• RAF Jets Strike First Targets In Iraq With £130,000 Worth of Firepower - To Destroy A Pick Up Truck
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;46115579]Its okay, UK, you'll figure it out. The US doesn't use incendiary weapons because they are more effective, they use them because they are cheaaaap! Guidance, who needs guidance when everything is on fire! Cost goes from tens of thousands to about 500 bucks. I'm obviously kidding (except about the price. That part is true). Though I will say that if someone could make dumb bombs easier to use, then we could save a shitload.[/QUOTE] Well they sort of already can use dumb bomps precisely by using dive bombing and bomb pickeling techniques, its not as if when we employ them we are carpeting an area like ww2, we do it precisely but with guided bombs we can get it to where each bomplb hits its target every time and doesn't take out the buildings next to it
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46115956]Why are British planes always named after the weather :v:[/QUOTE] Because "cloudy with a chance of hellfire" is a name the RAF refuse to pass up.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;46116237]I'm still angry that they discontinued the Harrier[/QUOTE] Sadly it was showing it's age so it's understandable, however the fact that we still have not got a replacement for them and binning the lot of them all in one go was a stupid move, same deal with our aircraft carriers. Reeks of complacency.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;46116532]Sadly it was showing it's age so it's understandable, however the fact that we still have not got a replacement for them and binning the lot of them all in one go was a stupid move, same deal with our aircraft carriers. Reeks of complacency.[/QUOTE] Since they scrapper the carriers and the harriers there have been at least three situations in which they would have seriously helped. The insane round trip from the UK to Libya would not have been needed if they could have just parked a couple of harriers in the med.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;46115969]It's funny because people over here lose their shit when the government spends like £300 flying sick ebola nurses back for treatment. BUT BUT MUH TAXES[/QUOTE] political mob greed is universal, you know how americans love war but our politically loud populace will get a stick up their butts if the gays gain any form of legal progress towards marriage because "I don't want my tax dollars going to our government supporting this awful thing. What would I tell my children?"
[QUOTE=dai;46116794]political mob greed is universal, you know how americans love war but our politically loud populace will get a stick up their butts if the gays gain any form of legal progress towards marriage because "I don't want my tax dollars going to our government supporting this awful thing. What would I tell my children?"[/QUOTE] I work tech support for a certain tabloid newspaper's website so I have to stare at the comments section all day. If I see "Lets just execute all the prisoners so we stop paying tax to keep them alive then we'd have to pay no tax!" one more time I'm probably going to go mad.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;46117562]I work tech support for a certain tabloid newspaper's website so I have to stare at the comments section all day. If I see "Lets just execute all the prisoners so we stop paying tax to keep them alive then we'd have to pay no tax!" one more time I'm probably going to go mad.[/QUOTE] Ahh Daily Mail, never change
I still say it'd be more cost effective to drop ten RC planes from a jet that auto-target hostiles and go at them with IEDs strapped to them. It'd be a cheaper guidance system, and we can use all sorts of nasty shit wired up to them.
[QUOTE=Jsm;46116723]Since they scrapper the carriers and the harriers there have been at least three situations in which they would have seriously helped. The insane round trip from the UK to Libya would not have been needed if they could have just parked a couple of harriers in the med.[/QUOTE] I thought the UK contribution to Libya also flew out of Cyprus.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46116332] Guns probably? But the tornado's are hardly ideal for the job, you'd probably fire more than £130k in 27mm and risk crashing the damn thing[/QUOTE] Hydra-70 FFAR pods would drastically reduce price, but most modern fixed wing aircraft don't seem to have provisions for using them anymore. They are designed, at least in part, because they are much cheaper than guided munitions.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46117585]Ahh Daily Mail, never change[/QUOTE] I wish, think a step below that.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;46118003]I wish, think a step below that.[/QUOTE] Theres lower than the daily mail? Do you work for the daily stormer?
Daily Mail leans true meaning of Asymmetrical Warfare! More at 9:00!
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;46115932]Dropping pamphlets with 'pls stop' on them, should do the trick, well printer ink costs a small fortune too but not 130 grand.[/QUOTE] IDK man, have you ever tried to buy a dell or HP cartridge? I had to take out a loan to print a resume a few years ago.....
