quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Impressive video, but does cost justify benefit?

I would HOPE the military does cost/benefit calulations in their use of minitions in real confilcts, since I could see how the US military could go broke in the MIDDLE of a protracted conflict with a comparable superpower military force, with the enemy using LOTS of lesser expensive munitions against ALL of our MOST EXPENSIVE munitions in the world. I HOPE there are enough military brass with this built into their decision making in terms of munitions development, acquisition, and war planning. I began thinking about this connumdrum (real or imagined) when I watched the Tomahawk missles being lobbed into Bahgdad on live news. They were saying those munitions were $250K each, though they didn't say if that was fully loaded cost or just unit purchase price etc., but either way I was wondering if they couldn't have satisfied the mission using less expensive munitions. My thinking was, why use the most expensive conventional munitions on an inferior enemy. I realize there's a WHOLE lot more to consider in decisions like that, but that was my thinking at the time.

BUT, on this video, I noticed there was no explosive in the warhead. Why not ? The paint was barely scratched where the projectile impacted. If you want to sell shock and awe, why didn't they put a little explosive in that projectile ? Range and accuracty proving OK, but what a shitty sales job for that reason.

quote:

Originally posted by 380Swift:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Impressive video, but does cost justify benefit?

It's a lot cheaper than an airstrike.

Are you sure about that? I’d bet it’s more expensive and definitely less flexible/versatile. Also, without terminal guidance and using only GPS/INS it appears limited to static targets.

I can hit a moving target with a GBU-12 for 12,000$. They can be dropped from aircraft with ~4,000$ per hour flight costs.

Prior to program initiation, requirements documentation includes an analysis of the threat, need, technology, cost/benefit, etc. Many potential programs never get past this stage and fall by the wayside, as they should.

quote:

I watched the Tomahawk missiles being lobbed into Baghdad on live news. They were saying those munitions were $250K each...but either way I was wondering if they couldn't have satisfied the mission using less expensive munitions.

Consider munitions that are available for the mission and the desired results, their launch platforms, availability, range, accuracy, threat environment, terminal effects, etc. Are you placing a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine's life at stake to deliver the munition (e.g., a pilot)? In the case of launching Tomahawks at Baghdad, and considering the air defense threat as it was known at the time, Tomahawks were probably a very effective munition to employ. They can carry up to a 1,000 pound conventional high explosive warhead.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 229DAK,

How is the SUV not blown to bits? No real warhead? It just punched through and kicked up dust?

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by 380Swift:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Impressive video, but does cost justify benefit?

It's a lot cheaper than an airstrike.

Are you sure about that? I’d bet it’s more expensive and definitely less flexible/versatile. Also, without terminal guidance and using only GPS/INS it appears limited to static targets.

I can hit a moving target with a GBU-12 for 12,000$. They can be dropped from aircraft with ~4,000$ per hour flight costs.

No, not sure. It seemed logical that an airstrike would have the cost of the bomb, the guidance package, the flight time, and maintaining the pilot's proficency. I could be totally wrong and that's fine.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
How is the SUV not blown to bits? No real warhead? It just punched through and kicked up dust?

The projectile appears to have been in point detonating mode, detonating on the opposite side of the SUV, maybe a few meters from the right front wheel. Having an angle of impact of almost 90 degrees, shrapnel from the detonation is expelled 360 degrees around the projectile. Since it detonated on the opposite side of the SUV, we can't see the fragmentation pattern. However, note that the SUV's hood is blown up and the rear window blown out. You can see pieces of [whatever] flying around from the explosion. Unless the projectile actually entered thru the top and into the SUV's interior, it's probably not going to be "blown to bits".

quote:

Originally posted by 380Swift:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by 380Swift:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Impressive video, but does cost justify benefit?

It's a lot cheaper than an airstrike.

Are you sure about that? I’d bet it’s more expensive and definitely less flexible/versatile. Also, without terminal guidance and using only GPS/INS it appears limited to static targets.

I can hit a moving target with a GBU-12 for 12,000$. They can be dropped from aircraft with ~4,000$ per hour flight costs.

No, not sure. It seemed logical that an airstrike would have the cost of the bomb, the guidance package, the flight time, and maintaining the pilot's proficency. I could be totally wrong and that's fine.

And what's the risk to the pilot and the aircraft?

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

Originally posted by 380Swift:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by 380Swift:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Impressive video, but does cost justify benefit?

It's a lot cheaper than an airstrike.

Are you sure about that? I’d bet it’s more expensive and definitely less flexible/versatile. Also, without terminal guidance and using only GPS/INS it appears limited to static targets.

I can hit a moving target with a GBU-12 for 12,000$. They can be dropped from aircraft with ~4,000$ per hour flight costs.

No, not sure. It seemed logical that an airstrike would have the cost of the bomb, the guidance package, the flight time, and maintaining the pilot's proficency. I could be totally wrong and that's fine.

And what's the risk to the pilot and the aircraft?

Risk to pilot is extremely low in current conflicts. You’re right in a near peer environment threat to pilot is high, but in that case the crew firing artillery within 40 miles of enemy is equally at risk.

When it comes to weapons cost, pilot proficiency, etc. a lot depends on what platform you’re dropping from. We’ve taken some relatively cheap civilian aircraft and militarized them. RPAs are also fairly cheap. For guidance systems, I mention the GBU-12 because it’s the cheapest LGB I know of and at 500lbs carries about 200lbs of explosive. A much bigger bang than the artillery shell. APKWS (advanced precision kill weapon system) is about $20k a shot and will destroy a vehicle; it’s also light and I can carry a lot. Unguided M152s are only like $1200!

After 20 years of low intensity war we’ve found many cheap ways to be lethal. I’m not against more weapons because it gives us more options, so I’m all about adding a cool new arty round to the US joint fires team. I’d just say airstrikes can be relatively inexpensive (although we also have some crazy expensive boutique stuff) and the main advantage is versatility. I want the option of a moving target kill. Shooting a building 40 miles away sounds cool but is it really that useful? Maybe sometimes, but mostly no. And considering there are still operating and proficiency costs for the artillery crew, I’m unconvinced this would be helpful.

But I’m not an accountant. You could be right, I just don’t think so. Take care

As an MP I'm having all kinds of fun trying to figure out how you convoy something like that.

quote:

Shooting a building 40 miles away sounds cool but is it really that useful?

We've taken out terrorists holed up in a building in an urban environment with Excalibur. Delay fuzing; thru the roof. No damage to surrounding buildings. How's that? Useful?

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

Shooting a building 40 miles away sounds cool but is it really that useful?

We've taken out terrorists holed up in a building in an urban environment with Excalibur. Delay fuzing; thru the roof. No damage to surrounding buildings. How's that? Useful?

Lol, sure that’s useful as long as they don’t move and stay long enough for you to grab the intel. We use 2.5 millisecond delay fuse into vehicles up to 90mph, and can switch to 4’ airburst if they stop and get out. That’s what I mean by versatility. Last caliphate check showed we did pretty good and the option for dynamic targeting is critical. There’s lots of options for urban, but as a guy headed out for deployment #17 this summer I have to tell you— air strikes are where it’s at with this war, not Excalibur.

Dude I like cool arty capes but it needs to be paired with something that can respond quickly to changing enemy movements. We’re best as a team. The AF gets that, but the army seems to love thinking it can do it all alone. Cheers