Modern SAM could have an effectiveness well above 20% but it is true that most countries where US are likely to fact have system with LESS than 1% effectiveness. About transport aircraft can flight by their own (with tankers) but not the stockpile of ammunitions, spares, trucks (oil etc..) , various items like fireman trucks, repair vehicules etc.. And I don't count hundred tons of kerozen per plane. While a battery (with 36 ammunitions) of an highly mobile SAM would need 10 hercules. US army complained that most of airforce transport jet are used to deploy airforce and not army. If US today can not loose air superiority agaisnt any force, it is not the case for other countries depending means they can deploy. If your are equiped with SAM you can compensate for a part with insufficient air dominance or concentrate on striking instead of defending agaisnt air threat. If I were an country like France I would prefer a ratio like 3000 medium SAM and 450 planes than 525 planes and no SAM. And if I were a country like Iran, I would prefer to have 6000 SAM and 150 planes ratio to maintain local air defense and some capabilities to mount concentrated raids. Also SAM are very good as they provide the necessary umbrella to build up in an oversea operation until the bulk of plane and troops are ready.I remember our Hawk battery shouting down some Lybian aircrafts while we were deploying on n'Djamena in Chad. But it is true that UK wait US deployed first and provide airdefense. BTW if Argentine had some good medium SAM batteries , UK air superiority in Falkland after failure of Argentine air force would not have been so effective and have allowed Argentine a better resistance. "This relies on the development of SAM technologies that the US can't counter with some type of SEAD operation or which can find its growing fleet of stealthy aircraft, UAV's and cruise missiles. Basically, good luck" Yes but only top countries on SAM technology can develop such system (USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Israel , Japan, Sweden, Italy and maybe Ukraine).India and China are not yet at the top. If you can not deter US you have to be on their side with all the drawbacks (forgot real independance)!

"I think a medium range SAM is just as capable of denying use of the air to the enemy as a short range fighter..." Let's take a basic fighter like and F-16 or a SHAR2. (1) It can patrol where you want it over hundreds of miles. (2) It can "sanitize" hundreds of square miles of territory in one radar sweep. (3) As a force multiplier, the newer 4G "swing role" models (like Gripen, Typhoon) can "borrow" weapons from nearby aircraft to use against their own targets (air, ground, SAM, whatever) and do so with precision from safe altitude and distance. That means EVERY aircraft carries or has access to ALARM/HARM, so even if the SEAD mission doesn't get you.....everyone else can. Meanwhile, you are siting in a hole in the ground, because you are sensible, as far from your medium SAM as possible wondering: "if I switch on my search radar I may see a target, I may even launch and I have a <10% chance of hitting it (let's be real, maybe 1%). I wonder if there's an ALARM floating above me? Will I get a HARM down the throat?" "Or maybe they'll just send Apache gunships to shoot me up with Maverick and cannon?" Do you feel lucky? Well do you? "In the mid-future manned aircrat will be obsolete" We're working on UCAV X-36 right now. Can you guess THE PRIMARY MISSION USAF for our first UCAV? You got it! SAM killing - a total dedicated UCAV SEAD system. (A) an even MORE agile aircraft capable of faster and higher-G turns and LESS likely to be caught by SAM; (B) with a full 5 man "air crew" on the ground able to dedicate specialists to each role: flying, tactical navigator, weapons acquisition and delivery, EW, engineering systems; (C) the ability for "air crew" to swap when tired during long missions ("wow I'm bushed. Can someone take over for a couple of hours?") (D) with a pilot/crew LESS likely to be put-off by any form of ground fire. "Hey guys! I just got hit. Launch another UCAV would you? I'll grab some coffee and we'll do it again with a different approach. And can we task a wingman to waste that SAM, he can't have moved." "Sure, AWACS say he's gone quiet, but J-STAR (ASTOR since you're a Brit!) says he's still in the same position. SEAD UCAV on it's way." SAM as "Light House" Every time a SAM lights up its radar it sends a beam and side lobes which can be detected miles beyond its effective missile range. Like a light house or searchlight beam. Using IR trackers or lasers helps but even these need an IFF which can be DF'd along with the laser. Why wont SAM evolve? Because SAM is ground-based; it is (1) limited by topography (unless your vehicle will take you right on top of the hill) and (2) SAM cannot physically improve on the crossing-target engagement. The answer to both is to have a SAM launcher which can adjust altitude and its relative position to get an engagement from the 6 o'clock or the 12 o'clock. We call such a SAM launcher a "fighter aircraft". To simulate medium SAM effectiveness in the front line against altitude targets:- (A) wear a day-glo orange combat suit and carry a large Halogen torch; against SEAD UCAV:- (B), as in (A) but add a sign saying "Kick Me!"

READ: Modern SAM could have an effectiveness well above 20% but it is true that most countries where US are likely to FIGHT have system with LESS than 1% effectiveness." The goal is not attrition, it is to allow your ground forces to be still able to manoeuver and fight even you lost air superiority!

SEAD mission (alarm, Harm ..) will not be effective against future systems (active decoys, IR EW camouflage, IR multitracking, multistatic radars, networked electronic scan mobile radars,lidars, networking).Even in Bosnia, serbs were still able to avoid destruction of their old SAM by building simple active decoys and good camouflage. ""if I switch on my search radar I may see a target, I may even launch and I have a <10% chance of hitting it (let's be real, maybe 1%). " If I swith on few second my radar (after passive EW warner have detected transmitted radio data from an airplane- see Kolchuga) then move it of few km and releaseing a cheap active decoy while data are transmitted to active guidance missile fired 20 km away, then a second radar is switched on again and so. Or if the weather is clear, my passive multitarget IRST track these few F35, 50 km away to give orders to firing battery. My double IR/active EW autodirector of my medium high energy vertical launched SAM will track under high jamming conditions and my SAM hit with 50% success this F22 turning at 5 g at 500 knts 60km away.I would feel more confortable than the F22 pilot.For luck no such system is still available (except maybe in Russia) while perfectly possible.(An improvement of Aster 30, patriot2 or SA300).

"But it is true that UK wait US deployed first air defense" In the past. e.g. GW1, why not? I dont believe France deployed air defense at all! We ran the entire air campaign and there was no point anyone doing anything outside our plan so everyone fitted in. The strategy of Air Dominance requires the destuction of enemy aircraft on the ground, not in the air. The UK are expert in Counter Air and they destroyed many more Iraqi aircraft on the ground than anyone did in the air. The strategy works. In the future: You keep misquoting the British defense policy whether because you dont understand it or because you have an axe to grind I dont know. What they wrote and said is that they plan for three levels of conflict:- (1) Multiple battlegroup deployments and ONE Brigade sized forces deployed almost simultaneously and maintained indefinitely. (Ireland, Kosovo, Iraq) (2) TWO Brigade sized deployments with Offensive Air including Counter Air, almost simulatneously plus limited battle group actions maintained indefinitely. (3) ONE Large operation involving a full Division plus ONE battlegroup action almost simultaneously and maintained indefinitely. The Large operation means a full armored division or tailored force with armored elements and heavy logistics. What the UK said was that looking around the world at their responsibilities and interests, they cannot see where they would have a Large Operation heavy Division deployed indefinitely without it involving other allies (including the US or even France!) They can deploy a Large Force entirely on their own and the very fact that they are buying 240 Typhoon makes this more probable (and more "independent") than less probable in the future. Strengthening their air defense with Typhoon gives them a much more complete and "independent" force than France since the UK have now, today, this minute Precision Weapons fitted on over 83% of their strike aircraft while France has barely 30%. The UK can destroy an enemy air force on the ground and achieve Air Dominance; France with her emphasis on "defensive" fighters and only 1/3 precision strike can only wage an old fashioned air campaign for local air superiority which will take you much longer and cost you more casualties. Which is why you need all those SAM. France must improve Offensive Air and Counter-Air operations; you must destroy the enemy aircraft on the ground, it is too late when they are in the air.

"Strengthening their air defense with Typhoon gives them a much more complete and "independent" force than France since the UK have now, today, this minute Precision Weapons fitted on over 83% of their strike aircraft while France has barely 30%." By the time UK have all EF we will reach a similar percentage of PGM abilities. Today we have 195 aircrat equiped with PGMs vs 280 for UK: don't forget we have 200 more aircraft operational than UK (including aeronavale). " The UK can destroy an enemy air force on the ground and achieve Air Dominance; France with her emphasis on "defensive" fighters and only 1/3 precision strike can only wage an old fashioned air campaign for local air superiority which will take you much longer and cost you more casualties. Which is why you need all those SAM." I don't see the link with SAM.BTW do you know that cluster bomb are also efficients on non PGM aircrafts. US used one third iron bomb, one third clusters and one third PGM in iraq. France must improve Offensive Air and Counter-Air operations; you must destroy the enemy aircraft on the ground, it is too late when they are in the air. " Not too late if you have 130 M2000 air defense and 25 Rafale like today,7 awacs plus 450 medium SAM to deploy .Which airforces could compete todays?US, Israelis only.Russia, India and China would be dispersed and lower level locally against a French force ouside their main deploiement areas. We are ordering 5000 AASM today.And we have antiairfield Apache cruise missile British don't even have.M2000N will be able to fire PGM soon and in few years we will have 300 aircraft for that.And in fact it would need few month to boost our fleet to be 100% PGM if we decide to (all planes have the wiring if not software and calculator udpdates). Really we feel confortable.

You are SOOOO defensive! "active SAM" This is THE problem. No SAM will ever effectively engage a crossing target; the laws of physics and time plus the local topography are against you. The ONLY way to build a really effective SAM system is to have it engage targets from the 6 o'clock or the 12 o'clock at the similar altitude; we call this a "fighter aircraft". "HARM/ALARM decoys" While you are decoying the ALRAM/HARM, the aircraft has flown past! And the ALARM has either hit you or is just hanging over your head waiting for you to switch on again. The latest model ALARM/HARM are very difficult to decoy; the next generation will have GPS confirmation of target. IT WILL KILL the threatening radar emitter or better, it will force you to spend all your time worrying about HARM/ALARM and the aircraft escapes. Totally defensive. "mutistatic radars" Yes, I know what they are. Mobile = win Static = die "Networked electronic scan radars, networked" Networking is to improve the efficiency of operations; the networked offensive air will cut through your electronic Maginot Line! I mean no offense by this but your desire to invest more and more in a tactically flawed system is rather like the Maginot Line. We will just fly around it or through the gaps. Sound familiar? "if I switch on my radar and release a decoy and then switch to an active missile' Then the ALARMS (all of them) will have locked on your position and the decoy. If they are close enough they will kill you; if they are too far away the ALARM will climb to high altitude and wait for you to switch on again. You are either silent or popping off decoys; either way the enemy aircraft is past you! "Serbs were able to avoid destruction of their old SAM" By hiding! This is the age of Precision Weapons, first sight, first shot, first kill. The very idea that you believe a system with 1%, 10% or even 20% effectiveness has any place on the battlefield is illusory especially when it can be defeated or very simply shut down by the mere threat of SEAD. Castles in the air I am sure that there were those who thought castles and fixed fortifications would last forever; the siege gun was countered by glacis works, the mortar by giving gun crews overhead protection but untimately they were just by-passed because of their ultimate fault - the inability to withstand or maneuver against precision weapons. SAM systems today have the same problem - they are ground-based and static. Even if you make them more mobile and hide them you are just worsening their ability to engage targets. The whole point of low level flying was to pass under the SAMs; with stealth we can now go around them at medium altitude and avoid ground fire too. I understand you believe SAM is a cheap compensation for not having enough aircraft to achieve air dominance. But then you should be investing in many, many more Rafale and get some C-130J and C-17 to give some real support lift. Or the Russian heavy lifters.

Re: cheap decoys etc, Worchester is right and will become even more so in the future. The US SEAD mini Cruise missile LOCASS will loiter for extended periods of time over a target area and an F-35 will be able to carry around a dozen internally. You can turn on your decoys if you want and it might fool one of these little babies, but then his 11 brothers are still circling and waiting to beat the crap out of your SAM battery. They are even being considered as a payload for JASSM, which will given them an even longer range and loiter. They will also have alternative sensors in each missile, lest the SAM user try to use SAM's that don't use radar. Also, come 2015 or so every fighter will carry the Dual Role AMRAAM derivative. This will be able to engage both BVR and WVR air targets, but more relevantly to this discussion will be able to be used as a "fire and forget" SEAD weapon, to nail any SAM guidance or search radars that pop up within range of the fighter in question. Finally, while you are talking about decoys there is nothing stopping nations sticking SAM decoys on UCAV's, to get the batteries to pop off lots of their very expensive missiles and give away their location at the beginning of an air battle.

I was having trouble seeing what you were talking about with modern SAM's not being able to engage crossing targets, given that SAM's like the HUMMRAAM and the MICA are based on successfull AAM designs. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that land-based systems are always going to have a hard time engaging a crossing target at low-level, because these targets spend to much time being masked by terrain for the SAM battery to get a bead, fire and accelerate from a standing position for a hit, when it the target crosses the SAM's flightpath. This wouldn't be a problem targets at higher altitude because there is more time to engage them, but CM's don't fly at higher altitudes and manned types that do have SEAD to hit the SAM's back. At sea(out of the littorals) it isn't such an issue, because there is no terrain masking effect, hence the relevance of medium to long-range sea-based systems. This makes sense to me as a reason why medium SAM's are a crap way of providing air defense of field forces, but I'd ask two questions. 1. Why does the US persist in developing medium to long range SAM's, like HUMMRUM and Patriot(apart from the ABM role), if they run so contrary to US doctrine? 2. With regards to fixed installations, surely mounting the radar on a high-mounting(eg, Girraffe), would enable the SAM's enough time to engage? LOS is around 30km from 100 feet, which means a target coming in at an airfield sized target isn't going to be crossing especially quickly when first detected, with theangle will become more acute as the CM approaches and given the SAM battery time for an effective engagement.

"we have 195 aircraft equipped with PGM vs 280 for UK" No you do not. French air force has 170 aircraft with a primary air-ground mission but the INSTALLED PGM systems for approximately 100 aircraft and these 100 do not all have the full range of PGM capabilities.