I was actually just making a joke with my original post, but if you have to shut down your multi-million dollar aircraft defense system every time it detects an aircraft for fear that a HARM missile is going to go down its throat it would seem to reduce its effectiveness.
“...if you have to shut down your multi-million dollar aircraft defense system ... for fear that a HARM missile is going to go down its throat it would seem to reduce its effectiveness.”
Yes.
Suthener has neatly summed up a key element of what is termed electronic combat (EC).
It’s an incremental process of move/countermove in which sweeping advantage is rarely attainable. Some liken it to a chess game.
Planners and field operators face a constantly changing situation. When attacking a particular enemy force, they must:
1. Detect the enemy radars (or other electronic guiding systems)
2. Identify system frequency, type, and model
3. Determine system location
4. Select a course of action to counter the radar. Possible actions:
a. Ignore
b. Intimidate operator into shutting down
c. Transmit a signal that interferes with the radar’s ability to perform its mission (apply “jamming” in layman’s terms)
d. Fire anti-radiation missile at the enemy radar
The tactical situation can change in a fraction of a second. Very dynamic.