On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.
The fact is that not every aircraft has ecm and not every aircraft can carry harm. And really, if you're at the point where you find the threat great enough to make it necessary to load every aircraft with a harm for self-defense, then why not simply attack the system and take it out? Especially considering that many aircraft needed for operations over Libya are equal to a learjet in terms of defensive systems.
Regarding Serbia, I was pointing out that the age of a particular weapon system is only part of it's total capability. Dismissing "1960's" technology with a casual hand-wave and making dubious capabilities assumptions is a mistake.
And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up. Maybe we could use Fuchs in his learjet as bait
Bookmarks