend small nations.

Sorry if this has been asked before or is in the wrong folder.

 

[kato]

No.

And definitely not the UK, which completely lacks any outer-layer air-defense systems. The UK only has SHORAD systems (Rapier).

 

[Tasman]

As anti-aircraft missiles are now so advanced do any nations rely solely on a network of missiles to protect their airspace rather than a rather more expensive air force? If the UK were to go purely defensive would we be able to defend the UK just with ground based systems for example?
I just ask as it seems like a lot cheaper way to defend small nations.

Sorry if this has been asked before or is in the wrong folder.

In 1957 the British government of the day decided to begin implementing just what you have suggested. The English Electric Lightning was to be the last manned fighter!

SAMs are certainly far more effective these days and are improving all the time but so to are the designs (eg stealth), equipment (e.g. electronic countermeasures and decoys) and tactics of strike aircraft. IMO, there will still be a need for manned fighters for the air defence role for a long time to come and that certainly seems to be the stance taken by every major airforce, including the RAF.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

As anti-aircraft missiles are now so advanced do any nations rely solely on a network of missiles to protect their airspace rather than a rather more expensive air force? If the UK were to go purely defensive would we be able to defend the UK just with ground based systems for example?
I just ask as it seems like a lot cheaper way to defend small nations.

Sorry if this has been asked before or is in the wrong folder.

No way. In very simple tacticle terms if the bad guys have a stand off weapon with more range than your SAM's your stuffed. Even if they dont, ground baced systems are just not flexible enough. Fixed wing aviation will be a vital part of any air defence system worth its name well into the future.

 

[riksavage]

Moving forward I can see domestic air-defence switching to a UAV based platform, which can remain in the air for extended periods at the outer fringes of a countries airspace. These would be linked to a ground based command and control system, which in turn will be networked to maritime assets with area defence missiles such as Aegis or PAAMS.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Tasman]

Moving forward I can see domestic air-defence switching to a UAV based platform, which can remain in the air for extended periods at the outer fringes of a countries airspace. These would be linked to a ground based command and control system, which in turn will be networked to maritime assets with area defence missiles such as Aegis or PAAMS.

I agree with you that this is a probable way forward.

I think we may also see platforms that can be flown in both manned and unmanned configurations depending on the circumstances at the time, or perhaps a manned aircraft working with a couple of UAVs. For limited war situations (which would describe most conflicts since WW2) rules of engagement may make it preferable, if not mandatory, to have a human close to the frontline to make the final decision to engage or otherwise (or at least provide relevant information to anyone else with that authority). There are still times (e.g. encroachment of airspace by probing Russian Tu-95 Bears) when human eyeball identification is required. Deterring such flights, rather than shooting them down, is also something that a manned fighter (or perhaps, in future, a UAV) can do but a missile cannot.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree with you that this is a probable way forward.

I think we may also see platforms that can be flown in both manned and unmanned configurations depending on the circumstances at the time, or perhaps a manned aircraft working with a couple of UAVs. For limited war situations (which would describe most conflicts since WW2) rules of engagement may make it preferable, if not mandatory, to have a human close to the frontline to make the final decision to engage or otherwise (or at least provide relevant information to anyone else with that authority). There are still times (e.g. encroachment of airspace by probing Russian Tu-95 Bears) when human eyeball identification is required. Deterring such flights, rather than shooting them down, is also something that a manned fighter (or perhaps, in future, a UAV) can do but a missile cannot.

Tas

I agree the human UCAV combination should be with us well into the future, which is why i'm scheptical of the claims of the end of maned fighters, eyeballs and 'little grey cells', as one Belgan put it, will be vital in the foreward area for a long while for precisely the reasons you state above. Either this current generation of manned fighters will be with us for a long time or we will indeed see a next gen manned fighter. It could be argued that improvements in information gathering and distribution could alieviate this need, i am personally scheptical. A combination of manned and unmanned would give the most flexible system in the foreseable future IMO.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted