Is weapon cost ever a factor?

[Paradox]

Easy to forget just how much bigger a Maverick is than a Hellfire huh

 

Thing looks enormous

[Yurgon]

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

 

I don't know about this particular video, but in "Apache" Ed Macy wrote about a situation where an enemy fighter was hiding close to an inhabited area, and they figured that a Hellfire would minimize collateral damage, although they normally would have used Flechettes or the gun. Worked out exactly as they'd planned.

 

Another example of rather unconventional choice of weapons is doing a "show of force" with a low fly-by, popping flares both to avoid being locked and for the visual effect. That has saved many allied soldiers over the years.

 

GBUs are often used against infantry in danger-close situations, mostly because the risk of blue-on-blue is drastically reduced over dumb bombs.

 

My overall impression after reading lots of books, interviews and viewpoints is that the cost of the weapon is of no concern to the pilots, while their effectiveness for the task at hand is.

 

In DCS, I always suspect that mission designers will have some challenging tasks up their sleeves, so I try to conserve my weapons in case I'll need them later on. Over the years, though, I've started to realize that I prefer to use the best weapon for the job, whichever that is, and not worry too much about what might be later. After all, I'm not helping the guys on the ground if my A-10 gets shot by MANPADs just because I wanted to make a rocket run on those two trucks, where two GBUs would have worked perfectly fine while keeping me safely above the enemy's engagement range.

 

Finally, I really recommend listening to the Q&A session with Lt. Col. Olsen that PitbullVicious had already mentioned, it's time very well spent!

[Vitormouraa]

People would say, it's waste of ammo using GBU on trucks, but then you see there's a lot of SAMs right there.. AAAs.. this what we should do, when I am flying the A-10C, first of all, my task is survive, then the mission, I'm there to give support, not to give me life for a dumb decision. So, I'll use the best weapons against the enemy. Even though they are expensive and etc. Because the A-10C can destroy Strelas, Shilkas and etc with the cannon, but does it worth it? it could cost your life.

 

About the Apache, I saw one video days ago, there was ONE GUY, and the pilots used a Hellfire on him, I don't understand very well, that guy was on mountains, far away of everything.

 

Everything depends on the mission, the need, and risk. If you need to kill an enemy, what matters is, do the mission, do what you need to do, cost won't matter.

 

This is what I think.

 

Cheers

[Yurgon]

About the Apache, I saw one video days ago, there was ONE GUY, and the pilots used a Hellfire on him, I don't understand very well, that guy was on mountains, far away of everything.

 

I see, thx.

 

I can only guess they used the stand-off range to stay clear of suspected MANPADs or other anti-air threats.

 

Then again, I think missiles can't be carried around the battlefield for eternity. Because of all the heavy vibrations, they'll need major maintenance after a certain amount of flight time, which is why armament personnel tend to be grateful when aircrews fire them off. Maybe this was such a case, who knows.

 

Once again, there's a nice story in "Apache" when the armament guy - usually a pretty grumpy person - is almost cheerful when they return with all stores empty. Too bad his precise words wouldn't be exactly within the forum rules, but since the second was "brilliant", I'm sure you can all guess the first one. :D

[xaoslaad]

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.

Look for the citations. If in doubt and there is no citation add a note that a citation is needed.

[Cik]

cost i never really consider, instead i consider

 

>effectiveness against target

>what the target warrants (based on what it is, how it's defended, etc)

>other concerns (how easy the weapon will be to deploy against the target, what my effective TTK is on whatever the target is, safety concerns)

>how fun it will be: the game's a sim but tbh i never really enjoy trucking exclusively PGMs around, as it's pretty boring.

 

generally when i outfit the plane i keep several pylons reserved for close support unguided weapons like rockets or mk82 TERs, as against many targets they are actually far faster to deploy, esp. when friendlies are in danger. multiple passes at 15,000 feet using LGBs takes FOREVER. i like to have at least a few weapons i can disintegrate a treeline with if there are some bad guys TIC with friendlies. then the rest of the pylons are GBU-38/12, mavericks.

 

imo, a mix of PGMs and actually close support weapons is optimal. some targets require more standoff distance than others, generally speaking i like to preserve my higher-tech weapons exclusively for those threats.

[guitarxe]

Wouldn't it be up to whoever plans the mission and others higher on the chain of command that make the decision of what's cost-effective and what isn't? Then the only decision the pilot has to make in combat is how to complete the mission in the safest way. So even if it's just one truck, if the safest way to take out the truck is a maverick, then by golly it will be the maverick!

[Harpoon]

Well, US debt is 19 trillion USD (hopefully i'm not leaning over the line on politics rules)

i don't think they care anymore about cost. :P

Edited March 12, 2016 by Harpoon

[Nealius]

Not with regard to military technology.

 

To be fair, just about every source on military info outside of word-of-mouth from someone who is actually in the military is unreliable.

[xaoslaad]

To be fair, just about every source on military info outside of word-of-mouth from someone who is actually in the military is unreliable.

I was in the miltary and I'll add word of mouth from someone in the military is just as unreliable. I have heard some epically dumb stuff about weapon systems. Manuals, documentations, orders, etc. are what you trust. You need to be able to read it to be sure.

 

There's always the word of a subject matter expert to take into account, "the manual says blah, but in my experience blerg", but I don't take anything from a persons mouth as gospel truth.

[hansangb]

LOL. Very True. Not to mention everyone I meet was in 75th, SF Group, or Delta! It seems the US Army only lets SOCOM folks to separate. :)

 

In one shooting range, the guy running the shop commented on my shot group.

 

Where'd you learn to shoot?

Me: I was in the Infantry..been shooting for a while

I was in the Army. 75th Rangers, as a matter of fact

Me: Oh really, which Batt were you in?

2nd Battalion

Me: Ah...right. That's the one in Stewart, right?

Yeah...that's right.

 

bzzzt! Wrong answer. It never fails. :)

[EasyEB]

Considering the instant rock star status given to people "in the know" by enthusiast communities I'm always super wary when someone who supposedly "does it for real" takes a big place in any of those communities.

Edited March 15, 2016 by EasyEB

[hansangb]

Except the A10 IP that hosted an (almost 1.5hrs?) online chat. That was pretty sweet, and I encourage everyone to listen in.

 

It's in the "Want to talk to a real A10 Pilot" or something like that.

[Darkwolf]

You don't calculate your ammo cost, however, they is a budgetting notion.

 

In Desert Storm, they had ammunition allocated for the conflict. You have to deal with it.

 

source : DOD report on DS1.

[Dappman]

You know what, I read an official report or debriefing on the US military operation Allied Force (you can find it online) a while back and now that I think about it they didn't talk so much about munitions being used (unless they were really expensive) but they made a pretty big deal about how many hours they were putting on aircraft frames and how costly it was and hard to sustain.