Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
I don't think a MANPAD cares whether the target is fast or not.
Oh yes it does!
Speed is a huge advantage in defeating any threat, but especially so for a MANPAD which due to the requirement of low enough weight to be man carried and employed, has a finite time of flight due to finite fuel onboard. Speed vastly shrinks the amount of time for target acquisition, targeting, and weapons release.
About the only advantage going slow can provide is such a small heat signature that the MANPAD cannot get a lock.
It is sad for me to see countries like Great Britain yeild themselves to the false premise of cutting their defense budgets to the bone!
Those "cheap propeller aircraft" are cheap in relative terms only. In reality, they are expensive to operate and their maximum capabilities are limited to put it mildly. As engineers learned in World War II, there are known performance limits for anything powered by a propeller and World War II very much saw those limits achieved.
A nation should be prepared to spend for its defense in accordance with its society's value. That value is mostly human but also economic. In short a society should keep a proper ratio. It makes perfect sense for a nation like Afghanistan to spend its lower resources on an attack aircraft like the lightweight turboprop being worked by the US's acquisition program. But, a nation with the wealth and social value of Great Britain can certainly afford much more and has vastly more to lose if it's defenses fail at the critical hour.
When you fail to put the best technology on the ramp in peacetime, it means vastly more blood is shed in combat. Put another way, there is nothing more expensive in the long run than a second best Air Force! In the interwar years between WW1 and WW2, Great Britain's penny pinching Parliament actually instituted a plan where if no projected threat was envisioned for a set period of years in the future, there would be no significant assets allocated for defense. It was a disaster as Great Britain came perilously close to entering World War II with biplanes vice the Hurricane and Spitfire. But worse, that inadequate preparation was a certain factor in provoking the rise of the threat itself.
I sincerely hope the current penny pinching climate throughout so many nations does not provoke a similar future miscalculation. I think to a certain extent, we can rely upon the sobering influence of the vast destruction and agony seen by World War II's lesson. I just hope it's enough! Cutting defenses to the bone makes it clear this is the sole remaining deterrent to future miscalculations that lead to war. Because, in the balance, human life and democratic societies are far more valuable than any amount of money spent for the proper balance of national defenses. If a nation chooses to abdicate that duty, then they should hope they can place their future in the hands of a most generous and moral other power with the temperment to hold its status of protector most sacred. I for one would prefer having allies of similar values and defenses who can work in equal partnership to ensure mutual peace and security.
Ken
