Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al
Well, thats the thing:
NATO on the whole doesn't go for networked defense. Thats a Russian thing.
Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate)
|
Correction, that was a Soviet/Russian holy mantra but the US picked it up for different reasons. In order to provide ballistic missile defense you need everybody's radars and satellites working as one big happy family. That requires the BIG BOARD (or at least a fair amount of computing power and powerpoint) and BIG BOARDS REQUIRE BIG TENTS. AND IN BIG TENTS THERE'S SHINY BRASS WHOSE JOBS ARE DEPENDENT ON SHIT WORKING
.
Even during the Cold War the HAWK and Nike Hercules belts did require something pretty akin to a multinational air defense network and had to- especially when the Luftwaffe and RNLAF bought the Patriot to replace the Nike systems. And even back then they were eyeing something to replace the HAWKs (which never happened or maybe they just accept MEADS will replace both HAWK and Patriot).
While tactical air defense is supposed to different but since much of so called tactical air defense requires low altitude point/near point coverage of large static targets such as airfields/airbases, corps/army assembly areas, ports, rail depots, and theater HQ needs to be networked so BLUE AIR doesn't get turned into spare parts there was a reason why by the late 80s Chaparral battalions were paired w/ HAWK and Patriot units in Germoney and garrisoned in kasernes suspiciously close to places like Bitburg, Rhein Main, etc
IOW Tw2K- we could expect to see networked systems in the West w/ divisional ADA battalions tied into a larger sensor network (plug and pray) besides the batteries bringing their own MPQ-64s and/or aerostats along w/ setting GP tents or Hummvees and 5 tons w/ expandable shelters providing power and HVAC to a whole bunch of folding tables and chairs and laptops
Mad Mike c