• @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    128 days ago

    If you can detect, you can intercept. If you can detect, suddenly a whole host of interception strategies are viable.

    • circuscritic
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      Your second sentence is mostly accurate, your first is not.

      Just because tracking radar identifies something, does not mean it’s automatically vulnerable to interception, and it definitely does not guarantee that targeting radar will be able to create a missile, or weapons, lock.

      But yes, the ability to track something is a critical first step in an anti-air kill chain.

      • @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        -128 days ago

        Your claim is that if I can track something to within 20m, I can’t send a fighter (or multiple) up to engage with it?

        • circuscritic
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          No, my assertion is that airspace is very dynamic battlefield.

          Just because you can track a possible stealth aircraft several hundred nautical miles off you’re coast, does not guarantee your ability to intercept it with aircraft before it drops it’s payload, or that your SAM sites will be able to get a missile targeting lock.

          It’s just a first step.

          • @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            -228 days ago

            And this is also true of conventional jet intercepts. Point being, the problem of stealth is basically no longer a problem.

            • circuscritic
              link
              fedilink
              428 days ago

              Interceptors haven’t been a thing since the cold war. BVR engagements have been the air to air norm for many years, and that requires a weapons grade targeting lock.