Ukraine

[efil4stnias]

What are hammer bombs?

French version of JDAMs. They are glide bombs with precision.

Nicknamed "Hammer"


The big difference is range...AASM Hammer has 70km range vs around 30km for JDAM

 

[DaveXA]

Sorry, not sorry.

 

[baarbogast]

 

[nolaspe]

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

French version of JDAMs. They are glide bombs with precision.

Nicknamed "Hammer"

The big difference is range...AASM Hammer has 70km range vs around 30km for JDAM

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.

 

[nolaspe]

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

When you have your hands full with Ukraine, why would you want to provoke Poland, at all?

 

[Sailorsaint]

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.

 

[DaveXA]

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.

Definitely mission specific. Good point. Only have so many of those to use.

 

[efil4stnias]

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

 

[SamAndreas]

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.

 

[SamAndreas]

If this wasn't a "Jay in Kiev" post, and by that I mean someone who's reports I trust, I would be stomping around the house, cussing.

 

[SamAndreas]

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.

 

[SamAndreas]

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.