Um, this article is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
The primary message is that the radar needs an upgrade in order for the ANG to perform its homeland security mission:
What does that look like from the ACA perspective? It’s aircraft employing weapons against the homeland, or the aircraft themselves becoming weapons. Ask the citizens of New York City and Washington, D.C. about that. I’m sure you’ll find one or two folks with an opinion.
Here’s the bottom line: the Vipers used for homeland air defense need radar upgrades – and desperately so.
The implication there is that the current radar could not find or shoot down a Boeing 747 on a known (if unauthorized) track. In the case of 9/11, ones
with their transponders on and active.And then it goes on to say:
the aircraft accomplishing the overwhelming majority of combat operations underway around the world, are at a disadvantage against improved “double-digit” SAMs and advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems.
I don't recall double digit SAM's or an advanced Integrated Air Defense System being a super big threat within the Continental USA. You know, the "homeland." Which is where the big threat is that requires the Air National Guard to upgrade their radar, according to the argument.
It's muddied reasoning like this that makes it sound an awful lot like a company (or sets of companies) that would like a big fat set of contracts has a news reporter that enjoys expensive lunches and tours of their factories.