You may be correct CM (and I’m not casting doubt on what you say). But according to spoony, radar surveillance is “ineffective” to deal with the mix of traffic. In response to Geoff’s question: “Have you not heard of radar surveillance and air traffic control?”, spoony said:
Geoff, obviously...
Have you perhaps considered that this control is ineffective against fast moving powerful aircraft that are a little more dynamic than your avg civil aircraft. Separating a package of fastjets in the middle of an exercise against a slow moving interloper, is a laughable suggestion. These are not benign constant altitude/spd separation conditions. Were you not a controller ?
Further, not all threats mentioned are related to keeping aircraft from swapping paint. Think weapons, l@sers, jamming, high energy emitters. The bottom line is Restricted areas are essential, and for good reason are often out away from populated areas which don't permit uninvolved aircraft.
As soon as I hear the idiom “swapping paint” I get the redolent whiff of an air traffic controller. Is it part of the banter during ATC 101 lessons?
And when the same person talks about “fast moving powerful aircraft that are a little more dynamic than your avg civil aircraft” and asserts that: “Separating a package of fastjets in the middle of an exercise against a slow moving interloper, is a laughable suggestion.”, I get the heady aroma of ADF ATC. And what’s the easiest way to make the life of ADF ATC easier? Give them vast volumes of airspace devoid of potentially irritating distractions from your “avg civil aircraft”.
What’s “laughable” is training for war in artificially sterile airspace designed to remove any risk of any unexpected ‘interlopers’. The USA and the UK know that. At least the Australian Army trains as it intends to fight.