David, Paul Smyth appears to be trapped in the historical paradigm of how to take aircraft out of the equation.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
He correctly identifies the limitations of trying to enforce a NFZ through the threat of airborne interdiction but fails to apply some simple lateral thinking.
The deterrent of a NFZ is that if aircraft enter the designated NFZ area they will be engaged. This is the problem, to enforce this you need the costly means to instantly react.
There is of course a simpler method.
The response to breach of the NFZ does not have to be targeted at the particular aircraft... does it?
What about targeting the originating airfield? Doesn't have to be immediate. Crater that runway as soon as possible.
Helicopters are a more difficult proposition as are artillery weapons. Again simple.
If helicopters or artillery are used then instead of playing cat and mouse just have a list of military targets which can be dealt with sequentially in response to NFZ breaches or the use of artillery.
Why does the most complicated method always receive the most consideration?
.
Bookmarks