* The communication between the telescope and missile would be vulnerable to jamming.
* The communication between the telescope and missile would have to be very fast to make the missile catch up to fast manuring jets.
* If you IR telescopes would be space based they would be more expensive then jets, meaning you probably want have enough of them.
* All high altitude and space based weapon system are very vulnerable to a nuclear weapons. When a nuclear weapons is detonated in low earth orbit there are almost no atmospheric pressure to compress the explosion and little gravity to lower it. Instead the gravity will bend the explosion around the earth, radiating near earth space and high altitudes. Because of this just a single nuclear devise can take out must the world satellites and high altitude airplanes. (This is one of the reason last resort type nuclear weapons don't uses GPS/GLONASS/Galileo satellite navigation. Satellite navigation is amused to be destroyed early in a nuclear war). While a full nuclear war is not very likely, detonating a single nuclear devise like this maybe be more acceptable if attacked.
Fighter jets on the other hand is a proven and efficient weapon against other jets.
- The IR part would be vulnerable to countermeasures
Yes, but to fool the observer, the decoy would have to travel at the speed of the jets, for as long as the jets. At that point, you might as well have loaded some explosives onboard as well and just have launched a cruise missile.
- The communication...would be vulnerable to jamming.
Line-of-sight communication by lasers.
- The communication...would have to be very fast
You picked the straw-man granularity. This is to replace AWACS, not the seeker on the end of the missile. This is to get the seeker on a missile close enough to invalidate stealth.
- IR telescopes would be ... more expensive than jets
You'd only need one for many fighter aircraft.
- ...space based weapon system are very vulnerable to a nuclear weapons.
If your air superiority system requires the other side to deploy nukes, then it really seems to me that you've got a winner!
Fighter jets on the other hand are a proven
and efficient weapon against other jets.
Points off for misreading. I never said to replace fighters, period. Radar didn't replace fighters, it just enabled fighters to make intercepts more easily. Disrupting X doesn't mean replacing X.
I agree. In addition to or replacement for AWACS this may work, but you still need to hit the jet with a missile. Detecting is't enough, you also have to stop them.
I would turn and pull up so the missile must chase me
Remember I stated a hypervelocity missile. You're assuming a pilot would have enough time to react after the missile has been detected. Still, there's the chance that the missile wouldn't work, so one could still vector fighters in for an intercept. That big smoke plume is going to help my pilots out a lot.
Also, if the incoming airplanes are on a stealth strike mission, their cover has already been blown.
I am convinced now that the disruptive technology for air power is directed energy beams (laser guns). Northrup Grummann have demo'd 25KW lasers the size of large trucks.
Lasers make missiles unnecessary, counter measures impossible and the only hope is to slip through unnoticed.
But working common lasers make almost every area of military activity now a totally different game.
When dad worked there while the ATF-23 program was going, the rumor going arou d the uncleared portions of the facility was that it was going to be armed with a laser, not cannon.
* The IR part would be vulnerable to countermeasures ( flares etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CH-46_Sea_Knight;_Flares.j... )
* The communication between the telescope and missile would be vulnerable to jamming.
* The communication between the telescope and missile would have to be very fast to make the missile catch up to fast manuring jets.
* If you IR telescopes would be space based they would be more expensive then jets, meaning you probably want have enough of them.
* All high altitude and space based weapon system are very vulnerable to a nuclear weapons. When a nuclear weapons is detonated in low earth orbit there are almost no atmospheric pressure to compress the explosion and little gravity to lower it. Instead the gravity will bend the explosion around the earth, radiating near earth space and high altitudes. Because of this just a single nuclear devise can take out must the world satellites and high altitude airplanes. (This is one of the reason last resort type nuclear weapons don't uses GPS/GLONASS/Galileo satellite navigation. Satellite navigation is amused to be destroyed early in a nuclear war). While a full nuclear war is not very likely, detonating a single nuclear devise like this maybe be more acceptable if attacked.
Fighter jets on the other hand is a proven and efficient weapon against other jets.