[Goose]

IMO the following article is nonsense and a prime example of drawing the wrong conclusions going forward from the Ukraine war.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-expe...06094.html

First of all, the US has really never had a SAM system as anything but a secondary focus. The primary form of air defense is and always has been our air force. The Nike, Hawk, and Patriot were/are very good systems, but they were never available in large enough numbers to provide anything but a basic point defense against "leakers".  The main difference today is that point defense against tactical ballistic missiles (all Russian FROG missiles, such as SCD, TOR, Iskander-M) must be provided by high capability missiles. Drones and cruise missiles are an air force problem. For that reason, the basic premise of the article is wrong regarding the US military. The US also performs SEAD/DEAD plans that has (and hopefully will in the future) eliminated the enemy ground based defenses against air attack. We have an effective anti-radiation missile program that at the very least makes them keep their heads down.

Ukraine has none of the above. They rely on their SAM systems because they effectively have no fixed wing air defense. Yes, the US doesn't have a lot to give them because we don't intend to fight that way. Given an unlimited budget, one could have both. The Soviet Union at least tried to do that (arguably with little success). They discovered they didn't have an unlimited budget :-). The US does not either and has chosen a different path than Ukraine was forced to follow. That doesn't mean our path is "wrong", it just means we aren't in an ideal place to help Ukraine on theirs.

[Goose]

IMO the following article is nonsense and a prime example of drawing the wrong conclusions going forward from the Ukraine war.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-expe...06094.html

First of all, the US has really never had a SAM system as anything but a secondary focus. The primary form of air defense is and always has been our air force. The Nike, Hawk, and Patriot were/are very good systems, but they were never available in large enough numbers to provide anything but a basic point defense against "leakers".  The main difference today is that point defense against tactical ballistic missiles (all Russian FROG missiles, such as SCD, TOR, Iskander-M) must be provided by high capability missiles. Drones and cruise missiles are an air force problem. For that reason, the basic premise of the article is wrong regarding the US military. The US also performs SEAD/DEAD plans that has (and hopefully will in the future) eliminated the enemy ground based defenses against air attack. We have an effective anti-radiation missile program that at the very least makes them keep their heads down.

Ukraine has none of the above. They rely on their SAM systems because they effectively have no fixed wing air defense. Yes, the US doesn't have a lot to give them because we don't intend to fight that way. Given an unlimited budget, one could have both. The Soviet Union at least tried to do that (arguably with little success). They discovered they didn't have an unlimited budget :-). The US does not either and has chosen a different path than Ukraine was forced to follow. That doesn't mean our path is "wrong", it just means we aren't in an ideal place to help Ukraine on theirs.