there simply is no case for the attacker to waste a 100k missile on a 25k airplane.
You have not see the (asking) price for C152 recently 
there simply is no case for the attacker to waste a 100k missile on a 25k airplane.
Nobody thinks that way. If they did, there would be no bombing of civilians, which is totally pointless.
dublinpilot wrote:
I remember reading years ago, that modern heat seeking missiles are of no use in targeting general aviation aircraft, as their engines don’t give off enough heat for the missiles to lock onto.
Modern systems don’t rely on “heat seeking” as such, but are more like vision systems looking in IR to be able to see through clouds and stuff. The Sidewinder 9X used since mid 2000 by most of NATO is such a missile. Fire and forget from any direction, also from the ground. Other missiles use active lasers to scan/target and of course some use radar and combinations. They will detect and target anything, but they may be programmed to disregard stuff that aren’t a typical war type aircraft. Perhaps a small carbon fiber plane will be rendered “uninteresting” by the Sidewinder’s logics?
dublinpilot wrote:
I’m sure there are easy ways for a modern fighter to tackle a GA aircraft, and easily answered by someone with knowledge of them. I just wondered if so much effort has been put into attacking high speed, high performance aircraft that it’s made slow speed aircraft harder to target?
If you are flying low and fast and turning randomly, and your aircraft is colored in camoflage. Will the radar pick it up? perhaps, perhaps not? But I cant imagine a fast jet will be able to shoot you down with guns using only eyes.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The safest place to be is a run down 152 or alike – there simply is no case for the attacker to waste a 100k missile on a 25k airplane.
It’s not the 25k aeroplane that’s the missile’s value – it’s the squishy human inside, whose training value was much higher.
It’s not any of the above. Air defense is about preventing whatever damage the aircraft or the people in it want to inflict.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The safest place to be is a run down 152 or alike – there simply is no case for the attacker to waste a 100k missile on a 25k airplane.
That would depend on the mission, wouldn’t it? If the 152 was on a recon mission and saw something that the enemy absolutely did not want to be seen…?
Peter wrote:
Nobody thinks that way. If they did, there would be no bombing of civilians, which is totally pointless.
I just read an article that Russia is using old AN-2 with “remote control” built in to provoke the Ukraine wasting its Stinger on them. Exactly that idea!
And as you mentioned it (although imho it doesn’t belong to this thread): Bombing civilians is an ugly crime but far from pointless! It’s actually the key to make the other party surrender. Many of the modern wars have actually been won by bombing civilians. It’s a very sad truth as many thing in wars…
Airborne_Again wrote:
That would depend on the mission, wouldn’t it? If the 152 was on a recon mission and saw something that the enemy absolutely did not want to be seen…?
Until the 70s or 80s ? it was normal to use small GA airplanes, like an Army Cub or a Cessna Bird Dog and similar for recon mission, target finding etc. Any good bush plane would do. We have a surplus Army Cub in the club The idea of using a small GA plane obviously works. Painting it in camoflage, and it’s literally impossible to see from the air, and flying at tree top alt, its also very difficult to shoot down from the ground. I don’t know, maybe stinger missiles and helicopters made these planes obsolete. Today there are drones in all shapes and sizes as well.
LeSving wrote:
But I cant imagine a fast jet will be able to shoot you down with guns using only eyes.
I would not bet my life on this assumption.
Hm, wouldn’t it be enough for the fast jet to just overfly you at close distance for its wing vortices/jet blast to send your GA airplane spinning to the ground?
