Free Essays on Conventional Air Defense

TODAY'S conventional air defense requires both air-to-air and surface-to-air weapon systems. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) typifies this with a balance of 300 air defense-capable fighters and 1,100 surface-to-air missile (SAM) launchers in West Germany and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg).1 Similarly, Britain's crucial air defense battle in the 1982 Falklands conflict demonstrated a balanced dependence on fighters and SAMs, with 31 Argentine aircraft destroyed by Harriers and 28 shot down by ship- and shore-based missiles.2 Fusing SAMs and fighters into an effective air defense team is a major challenge in a land theater when they are owned and operated by separate services, with the Air Force flying the fighter aircraft and the Army shooting the missiles. This joint air defense responsibility requires joint training that can meld both. systems into a coordinated, mutually supporting team. This training requirement is currently unfulfilled. Army and Air Force air defenders are training hard, but they are too often training separately for this joint mission. There must be integrated practice if our air defenders are to be successful. To build a case for the need for increased joint air defense training, we need to address the following areas: Current Army and Air Force air defense training. Risks of not training jointly. Benefits of joint training. Some possible fixes. Consider the analogy of a football team whose backfield and line always practice separately, never putting it all together before the first game. Although both team elements may consider themselves individually proficient, the team would certainly suffer significant execution problems when the backfield and the line played together for the first time. Hard scrimmaging as a whole team is vital to a team's preparation. Unfortunately, our air defense team, consisting of an Army front line and an Air Force backfie... Free Essays on Conventional Air Defense Free Essays on Conventional Air Defense TODAY'S conventional air defense requires both air-to-air and surface-to-air weapon systems. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) typifies this with a balance of 300 air defense-capable fighters and 1,100 surface-to-air missile (SAM) launchers in West Germany and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg).1 Similarly, Britain's crucial air defense battle in the 1982 Falklands conflict demonstrated a balanced dependence on fighters and SAMs, with 31 Argentine aircraft destroyed by Harriers and 28 shot down by ship- and shore-based missiles.2 Fusing SAMs and fighters into an effective air defense team is a major challenge in a land theater when they are owned and operated by separate services, with the Air Force flying the fighter aircraft and the Army shooting the missiles. This joint air defense responsibility requires joint training that can meld both. systems into a coordinated, mutually supporting team. This training requirement is currently unfulfilled. Army and Air Force air defenders are training hard, but they are too often training separately for this joint mission. There must be integrated practice if our air defenders are to be successful. To build a case for the need for increased joint air defense training, we need to address the following areas: Current Army and Air Force air defense training. Risks of not training jointly. Benefits of joint training. Some possible fixes. Consider the analogy of a football team whose backfield and line always practice separately, never putting it all together before the first game. Although both team elements may consider themselves individually proficient, the team would certainly suffer significant execution problems when the backfield and the line played together for the first time. Hard scrimmaging as a whole team is vital to a team's preparation. Unfortunately, our air defense team, consisting of an Army front line and an Air Force backfie...