Is weapon cost ever a factor?

[Xavven]

Don'tcha think a CBU-97 would be a bit overkill against a lone soft target, like a single truck? I've always wondered if the cost of the weapon being employed would be a factor in deciding whether it should be deployed if there's a cheaper, equally effective alternative.

 

For example, a 2-second burst from a GAU-8 costs around $4,000 in ammunition alone, but a CBU-97 costs around $360,000. This is all other things being equal, like the cost of logistics to transport and store the munitions, all the crew costs, the pilot, the maintenance of the plane, the fuel, etc.

 

This may sound odd, but it feels good to me when I blow up a $2,000,000 tank with a $129,000 maverick.

[Vitormouraa]

War costs money, war is expensive. To defeat the enemy, even if it's expensive, they'll use the best to defeat it. ;) look at the AiM-54, they used that missile to intercept Soviet bombers, and that missile was really really expensive.. just to intercept a bomber, but this bomber could cost 10 times more, dropping a nuclear weapon, even more.

[Martillo1]

Now think what if you could buy a missile with a performance similar to the Maverik's by 1/5 of its cost. You could blow 5X expensive tanks.

 

To destroy a truck I just would use guns.

 

Edit: cheap guns, not GAU-8.

[Dappman]

I've seen footage of US Apache pilots using $100,000 Agm65s (*correction, AGM-114 Hellfire) to take out a single insurgent.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Dappman

[Vitormouraa]

When I am playing DCS, I take pricing into consideration. For example, there is an APC there, and I think to myself, should I use GAU-8, Hydra or MAVs? No, I wouldn't use the MAVs because they cost money, so, I like to think that. :) Even though they don't really cost money to me, but it's a nice way to think/act like a real pilot. Of course, if there's triple A there, or SAMs, I would use the MAV, depends on situation.

[Vitormouraa]

I've seen footage of US Apache pilots using $100,000 Agm65s to take out a single insurgent.

 

I saw that too, I would like to know why. Actually, it isn't AGM-65, it's AGM-114 Hellfire. According to Wikipedia, the AH-64D Apache is able to use AGM-65. But most of videos on youtube, they are using the Hellfire.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[hansangb]

If you read the book "A-10 Thunderbolt II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom 2008-14" (On Amazon) there is a part where the A10 pilot was chewed out for wasting munitions. His commander thought that using a large ordinance was uncalled for.

 

So I take it, yes, cost is a factor. Isn't it always a factor?

 

PS: Good read, by the way.

[Sryan]

the army also shoots $40,000 Javelins at machine gun nests.

[Eddie]

Cost, no.

 

Using the most appropriate type available and number of weapons, yes.

[sobek]

the army also shoots $40,000 Javelins at machine gun nests.

 

Technically speaking, casualties aren't cheap either.

 

According to Wikipedia, the AH-64D Apache is able to use AGM-65.

 

Doubtful.

 

The Hellfire weighs in at a little less than 50kg. The light Maverick types weigh over 200kg. That means more than 4 times the loadout asymmetry when one is fired. Even if that does not put the Apache on the edge of controlled flight (which i doubt), instead of 8 Hellfires you can only load 2 Maverick missiles.

Edited March 11, 2016 by sobek

[Xavven]

Thanks for the info!

 

Yeah, I think I saw that video, too. The Apache ran out of chaingun ammunition so they stayed in the fight with hellfires.

 

I couldn't find any mention of a "maverick" or "AGM-65" on the Wikipedia page for the AH-64.

[Vitormouraa]

Well, wikipedia isn't the best site to learn.... but who knows? I doubt the AH-64 uses AGM-65 like A-10 and etc.. they have the AGM-114. But.. I've never seen the Apache using, even carrying the Maverick.

 

Technically speaking, casualties aren't cheap either.

 

 

 

Doubtful.

 

The Hellfire weighs in at a little less than 50kg. The light Maverick types weigh over 200kg. That means more than 4 times the loadout asymmetry when one is fired. Even if that does not put the Apache on the edge of controlled flight (which i doubt), instead of 8 Hellfires you can only load 2 Maverick missiles.

 

I doubt it as well. I've never seen/heard about AH-64 using/carrying or anything about AH-64 and Maverick together.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[Boris]

Well, wikipedia isn't the best site to learn

 

A commonly held myth - Wikipedia is quite reliable and on par with any serious publication according to many studies.

 

In any case, other sites seem to confirm that the AH-64 is in fact capable of firing Mavericks:

 

http://www.militaryfactory.com/munitions/detail.asp?munitions_id=Hughes-Raytheon-AGM65-Maverick

 

Found no pictures of it but here's a Super Cobra firing a Maverick:

 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/supcobra5.html

[sobek]

A commonly held myth - Wikipedia is quite reliable and on par with any serious publication according to many studies.

 

Not with regard to military technology.

