Helicopter gun at LONG range

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message


Missiles often cost more than the target.

This is a poor warfighting methodology that will only lead to tears. Yes,
yes. A single Hellfire costs more than a half-company of chinese T-55
knockoffs. So you do what then - don't shoot it? Wait for a different
asset to attack with a more economical munition and hope you - or people on
the ground - don't die waiting?

Nonsense. If it kills the target, it paid for itself. There's no point in
trying to play accountant as well as CP/G. Missile expensive? You bet!
But guess what? There's a plant in California that'll make *all of them you
want*. Heck, I can promise you a Hellfire costs more than most cars - yet a
Hellfire was used to destroy a car-full of al-Qeda terrorists a year or so
back. Should the UAV pilot have waved off and not killed 'em?

Also, simply having the option might help the attack even if this is
not the first option for every attack. Options almost always help.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message


Missiles often cost more than the target.

This is a poor warfighting methodology that will only lead to tears. Yes,
yes. A single Hellfire costs more than a half-company of chinese T-55
knockoffs. So you do what then - don't shoot it? Wait for a different
asset to attack with a more economical munition and hope you - or people
on
the ground - don't die waiting?


Indeed comparing cash values like that is nonsense.
The real issue is that a maverick is a hell of a lot cheaper than
the airplane and pilot you need to hazard to put him in
gun range.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message


Missiles often cost more than the target.

This is a poor warfighting methodology that will only lead to tears.
Yes, yes. A single Hellfire costs more than a half-company of
chinese T-55 knockoffs. So you do what then - don't shoot it? Wait
for a different asset to attack with a more economical munition and
hope you - or people on the ground - don't die waiting?


Indeed comparing cash values like that is nonsense.
The real issue is that a maverick is a hell of a lot cheaper than
the airplane and pilot you need to hazard to put him in
gun range.

Keith

Further example: I don't think the pentagon was counting pennies when they
first used LGBs in Vietnam to drop a bridge that had withstood conventional
bombardment for the better part of a decade...

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om...

Further example: I don't think the pentagon was counting pennies when they
first used LGBs in Vietnam to drop a bridge that had withstood conventional
bombardment for the better part of a decade...


It's probably the case that the air force found one guided bomb much cheaper than
many failed conventional missions. Sometimes expensive weapons
are the cheapest solutions.

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message


Missiles often cost more than the target.

Nonsense. If it kills the target, it paid for itself. There's no point in
trying to play accountant as well as CP/G.

I believe this argument when taken to extremes will have negative result.
If every target deserves the most expensive munition then many targets
will have no munitions. And of course excessive cheapness taken to
extremes will also have negative results. Cannot we both agree that
somewhere in the middle is the correct answer?


Missile expensive? You bet!
But guess what? There's a plant in California that'll make *all of them you
want*.

Hm. I was under the impression that the Pentagon had a limited budget,
and could not in fact afford all the missiles it wanted.

Heck, I can promise you a Hellfire costs more than most cars - yet a
Hellfire was used to destroy a car-full of al-Qeda terrorists a year or so
back. Should the UAV pilot have waved off and not killed 'em?

Of course not. The correct comparision is not the cost of the missile
vs. the cost of the car. The correct comparision is the cost of the missile
vs the lives of the "car-full" of terrorists and the damage they would
likely do us.