StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Pu-239 wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.

Best information I can find suggests Block III Tomahawks cost $600k. CNN claims higher, but I think they're wrong. They claim $750k, but I'm pretty sure that's high. $750k's higher than JASSM's costs, let alone Tomahawk's.

The only difference in the formula is the change from 50000o to 600000, which makes the total cost $480,000,000 for two days of bombardment. From what I've heard, though, that'll come fairly close to exhausting the military's reserves of Tomahawks. Just those 800 is nearly 20% of the total number purchased (4170 according to a German source).

Yeah, it's propaganda.

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE!
These missiles must cost 1,400,000$ EACH.
Do you really think the gov will spend 500 MILLION for a single missile barrage?
Honestly, thats pure propaganda.

Darth Wong wrote:

Steve wrote:Your logic sounds suspicious.

"They won't be targeted intentionally, but since it's almost certain that civilians will be hit somewhere, it's intentional"?

Actually, that is exactly the way it works; if you use indiscriminate weapons that are bound to cause civillian casualties, then you have effectively decided to deliberately cause civilian casualties.

I had looked at it as a warning to both Hussein and the people as to what's coming. If the people hear the warning and ignore it, then, as with the volunteer "human shields," they chose to be in that position. If Hussein forces them to remain, we cannot refuse to eliminate a valid target because he has hostages. While civilian casualties are to be avoided as much as possible, when a war occurs and the target is within a populated area, collateral damage (or civilian casualties if military terms are taboo ) will occur.

How many civilian lives do you suppose would perish if A-Day happens? Is there any real way of predicting an accurate number?

The Dark wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.

Best information I can find suggests Block III Tomahawks cost $600k. CNN claims higher, but I think they're wrong. They claim $750k, but I'm pretty sure that's high. $750k's higher than JASSM's costs, let alone Tomahawk's.

The only difference in the formula is the change from 50000o to 600000, which makes the total cost $480,000,000 for two days of bombardment. From what I've heard, though, that'll come fairly close to exhausting the military's reserves of Tomahawks. Just those 800 is nearly 20% of the total number purchased (4170 according to a German source).

Most of the US's Tomahawks where built in the 1980's, though they've all been upgraded. That’s why they look relatively cheep compared to newer weapons. 600K is bull though, the BGM-109's cost about a million dollars each.

Tactical Tomahawk, which is still several years from IOC will cost about 500-600K.

dontcha love how we can burn down half a billion dollars in two days of killing people?

by god, I love this country.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

The Dark wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.

Best information I can find suggests Block III Tomahawks cost $600k. CNN claims higher, but I think they're wrong. They claim $750k, but I'm pretty sure that's high. $750k's higher than JASSM's costs, let alone Tomahawk's.

Most of the US's Tomahawks where built in the 1980's, though they've all been upgraded. That’s why they look relatively cheep compared to newer weapons. 600K is bull though, the BGM-109's cost about a million dollars each.

Tactical Tomahawk, which is still several years from IOC will cost about 500-600K.

OK, yeah, just found better info. The actual production cost is between $500k and $750k per missile (sources vary widely betwen saying 500, 600, or 750k), but overall unit cost (due to research costs, etc) is ~$1.4 million. TacTom is expected in 2004, at a rough estimated cost of $700k per missile.

Necro99 wrote:Yeah, it's propaganda.

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE!
These missiles must cost 1,400,000$ EACH.
Do you really think the gov will spend 500 MILLION for a single missile barrage?
Honestly, thats pure propaganda.

Your brain seems to be pure bullshit when it comes to military matters. A BGM-109 cost about 1 million dollars back in 1991, and the upgrades since have easily added several hundred thousand dollars to the price of each.

The cost of a US invasion of Iraq is estimated to be about 60 billion dollars overall.

Enforcer Talen wrote:dontcha love how we can burn down half a billion dollars in two days of killing people?

by god, I love this country.

Far more then a half billion, there will easily be 1000 aircraft sorties in the same time frame, with al the costs, fuel/ordnance/maintenance those bring along. Armored artillery raids out of Kuwait, airmobile operations to grab outlining damns and airfields and other targets will add even more.

The Dark wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Tactical Tomahawk, which is still several years from IOC will cost about 500-600K.

