New threats pry at weaknesses in old defenses:
The reality is more likely this: Effective missile defense systems are not based on one weapon capable of stopping everything. Only diverse, layered and integrated air and missile defense systems in combination can combat all types of incoming attacks. Without an interconnected, layered system that can work together and be successfully operated by highly trained personnel, there will be gaps in the coverage — regardless of where or who it’s made by.
Patriot wasn't designed for low-level air defense.
I was worried about the ability of standard air defenses--ground and air--to defend forward American infantry in those low-level "brown skies," as I have dubbed the skies below the blue skies where F-35s roam and the mud and dust of the ground where the infantry fights. In a recent Army article I argued for air defense drone swarms to cover the brown skies above our infantry against enemy drone swarm attacks.
This would be part of a new layer in a layered defense to protect our forces.
In related news, "tiny" air-to-air missiles are under development. They are good for internal bays on stealth fighters.
Would they work for drone fighters designed to shoot down other drones in the "brown skies" over forward infantry, as I argued for in that article in Army magazine?
UPDATE: This author in Joint Force Quarterly uses my formulation of the Navy littoral construct, calling the space just above the battlefield the "atmospheric littoral" which was the basis for my "brown skies" term.
The formulation is for the purpose of arguing that the way to get around the difficulty of navigating ground robots across a complex (and damaged) landscape is to use unmanned aerial vehicles that fly 10 meters above the ground to avoid all that debris and complexity.
