Smart and dumb

[awdrgyjo]

If an attack was made on an enemy military fuel depot, that was defended by small arms, and, was many miles away from any civilian population, what would be the bomb of choice, smart or dumb, I suppose it comes down to money VS accuracy, I cant be sure, but apart from the gun, the A-10 in conflict uses dumb iron bombs as first choice, however I could be wrong, thanks in advance.

[GripenNG]

If you ask me, I would choose a couple of dumb Mk-84 to pulverise the entire plant if there is no risk for collateral damage.

 

But it may depend on political situations also. If it´s a pre-emptive surgical strike, PGM-munition would most certain be the choice to minimize casualties and to be able to pinpoint critical infrastructure within the plant.

 

In the end, it all ends up inte the question of the value of the target, air-defence situation, collateral risk - and what type of industrial complex it is. You would most certinaly not want to bomb a nuclear plant or oil-raffinerie to the stone age. There it might be better to target specific installations and stop the production whitout exaggerating.

[ENO]

In my amateur opinion given the fact that you can have pinpoint coordinates for a large facility- and the ability to drop precision munitions on such a valuable tactical target... from 20k... in and out...

 

A guidance package isn't that expensive and I'm not sure planners even consider such things when it comes time to ensuring a target gets hit. I'm no expert, but I can imagine the process would be something like this:

 

"Okay folks- what do we NEED to maximize impact on the target and minimize impact to civilians and our forces?"

 

"We need the accurate delivery of munitions in the 2000lb range."

 

"Do we actually have GBU-31s available to our strike aircraft?"

 

"Yes."

 

"Very good. That's what we'll use."

 

or...

 

"No."

 

"Okay, do we have MK84s?"

 

"Yes, just no guidance kits."

 

"Can they be used effectively given the mission parameters?"

 

"Yes."

 

"Okay then, use Mk 84s..."

 

Or...

 

"No."

 

"What are our options?"

 

"B2s from State side. They can be over the target in 14 hours with any variety of precision munitions we choose."

 

"Alright then- that's our option."

 

 

Talking about a military fuel depot versus a civilian complex mentioned by Gripen... I think the gloves come off a little bit. The scenario you're describing certainly lends itself to the use of precision units with the intent of obliteration as opposed to surgical destruction of key facility infrastructure. It's not a structure or facility you are going to want to use in the future, nor that the civilian population depends on in short term... it's just a military storage depot.

 

But if you're REALLY interested, any tactical target of any significance is going to have protection. You want to talk about costs... having a couple dudes standing around with MANPADS versus leaving it unprotected is just minimum standard issue (in game)- I could imagine heavier and more comprehensive defenses in place as well... but let's imagine the defending force in this instance is spread thin- but even spread thin the possibility of MANPADS should be assumed as a minimum.

 

This adds to the importance of being able to take your coordinates (which you can include in a mission briefing), and bomb up a couple of A-10s with 31s and drop from 20k or more at night in whatever weather.

 

Granted, back in the old days Hogs didn't drop like that- but in the old days Hogs didn't have the abilities they have now.

 

Anyway- just a few of my amateur thoughts.

Edited December 9, 2013 by ENO

[Serp Supreme]

A good, and well known example of the OP's question would be Operation Opera, the Israeli strike on the nuclear reactor in Iraq back in the '80s. The pilots then were flying eight F-16s, with 2 Mk-84s on each jet.

 

Wikipedia:

At 18:35 local time (14:35 GMT), 20 km from the Osirak reactor complex, the F-16 formation climbed to 2,100 m and went into a 35-degree dive at 1,100 km/h, aimed at the reactor complex. At 1,100 m, the F-16s began releasing the Mark 84 bombs in pairs, at 5-second intervals.

However we need to bear in mind that, like someone else mentioned earlier, these were much earlier times and you didn't have the same tech then as you do now. I'm not even sure the F-16 could carry guided munitions at that time.

[awdrgyjo]

Thanks for the replies, on this particular mission, prior to the bombing there WERE air defences, but they were neutralised by wingey and I, and SEAD, military assets are now reduced down to bog standard tanks, and what not.

[Guest Izoul123]

So many variables to consider. Now-a-days it seems to be slanted more towards the side of naval launched cruise missile or drone strikes for missions like that.

 

Only thing I've read about recently for A10's is they're mostly being used for close air support for troops in the 'stan's as of late, primarily gun runs. Other than that, all the 'leaked' footage I've seen for A10's on actual missions over the last few years has all been JDAM drops via JTAC to take out entire buildings/houses/mountain sideds that 'OPFOR' is holding up in. (LiveLeak has lots of leaked/declassified footage from 'the stan's.', click link and grab a beer.)

So if you're trying to replicate 'missions today', I'd say honestly gun runs and JDAMS are the 'toys' to be playing with.

 

Just my armchair general opinion as well, which could be way off from reality. Can only go by so much leaked info.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Izoul123