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;46118115]Daily Mail leans true meaning of Asymmetrical Warfare! More at 9:00![/QUOTE] The mail has nothing to do with it I made the observation with the figure, I took the news from the BBC
[QUOTE=Joazzz;46115680]i knew there was a missile called Hellfire, but Brimstone? that's nothing short of metal[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;ZW7Op-6dhd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW7Op-6dhd4[/video] Brutal.
That's very scary seeing it without an armed warhead, it just crushes into the car like a guided piano.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;46115932]Dropping pamphlets with 'pls stop' on them, should do the trick, well printer ink costs a small fortune too but not 130 grand.[/QUOTE] Still going to cost a fortune. Remember that the loiter time on the jets themselves is fairly expensive.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46119507]Still going to cost a fortune. Remember that the loiter time on the jets themselves is fairly expensive.[/QUOTE] Not to mention the pilot is going to get one HELL of a littering ticket.....
I love complaining about the insanity of destroying a shitty pickup truck with an $80,000 missile, don't get me wrong. However, you can look at it another way. In the past, destroying that target from the air meant dropping massive iron bombs or cluster munitions to compensate for lack of accuracy, and those bombs tended to kill huge numbers of innocent people. It used to be that if you wanted to take out a building full of fighters in an urban area, you had to wipe out the entire block. So, you can think of it as spending $100,000 to take out a truck, or investing $100,000 to save several innocent people. At the end of the day, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Rolling Thunder was 50 years ago, and it killed tens of thousands of people and resulted in similarly dubious gains. Maybe the bombs have gotten more expensive, but at least we aren't doing that shit anymore.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46115579]Though I will say that if someone could make dumb bombs easier to use, then we could save a shitload.[/QUOTE] The JDAM kits for gravity bombs to make them GPS powered guided bombs aren't making dumb bombs easier to use? The things are like $400 a kit and make them immensely more useful for precision striking.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;46119840]The JDAM kits for gravity bombs to make them GPS powered guided bombs aren't making dumb bombs easier to use? The things are like $400 a kit and make them immensely more useful for precision striking.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia says they cost ~$25,000. Still relatively inexpensive, but I don't think that's what he meant, because using a JDAM kit isn't 'making dumb bombs easier to use', it's making them into smart bombs.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46117652]Hydra-70 FFAR pods would drastically reduce price, but most modern fixed wing aircraft don't seem to have provisions for using them anymore. They are designed, at least in part, because they are much cheaper than guided munitions.[/QUOTE] they're also notoriously super inaccurate and, like guns, require the right angle of attack and (relatively) low altitude attacks the reason people would rather spend £130k on two attacks using long-range guided munitions right now is because that's far better than risking aircraft and aircrew, especially when you consider who they're attacking [editline]1st October 2014[/editline] that and the enemy isn't really a traditional standing army, so accuracy and lack of collateral damage is of the utmost importance (yet again)
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46116007]I hate to say it, but there's no way that ISIS are returning Alan Henning alive now.[/QUOTE] They're a bunch of religious nutwashes. The chance of Alan Henning coming back to Britain alive were zero. [QUOTE=Mabus;46116429]The cost of a Javelin missile system would shock you too. I seen a crate of them once, had to be kept in a storage room with a certain temperature and all. precision is expensive nowadays.[/QUOTE] There was a rumour that did the rounds a while ago about a brief coming down from on high asking commanders on the ground to stop using javelins on single blokes as they cost lots (~£180,000). Then again, if I were a platoon commander and the choice of doing in the sniper was either to send a patrol out and risk everyone's life - or just to blow the bastard to buggery with a jav, I'd use the jav - plus they're awesome.
320 airstrikes since the start is nothing. Unless they are seriously going to ramp it up I don't see this accomplishing major things. When the west decided to give Gaddafi the boot it was 22,000 strikes and that is just aircraft not missiles from boats,etc. Arguably Gaddafi was an easier target since he ran an out in the open state, you can attack a state. A lot harder to attack and ideology and one with the ability to run well underground.
Anyone who wants to bitch about the figure of using converted dumb-bomb munitions compared to training, housing, educating, and physically sending in a soldier to then use a missile [I]anyways[/I] can go rethink their life.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.