Looking from a defense perspective. Won't an anti aircraft system be effective here? It is cheaper to build an anti aircraft system that can be deployed everywhere vs the aircraft itself.
Yes this is one line of thinking. However integrated air defence systems (IADS) have not shown themselves to be effective so far.
We've only really seen Russian systems in action and they've mostly failed, however it's very easy to argue this is due to poor training. One notable (alleged) engagement in Syria involved a Russian operated s400 battery (the latest and greatest) attempting to shoot down some of the 70+ tomahawks trump launched. Whilst some didn't make it to their targets there's no evidence the s400 hit them rather than them operationally failing. It's unlikely anyone would be better trained than the Russian military itself so if this indeed did happen it is damning for currently fielded IADS's.
Another reason for the apparent ineffectiveness of IADS's could be the west's proficiency at dealing with them:
Jets like the EA-18 growler are designed purely to entice systems to reveal their position (switching on their radar) so another jet can launch an anti-radiation air to ground missile (AGM) at it.
It's very likely the B2, f35 and f22 can't even be targeted by any IADS due to their low radar cross section.
Stand off weapons give the ability to destroy targets without being inside the range of any IADS. These could be used to strike important targets before the IADS is down or to pick the IADS apart itself (if you know where its assets are).
Given all this information I still can't say an anti aircraft system wouldn't be effective.. but I think the fact China is investing heavily into its air force implies that they have the same concerns about IADS effectiveness that I do.
Thank you for the reply. I found it interesting. I was under the impression that anti aircraft missile is very advanced that it basically can just tail any aircraft there is, but it's not that simple.
