> For all of these reasons and others, manned aircraft are poor counter for this sort of attack. Despite this fighter aircraft were used.
For good reason at the time.
With no after the fact knowledge a hybrid attack with drones that may or may not scatter chaff, may or may not include or be timed to occlude larger threats.
Dealing with drones alone is a poor use of fighter pilots. Having eyeballs in the sky along with "just in case" weapons is smart defensive tactics.
Post game is when armchair coaches can call out whether it was neccessary at that time.
Looks to me like we're in violent agreement. The aircraft weren't deployed to counter drones, which would be foolish, but other possible threats. What drone plinking they did was kinetic diplomacy: the first real news about the conflict after the drones were launched was the prominently repeated "RAF destroyed Iranian drones." Sending the message that Western powers are pulling triggers on behalf of Israel.
For good reason at the time.
With no after the fact knowledge a hybrid attack with drones that may or may not scatter chaff, may or may not include or be timed to occlude larger threats.
Dealing with drones alone is a poor use of fighter pilots. Having eyeballs in the sky along with "just in case" weapons is smart defensive tactics.
Post game is when armchair coaches can call out whether it was neccessary at that time.