3 ms·

Again, you are missing the point. The technical capability exists, you are arguing the details. Obsessing over APS isn’t materially contributing to your argumen

Again, you are missing the point. The technical capability exists, you are arguing the details. Obsessing over APS isn’t materially contributing to your argument. The technology isn’t constrained by your examples. We are not talking about traditional AD radars. Trying to make it about AD radars is disingenuous. You are pretending that things that have proven solutions don’t actually have solutions. I’m not saying the current set of solutions implementations is perfect but you are not making a credible argument that they don’t exist. Local battle-space sensing is very fast and very effective as a matter of record, at least in the US arsenal. That tech may not exist in the Ukraine/Russia theater but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

greedo 1y ago
Pretty sure that I'm not the one who brought up Trophy systems? Yes the technology exists to mitigate some of the risk. It's not deployed currently, and is very expensive. There are significant limitations to these systems, and most haven't seen combat. You're trivializing a complex problem by pointing out that it's technically feasible, when it's more than just "we have the technology." Show me a "proven system" in the US arsenal that can protect a large airbase from this type of attack. Not similar technology that the DoD has talked about converting to address this threat, but purchased, deployed systems.