GarryB wrote:It is a bit of a case where it makes sense to send as many simple cheap drones as possible... whether they intercept them or not is irrelevant... every launch is expensive.
It is amusing that they are using SeaRam... a naval SAM... just like AEGIS Ashore in europe as their ABM system using naval SAMs as ABM systems... because US AF and Army SAMs are shit.
Perhaps the US military are going to find out what life has been like for the Russians in Syria defending against incoming that might or might not do serious damage. All it needs is lots of simple drones like the terrorists use in Syria.
Once they find out for real, as opposed to in the manuals, their gear's limitations they will get real twitchy as, now so much is concentrated in so few locations, they know they are an even more attractive target than they were.
By now the Iranians know what and how many are located where on these bases so, based on that successful 'Houti' oil attack strategy in Saudi, they know exactly what to do. In effect, the same number of missiles as last time plus the number of Patriot tubes and a few SeaRam drone bait.
These systems have very little operational effect and seem to me to be mainly for moral purposes. For those there who can't work out my previous paragraph for themselves.
Has anyone, anywhere had to defend against a mass incoming ballistic missile attack? The sense of helplessness when the second wave is inbound.
Perhaps it has to happen to bring a sense of reality to US/NATO plans for their air forces. Mind you, the AShM hitting the M S Atlantic Conveyor container ship (much like a carrier) in the Falklands War did little to dent the use of carriers, so who knows?