You have to remember that the MANPAD of 2004 has progressed to an all-weather weapon that rivals the Rapier of 1984. At the same time the threat has decreased, so it just isn't worth spending money on a better system. There are heaps of other things to spend it on that should come first.

Aussiegunner, you speak like a pilitician... Nobody can say what the threat is, as the threat a decade from now may be very different; and what with war with North Korea and Iran a possibility, I would argue we need more air defence for our armies. It is also true that Starstreak is a far more capable system than blowpipe, however, Mica, Spyder and RBS23 are far more capable than Rapier, as well as being far more capable than Starstreak! Manpads are not the only systems which are improving, so are short-medium range SAM's.

Yea, but MANPAD's and other systems don't have to fight eachother. MANPAD's and aircraft do and as long as the former can provide an acceptable last ditch defence against the latter, it is an acceptable solution. By the way, if you ever bother to read Sun Tzu, you will realise that I am talking like any sensible leader(military or civilian) would when it comes to resource allocation. Shaping a military force is all about working within the very real limits of your resources, to deal with the threats that you deem the greatest risk. The fact of the matter is that at the moment, it is likely that Western military aviation is sufficiently superior so as to be able to achieve air superiority with only limited SAM coverage as a back-up. Of course you can't cover every eventuallity and that may lead to some nasty suprises if the assesment of risk turns out to be wrong, but as it stands it is better to spend most of our money on systems where we have a clear advantage(eg, fighter aircraft), than on systems that are only their "just in case"(eg, Short Range SAMs).

I have read Sun Tzu, the Art of War, in three different versions, so nerrr! :D And I still do not agree with you. IMO we need SAMs larger than manpads; manpads have far more limited capabilities, it is insane to rely on them, and an aircraft can only go where there is an airfield. The chance of a manpad operator being able to engage a fighter bomber flying at super-sonic speeds is tiny.

Excuse my coming to this late but covering your previous questions:- 1. UK Def Review 2004 said clearly that RAF Regt Rapier units would disband, that Army Rapier would take over but RAF would retain primacy for controlling air def. No dount to coordinate with Typhoon etc. With the declared Expeditionary Warfare strategy it is clearly not envisaged that UK or even European fixed bases need SAM; you will have F-35 plus the Aster missiled T-45 destroyers at sea and you will have Typhoon on land, all of which are a vast improvement of AD. 2. Rapier has also succumbed to slow realization. UK MOD took years to accept that much of the 1982 White Paper "The Falklands Conflict: 1982" was wrong, and THE greatest error was the gross overstatement of Rapier performance. The commercial publication of "Air War South Atlantic" (Jeffrey Ethell & Alfred Price) provided (and it still remains) the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of the fate and cause of loss of all aircraft on both sides. The UK Govt White Paper credits Rapier with 14 kills; it is now known to have just 1 kill. Overstated claims are expected from ground AD troops but usually over water where claims can't be verified, not over land. Compare the analysis below:- System...UK Govt Claim/Verified Overrage Sea Dart...8/5....1.6x exaggerated Sea Wolf...5/3....0.7x Sea Cat....8/1....8.0x Rapier....14/1...14.0x Blowpipe...9/2....4.5x Stinger....1/1....0.0x Guns (all).7/3....2.3x (a) The navy claims for missiles and guns (even though over water) were far more reliable than the army claims, especially for Rapier. (b) The R Artillery claims for Rapier & Blowpipe & Stinger of 24 kills were very close to the 28 kills in air-to-air combat and convinced a lot of senior commanders (and politicians) that SAM could do the job of fighters for a lower price (WRONG!) When it was finally revealed that the ground SAM had just 4 kills (not 24!) the importance of fighter coverage was reinstated. This was particularly embarrassing to the R Artillery since 3 of the 4 kills were by R Marines and SAS, leaving the RArty with just 1 kill out of 20 claimed and who knows how many fired! Hence Sea Harrier 2, with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM; hence Typhoon; hence your 2 CVF and your JSF/F-35. A lot of people lost faith vey rapidly in Rapier. (c) Rapier Filed Standard C (FSC) is much improved in detection, reaction and tracking, BUT the key problem remains that performance (as with all ground-based systems) degrades very fast with high bearing rates - i.e. they can hit head-on targets, but kills diminish rapidly with faster crossing targets; FSC can lock and launch faster, but the probabilities are not that much improved. 3. You will argue that there are better missiles (yes) and that the main purpose of air def is NOT measured by how many enemy are shoot down but how many are forced to miss their mission target (correct, I agree). Stats prove that ANY form of AD is upsetting to an enemy and, fankly, it doesn't matter what it is - missiles or guns - if it is coming at you through your Head Up Display! BUT, if the majority of enemy aircraft are always killed by fighters then it makes sense to spend money on fighters and AWACS. MANPADS and guns will give point and local area AD and the lesson is, the more of these you can fire rapidly the better, hence HVM etc. 4. Hawk; it was proposed for Uk to field Hawk as a medium, theater AD system but I dont think you took it although the Dutch did. You used to have Bloodhound and Thunderbird as late as the 1980s and I believe the thought was that a stronger fighter screen is far better than more SAMs. Have to agree. The need for Rapier isn't really there now and it didn't do the job too well when it was.

Worcester, I think you are focussing to much on the shortcommings of one system. Newer systems are far more capable, and you can not be sure that ground forces will always be in range of RAF or FAA aircraft.

"Worcester, I think you are focussing to much on the shortcommings of one system. Newer systems are far more capable," And you are focussing exclusivly on one type of defensive system, without looking at the big picture. Purchasing decisions aren't made in isolation, they have to consider everything a military force needs. If only having MANPAD's means, for example, better EW for fighters, or upgraded MRAAM's faster, or later Tranches coming on line quicker, then that is the decision that needs to be made. "..and you can not be sure that ground forces will always be in range of RAF or FAA aircraft." Duh! We are talking about the defence of airfields. Surely if anything is within range of the airforce they will be. LOL!!!

Er, Where did I mention the defence of airfields? All I have mentioned are the types of, or lack thereof, SAMs. "And you are focussing exclusivly on one type of defensive system" No, no I am not. I have mentioned aircraft and manpads and the like. The fact remains, that manpads are not capable enough to be a real problem for enemy aircraft, and that if our forces are opperating too far from the carriers or friendly runways, they will have no defence from the air; unless we purchase a new short/medium range SAM.

The thread is primarily about the RAF regiment, which defends airfields and you mentioned this force early in the RBS-70 posts. If you were intending to broaden the topic, you should have said so. Anyway, nowdays Western military commanders aren't going to operate a substantial military force outside of air cover, as they recognise that this is a pre-requisite for success in conventional military operations. Therefore, ground-based air defence is still a secondary capability, when compared to fighter cover and should be resourced as such. I do think that both Australia and the UK will have to review base defence this when cruise missiles and other standoff weapons proliferate. They are inherantly hard targets for all systems with MANPAD's being completely ineffective against them. Therefore, more redundancy will need to be built in to protect fixed installations and perhaps troops in the field.

I should add to my last post that the UK would still only need mobile base defence of overseas bases, for lack of a threat against th UK. Also, I still think fighter upgrades and AWAC's should take precedence over land-based CM defence, as they will still be more effective than SAM's, but that better SAM's will move up the list of priorities as more countries acquire a credible CM force.