OK, yeah, just found better info. The actual production cost is between $500k and $750k per missile (sources vary widely betwen saying 500, 600, or 750k), but overall unit cost (due to research costs, etc) is ~$1.4 million. TacTom is expected in 2004, at a rough estimated cost of $700k per missile.

What's your source? Remember, FAS is full of shit

And your screwing out your quoting, your always missing a begin tag.

Sea Skimmer wrote: And your screwing out your quoting, your always missing a begin tag.

Thanks, I accidentally deleted one too many tags when I did my quote.

What's your source? Remember, FAS is full of shit

Ehh...time to look through the history.

www.aerotechnews.com/starc/1999/061499/Def0618d.html
navysite.de/weapons/tomahawk.htm
www.time.com/time/daily/iraq/weapons/ missiles/tomahawk.html
http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/sept00/truver.htm

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:dontcha love how we can burn down half a billion dollars in two days of killing people?

by god, I love this country.

Far more then a half billion, there will easily be 1000 aircraft sorties in the same time frame, with al the costs, fuel/ordnance/maintenance those bring along. Armored artillery raids out of Kuwait, airmobile operations to grab outlining damns and airfields and other targets will add even more.

even better. I'm so glad our military budget gets used once in a while.

Steve wrote:Your logic sounds suspicious.

"They won't be targeted intentionally, but since it's almost certain that civilians will be hit somewhere, it's intentional"?

"There will be no safe place in Baghdad."

Hear that? They're targetting the entirety of the fucking city. Shrub can spin-doctor it however he wishes, but the fact remains that he is deliberately targetting civilians.

You're effectively claiming that "I'm going to start swinging my arms wildly and walking toward you, and if you get hit, it's not my fault" is a legitimate defense. Let's face facts. He's targetting an area that has a dense civilian population. You're actually claiming with a straight face that his saying, "It's not our fault that civilians just happen to populate the capitol of the country" absolves him of all guilt?

What a waste of missiles and money. They're on fucking crack if they think the military is just going to be sitting there out in the open with a big neon sign that says "bomb us now!". They'll hide their forces and foil this fancy crap, just like the Serbs did in 1999.

But hey, the civilians will cop it sweet.

Durandal wrote:

Steve wrote:Your logic sounds suspicious.

"They won't be targeted intentionally, but since it's almost certain that civilians will be hit somewhere, it's intentional"?

"There will be no safe place in Baghdad."

Hear that? They're targetting the entirety of the fucking city. Shrub can spin-doctor it however he wishes, but the fact remains that he is deliberately targetting civilians.

You're effectively claiming that "I'm going to start swinging my arms wildly and walking toward you, and if you get hit, it's not my fault" is a legitimate defense. Let's face facts. He's targetting an area that has a dense civilian population. You're actually claiming with a straight face that his saying, "It's not our fault that civilians just happen to populate the capitol of the country" absolves him of all guilt?

No, there targeting point targets spread across the whole city, BGM-109 doesn't do a very good job of leveling city blocks, it will however wipe out a couple floors of a head quarters nicely. If deliberately killing civilians was the goal then three squadrons of Lancers could take out the city one district at a time with Mk82's. It would be cheaper and far more effective.

No place in the city is going to be safe because when 1000 anti aircraft guns and a dozen SAM batteries start firing blind, all that stuff has to come back down.

War kills civilians. There's no getting around that. However the US is not singling them out, and is taking steps to minimize civilian deaths from hits on military targets. Using cruise missiles, highly accurate and very reliable weapons is part of this. Inert bombs may also be used against very sensitive targets.

But it would seem people don't see any difference between striking point targets and civilians being caught in the blasts, and "Aim for what's not burning yet" carpet-bombing.

Vympel wrote:What a waste of missiles and money. They're on fucking crack if they think the military is just going to be sitting there out in the open with a big neon sign that says "bomb us now!". They'll hide their forces and foil this fancy crap, just like the Serbs did in 1999.

But hey, the civilians will cop it sweet.

And thus be unable to fight effectively. Ever notice how half of Serb losses occurred on the one day they faced a ground threat, when the KLA came out of the hills?

Vympel wrote:What a waste of missiles and money. They're on fucking crack if they think the military is just going to be sitting there out in the open with a big neon sign that says "bomb us now!". They'll hide their forces and foil this fancy crap, just like the Serbs did in 1999.

But hey, the civilians will cop it sweet.

Won't they have to actually SEE the enemy before attack them with missiles? They wouldn't use missiles to randomly shoot.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

Vympel wrote:What a waste of missiles and money. They're on fucking crack if they think the military is just going to be sitting there out in the open with a big neon sign that says "bomb us now!". They'll hide their forces and foil this fancy crap, just like the Serbs did in 1999.

But hey, the civilians will cop it sweet.

Won't they have to actually SEE the enemy before attack them with missiles? They wouldn't use missiles to randomly shoot.

You used cruise missiles against fixed targets, not field forces. Bad Intel happens, such as with the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, though its been suggest that was intentional because the Chinese where using it to feed information to the Serbs, but that's another story.

However most targets, things like Saddam's palace or power substations are hard to miss identify, and near impossibul to conceal in location or nature.

The Serbs could hid there tanks in barns, they couldn't hid there oil refinerys or hardened aircraft shealters.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
And thus be unable to fight effectively. Ever notice how half of Serb losses occurred on the one day they faced a ground threat, when the KLA came out of the hills?

Myth.

Vympel wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
And thus be unable to fight effectively. Ever notice how half of Serb losses occurred on the one day they faced a ground threat, when the KLA came out of the hills?

Myth.

And yet I've encountered nothing to contradict it, or the fact that a tank inside of a barn is not going to be very effective in combat.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

Vympel wrote:What a waste of missiles and money. They're on fucking crack if they think the military is just going to be sitting there out in the open with a big neon sign that says "bomb us now!". They'll hide their forces and foil this fancy crap, just like the Serbs did in 1999.

But hey, the civilians will cop it sweet.

Won't they have to actually SEE the enemy before attack them with missiles? They wouldn't use missiles to randomly shoot.

You used cruise missiles against fixed targets, not field forces. Bad Intel happens, such as with the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, though its been suggest that was intentional because the Chinese where using it to feed information to the Serbs, but that's another story.

However most targets, things like Saddam's palace or power substations are hard to miss identify, and near impossibul to conceal in location or nature.

The Serbs could hid there tanks in barns, they couldn't hid there oil refinerys or hardened aircraft shealters.

"You" Huh. That's odd. The whole time I thought you were an American.

Anyway, if their tanks are hidden, they wouldn't know to fire missiles there. And all of the stationary targets are confirmed to be military targets before striking, correct?

Sea Skimmer wrote:
And yet I've encountered nothing to contradict it, or the fact that a tank inside of a barn is not going to be very effective in combat.

NATO claimed they destroyed some 50% of Serbian armor in Kosovo and all sorts of other outrageous figures. The Serbs came back with their own brand of bullshit and said that they had only mamanged to kill 13 Serb tanks. Although both are no doubt lies, NATO's claims are certainly worth looking at. Come on, these are people that even had the audacity to bullshit that they *intentionally* destroyed decoys so as to prevent their use

The story about the KLA drawing the Serbs out into the open wreaks of crap- the story goes that a Serb brigade was drawn out into the open and destroyed by airstrikes, resulting in massive Serb casualties. No such evidence discovered.

NATO claims that the Serbs policed the battlefield really well and that all the equipment they destroyed were taken away. A few problems with that. If they policed the battlefield so well, how come so many decoys they made were left behind, but not the wrecked shattered remains of T-55s and M-84s blown apart by 2000lb bombs and useless?

Vympel wrote:NATO claims that the Serbs policed the battlefield really well and that all the equipment they destroyed were taken away. A few problems with that. If they policed the battlefield so well, how come so many decoys they made were left behind, but not the wrecked shattered remains of T-55s and M-84s blown apart by 2000lb bombs and useless?

To support their claims that the USAF only bombed a bunch of decoys...

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
To support their claims that the USAF only bombed a bunch of decoys...

You do know that a decoy is considerably more valuable than the burnt out husk of a tank that's had it's turret blown off, right?

Sea Skimmer just out of curisotry have the Figures on Cost Effetiveness for various other opitions?

IE
Napam
Taticual Nukes
2000lb dumb's

Compared to the Tomahawks?