noteworthy wrote:
Decius wrote:

What's really interesting about these systems is that if you can rely on them you don't need as much armor, which makes you more flexible and lighter.

This is true insofar as the systems are actually effective against the threats of interest. Trophy is not effective against IEDs. And in order for the interceptor to destroy the target, the radars have to be able to detect and track it. Once you actively deploy a system against an opponent with development capability, you very quickly get into a CM/CCM race. So as long as your vehicles need to be effective against comparable conventional forces in a symmetric engagement, then you can't put too much stock in this kind of thing.

Well, the question becomes "Does that matter." Seems like this is meant to provide defense against one particular type of attack in the context of our present engagements and it seems likely to do so.

I do wonder how good it's radar is and how responsive. What if there are two inbounds? Or 9? What if 8 of them are fake? I'm sure it's smart enough to tell a big rock from an RPG, but it'd be interesting to know how much differentiation it has. I guess there'll probly be some insurgents trying to find that out by trial and error.

All that being said, I'm generally in favor of good defensive tech. Here's hoping it's functional enough and cheap enough to put into active use quickly. As decius, I take issue with calling a "force field". That's a straght up play for attention. Silly commercial media shenanigans.

RE: Force Field!