 

In any case, other sites seem to confirm that the AH-64 is in fact capable of firing Mavericks:

 

It may have been tested, but it is *very* questionable that it is cleared for standard operations.

[Pikey]

Cost is also related to availability. Availability is a real thing.

[Dappman]

I saw that too, I would like to know why. Actually, it isn't AGM-65, it's AGM-114 Hellfire. According to Wikipedia, the AH-64D Apache is able to use AGM-65. But most of videos on youtube, they are using the Hellfire.

 

Yeah you're right they were Hellfire missiles. I forgot about those.

 

But on the topic of Mavericks check this video out. Most bad ass missile strike I've ever seen. These things pack a punch. Turn volume up.

 

http://www.military.com/video/guided-missiles/air-to-surface/recieving-end-of-maverick-missile/1020911054001

Edited March 11, 2016 by Dappman

[paulca]

Cost is also related to availability. Availability is a real thing.

 

This is the way I consider it. Not what they cost, but how many are available.

 

I'm sure that at the start of any large campaign there are 1000s of Maverick available being shipping in via logistics, but when they start to run low the 100,000 mk82s in stock piles start to become more common place. I believe this is why they retro fit Mk82a (and probably Mk84s) with GBU units.

 

I would expect that the campaign commanders are also aware of this and hope that the stand off capabilities should become less and less a priority if the campaign is going well and the AA stuff is thinning out.

 

Consider going back 40 years when a large amount of bombing missions in Vietnam were done at night with the likes of the F4 and A6. They were totally blind drops, dropped on a steerpoint. A steerpoint being pin pointed by 1950s drum computers and clunky gyros. So 10s of thousands of bombs fell in empty jungle 100s of yards away from their suspected truck parks or whatever.

[PitbullVicious]

I've been often wondering the same as OP as in DCS it is relatively easy to pack your plane always with loads of "top of the art" weapons and use them rather indiscriminately. Made me kind of wonder why would anyone use dumb-bombs if laser-guided or GPS-guided bombs are available.

 

However, this interview shed some light to that question:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157896

 

I kind of got the impression that pilots prefer in some cases dumb-bombs due to the quick deployment time compared to other, "smarter" bombs.

 

Somebody also asked in that interview if money was a concern when selecting weapons to use and Lt. Col. Olson replied that not really, but availability is. He also had an interesting anecdote about a rather limitedly available weapon.

 

I guess availability might somehow be also related to the cost, but other factors like manufacturing and especially logistics will also most likely affect it.

[paulca]

Not with regard to military technology.

 

My stock response for this view on Wikipedia is... if you find something wrong, fix it.

 

That is what makes Wikipedia better than any physical encyclopaedia. A physical encyclopaedia is correct to the best of the producers knowledge at the time of printing. If it's wrong, it stays wrong forever. When it's out of date, it's out of date forever, no matter how many people are still learning from it and how many copies are still in schools 30 years later.

[Skjold]

Technically speaking, casualties aren't cheap either.

 

This. The cost of a maimed soldier to the state is enormous.

[Vitormouraa]

Wikipedia is good, if you need a quick information, I would use Wikipedia, but to write something, there are other sites that you can trust with no problems. I'm not saying the Wikipedia is bad, but it's not the best for military stuffs. I already saw wrongs things. Apache and Cobra using Maverick was a surprise tho. There is the portuguese version, it's ridiculous, I always use the EN version.

[sobek]

My stock response for this view on Wikipedia is... if you find something wrong, fix it.

 

That's easier said than done with regard to military equipment. What would you quote as source for that part of information? Hours upon hours of youtube videos, none of which show the AH-64 employing Mavericks in routine service? That's not how it works.

Edited March 12, 2016 by sobek

[Vitormouraa]

That's easier said than done with regard to military equipment. What would you quote as source for that part of information? Hours upon hours of youtube videos, none of which shows the AH-64 employing Mavericks in routine service? That's not how it works.

 

You're right sobek. It isn't so easy as they think.

[fixen]

I have read multiple sources which claim the use of mavericks on helicopters like AH-64 and AH-1W/Z, but none of these sources I would put my money on.

 

Anyways, here is a picture of a cobra firing a maverick:

 

 

Looks like a test.

Edited March 11, 2016 by fixen

[BFBunny]

This. The cost of a maimed soldier to the state is enormous.

 

Yep, I gather it's more damaging to an economy to have maimed soldiers than it is to have them dead.

 

As to the OPs question. I never think about it. I choose the right weapon for the job.

 

I would not bother using the mav from the a10 to destroy an unarmed truck. But if there is 4 tanks then sure I'm going to use the missiles first.

 

Availability is the biggest factor and a 'take what you can get' approach because if it's not available on the server I'll adapt.

 

If you thought about cost all of the time then you'd never drive your car, but you do use it when its needed and damn the depreciation.