Ukraine (7 Viewers)

This leads me to an interesting thought, given the range of these ground based munitions like ATACMS exceeding that by several times, I'm wondering how much more effective air to ground really is compared to ground-to-ground. I know the ground based rockets are more expensive, but when you add in the TCO with the jets costing tens of millions and per flight costs I'm wondering which is more cost effective.
I’m sure it’s mission specific. Why use the longer range ATACMS when a shorter range weapon will work. Save the ATACMS for the targets that are out of the range of the glide bombs.
 
This leads me to an interesting thought, given the range of these ground based munitions like ATACMS exceeding that by several times, I'm wondering how much more effective air to ground really is compared to ground-to-ground. I know the ground based rockets are more expensive, but when you add in the TCO with the jets costing tens of millions and per flight costs I'm wondering which is more cost effective.

But do you want to use a 200km ATACMs to strike a target only 50km away? And with stock of unitary warhead type rockets very limited, you can use a 500lb jdam to accomplish with darn near same precision.

I don't necessarily think bean counters are doing a cost-analysis right now lol 😆


Well just saw replies ahead basically said same lol
 

I worry about India a lot more than I do about China.

India is the kind of place where where they have Hitler brand ice cream, and cones.

hitler_icecream02.jpg


hitler_icecream03.jpg
 

That is how foolish people get themselves blown to kingdom come. Don't ever get that close to a buring fighter jet.
They carry ordinance which can go kaboom, and solid fuel rocket engines which might suddenly rocket away when they burn.

Wait for the fire to burn out, and then wait for a few more hours for it to cool down.
 
This leads me to an interesting thought, given the range of these ground based munitions like ATACMS exceeding that by several times, I'm wondering how much more effective air to ground really is compared to ground-to-ground. I know the ground based rockets are more expensive, but when you add in the TCO with the jets costing tens of millions and per flight costs I'm wondering which is more cost effective.
ATACM's are probably less expensive overall.

But ATACM's can't react to real time situation the way a maned jet loaded with JDAMS can.

ATACMs and JADAMs are not that comparable.
 
ATACM's are probably less expensive overall.

But ATACM's can't react to real time situation the way a maned jet loaded with JDAMS can.

ATACMs and JADAMs are not that comparable.

I honestly thought the primary function of the F-16 was a mobile weapons platform, and wild weasel operations. You assume Ukraine will try to gain air superiority, and then end the war using combined arms.


A change in aircraft design theory to stress versatile multi-role aircraft meant that the F-4G Phantom was the last aircraft in the USAF inventory specifically outfitted for the SEAD role. The Wild Weasel mission is now assigned to the F-16 Fighting Falcon, using the Block 50 and Block 52, with production beginning in 1991. The single-seat Block 50/52 F-16C is specifically tasked with this mission and aircraft modified for this mission are designated F-16CJ/DJ. The pilot now performs both the role of flying the airplane and targeting and employing against ground threats. Other aircraft, while capable of engaging anti-air emplacements, are typically tasked with other primary missions
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom