Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And sometimes we use $412 million aircraft

Also,

 Ouze wrote:

 dogma wrote:
As to the apology? Sincerity abounds:

Ah, the classic "I am sorry you were offended" apology. Well done, and extra points for essentially throwing your wife under the bus. I guess she's a woman, and women are emotional, though, right? Well, anyway. Back to ISIL.

I said I'd drop this, but it seems reasonable to add that the TV personality has since given a second, actual apology.

Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.

Bullets!


Actually bombs would be a lot cheaper if we dispensed with ridiculously expensive guidance systems.

I think it would be a good economic measure to start using unguided bombs. They should only be used against specific targets of importance which have to be destroyed. Use the unguided bombs against targets of lower priority. Its simply not worth the cost. And heck, we can be pretty accurate with unguided bombs too. Its just math!

Don't send a Ferrari when a Ford will get the job done.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.

We have many much cheaper weapons, but the rationale to use what we are using are political ones in addition to tactical considerations.

The expensive weaponry is also the safest to our own forces: The only pilots in danger are a few, or none, if it's a Reaper.

Naval artillery has limited range - like 25ish miles or so? and requires vessels that are very expensive to operate even if the shells are cheap.

Ground-based artillery requires troops on the ground, their support and supply lines and all the danger to the troops and the politics that entails.

Hellfires are precise so they does less collateral damage to non-targets, which again is a political consideration.

They are able to be fit onto a wide number of deployment platforms: drones, Apaches, Humvees, whatever.

A lot of the cost of the weapon is the R&D that went into designing it.

We have tons of them. We recently put in an order for 11,000 Hellfires, and have been dropping about 4,500 of them a year. When your best tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails, yes?

Weapon manufacturers tend to locate themselves in key congressional districts, making it hard to cancel programs even if they are not worth the money.

It's modern corporate welfare, which is America's only popular form of welfare.

Pick any combination of those you like.

That being said, we do use some less-expensive stuff. Quite a few JDAMS fell out of B-52s in our modern foreign adventures, for a mere $30,000 a pop.

 Ouze wrote:

I said I'd drop this, but it seems reasonable to add that the TV personality has since given a second, actual apology.

Greg Gutfeld's response (because it wasn't an apology) was horrible.

The real joke is that he doesn't have a driver's license? Something the vast majority of people wouldn't know? If that was the "real joke" it was a gak joke.

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.

We have many much cheaper weapons, but the rationale to use what we are using are political ones in addition to tactical considerations.

The expensive weaponry is also the safest to our own forces: The only pilots in danger are a few, or none, if it's a Reaper.

Naval artillery has limited range - like 25ish miles or so? and requires vessels that are very expensive to operate even if the shells are cheap.

Ground-based artillery requires troops on the ground, their support and supply lines and all the danger to the troops and the politics that entails.

Hellfires are precise so they does less collateral damage to non-targets, which again is a political consideration.

They are able to be fit onto a wide number of deployment platforms: drones, Apaches, Humvees, whatever.

A lot of the cost of the weapon is the R&D that went into designing it.

We have tons of them. We recently put in an order for 11,000 Hellfires, and have been dropping about 4,500 of them a year. When your best tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails, yes?

Weapon manufacturers tend to locate themselves in key congressional districts, making it hard to cancel programs even if they are not worth the money.

It's modern corporate welfare, which is America's only popular form of welfare.

Pick any combination of those you like.

That being said, we do use some less-expensive stuff. Quite a few JDAMS fell out of B-52s in our modern foreign adventures, for a mere $30,000 a pop.

You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.

We have many much cheaper weapons, but the rationale to use what we are using are political ones in addition to tactical considerations.

The expensive weaponry is also the safest to our own forces: The only pilots in danger are a few, or none, if it's a Reaper.

Naval artillery has limited range - like 25ish miles or so? and requires vessels that are very expensive to operate even if the shells are cheap.

Ground-based artillery requires troops on the ground, their support and supply lines and all the danger to the troops and the politics that entails.

Hellfires are precise so they does less collateral damage to non-targets, which again is a political consideration.

They are able to be fit onto a wide number of deployment platforms: drones, Apaches, Humvees, whatever.

A lot of the cost of the weapon is the R&D that went into designing it.

We have tons of them. We recently put in an order for 11,000 Hellfires, and have been dropping about 4,500 of them a year. When your best tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails, yes?

Weapon manufacturers tend to locate themselves in key congressional districts, making it hard to cancel programs even if they are not worth the money.

It's modern corporate welfare, which is America's only popular form of welfare.

Pick any combination of those you like.

That being said, we do use some less-expensive stuff. Quite a few JDAMS fell out of B-52s in our modern foreign adventures, for a mere $30,000 a pop.

You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions

There'll be backlash over collateral damage whether guided or not.

I don't think that makes much difference really.

Why couldn't we just finish Isis and bomb their arses with their own IEDs or somethin?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions

It was my 4th bullet point.

One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions

It was my 4th bullet point.

Fair point, I thought you were specifically talking about munitions fired from drones. My mistake

Latest ISIS update: pick-up trucks paid for by the US taxpayer bombed by jets paid for by the US taxpayer.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Latest ISIS update: pick-up trucks paid for by the US taxpayer bombed by jets paid for by the US taxpayer.

Probably a F350 three times what it cost in the US of A.

Now that would be a truck commercial.

"Ford 350, built so tough you need an F-18 to kill it."

More likely it's those little Toyotas.

 Hordini wrote:
More likely it's those little Toyotas.

Toyotas or not, it's still a colossal waste of money, and I feel sorry for the average joe, US taxpayer on this forum.

If the pentagon bought and posted out a toupee for every household in America, it'd probably represent better value for money

The way my hairline's going, I could use one myself.

I was looking at the map showing territory conquered by ISIS. It's like some weird, spidery, LSD, construct, that's been run over by a tank, and super-imposed on a map of the middle east. Have these people never heard of secure supply lines?

The Kurdsbeat back ISIS and took over some Syrian border crossing related to the Yizhid Massacres a few weeks back.

I'll have to find a link since I heard it on the radio.

It seems I was right, kurds might be the middle east's salvation in the end.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It seems I was right, kurds might be the middle east's salvation in the end.

Not for the first time, I might add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

Yeah, go milk derivatives!

Dang it..I was waiting for a No Go with the SOFA (Agreement for Ouze) in Afghanistan so I can use this but since we denied another country going down the freaking pits....

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area

I've always wondered what happens to the bullets, do they aim them to arc into the next village that they don't like.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area

I've always wondered what happens to the bullets, do they aim them to arc into the next village that they don't like.

They don't care. Its a wedding and feast

Certainly sounds more fun than saying grace before a feast, those Arabs sure know how to party

Well......seem the next American to be executed is a former Army Ranger. This might not work in ISIS best interest

 Jihadin wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area

I've always wondered what happens to the bullets, do they aim them to arc into the next village that they don't like.

They don't care. Its a wedding and feast

If the bullets hit something, that is Allah's will and there is nothing you can do about it. If the bullets don't hit anything that is Allah's will and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's kind of like why a lot of taxi drivers in Egypt don't wear seat belts.

 Hordini wrote:
It's kind of like why a lot of taxi drivers in Egypt don't wear seat belts.

I've done that

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's kind of like why a lot of taxi drivers in Egypt don't wear seat belts.

I've done that

So have I, but not for the same reasons.