GMLRS: "the 60-kilometer sniper rifle"

[akd]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Sounds really expensive to get rid of a lone sniper...

When will the US Army ever learn that sometimes less is actualy more?

Less? Like the Bradley and Abrams that apparently didn't silence the "snipers"?

[Capt. Toleran]

Exactly. And what does it cost to haul those Bradleys and Abrams out there, service them, their crew, etc.? I'd like to see some cost breakdowns here, if people are going to complain about cost.

[luderbamsen]

In relation to CM:SF there's really only one question: Will it be in the game or not? If yes, cool. If no, hardly a dealbraker (though it might make a nice addition to a future module).

As for cost: "each missile appears to cost less than $1 million each", which is a rather inaccurate description if you ask me. A million bucks is certainly a lot of money for what's essentially a JDAM-tipped MLRS rocket. It may be that the taxpayers are being shafted here, but then again there are a few instances where airpower might not be availible (modern aircraft are still grounded by weather) and something like the GMLRS might be just the ticket.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[flamingknives]

Without going into too much detail, GMLRS is a fair bit more than "a JDAM-tipped MLRS rocket". Quite apart from anything else, it goes twice as far.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Without going into too much detail, GMLRS is a fair bit more than "a JDAM-tipped MLRS rocket". Quite apart from anything else, it goes twice as far.

How so? Sure, it has longer range, but INS and GPS guidance system plus actuators sounds pretty much like a JDAM to me.

That said, what I've glanced at the internet suggest a cost per unit far below $1mil. Maybe the author of the article calculated cost by dividing the number of rockets built so far with both development, testing and production costs. From what I saw a production of 100,000 is planned. Dividing development and testing cost among 100,000 units should bring down the pricetag considerably.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[flamingknives]

Well, the warhead's different and I'm pretty sure that the rocket motor is different. although there has been mention of retro-fitting a GMLRS kit to existing MLRS rockets, but I don't see how that can be true.

Once you've replaced the warhead, fuse and motor, there's not much left of the original weapon. Furthermore, you'd be left with umpty-dum hundred submunitions to deal with per round.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Well, the warhead's different and I'm pretty sure that the rocket motor is different. although there has been mention of retro-fitting a GMLRS kit to existing MLRS rockets, but I don't see how that can be true.

Once you've replaced the warhead, fuse and motor, there's not much left of the original weapon. Furthermore, you'd be left with umpty-dum hundred submunitions to deal with per round.

And?

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[flamingknives]

If you replace the weapon, it's not much of an add-on kit. If it also leaves you with a bunch of nasty little explosives to dispose of, then it'll probably cost you less to make it from new.

[offtaskagain]

I think the biggest selling point of the GMLRS is that the Army can now provide itself with a large calibre precision strike munition on minimal notice. From the initial call for fire to impact would be probably be well under 5 minutes as long as the battery was already in place. CAS can be responsive, but only if the birds are already on station. There simply aren't enough aircraft to cover every little operation that's ongoing at any given moment. GMLRS allows coverage of anybody inside the 60km zone, with a very large number of available strikes. Aircraft only carry so much ordnance, and as mentioned by others are subject to weather conditions. Coordination with field artillery is historically much simpler than fixed wing aircraft. The 155mm GPS guided Excalibur round also provides this capability, but its not big enough to drop a building like the rocket can.

Targeting is getting easier all the time. We are starting to field targeting systems for our various weapon systems that allow the gunner to get a grid on any object he can lase. The various FIST vehicles should already have that capability, and our Marine M1A1s got it with their new 50x sights this past year. I've also seen a retrofit for the M1117 armored cars. It's only a matter of time before every vehicle gets one.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If you replace the weapon, it's not much of an add-on kit. If it also leaves you with a bunch of nasty little explosives to dispose of, then it'll probably cost you less to make it from new.

Ah, it's just a misunderstanding then. I wasn't suggesting that the GMLRS was an MLRS with a tweaked JDAM kit as such, merely that it uses the same technology, sorry about that.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[SlapHappy]

Even a half million sounds expensive to me when you consider there are other young men waiting to replace those snipers in that building.

....and more to replace them as well.

[SlapHappy]

Love that upbeat embedded music....Why it's just like a rock video!

I wonder what kind of lyrics you could write to go along with that one?

[Beastttt]

if it saves our troops lives then it is a good thing to me

as for the others to replace the snipers the I see it kind of like the kzinti if you kill enough you might find 1 who is willing to talk and negotiate

darwin at work

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Even a half million sounds expensive to me when you consider there are other young men waiting to replace those snipers in that building.

....and more to replace them as well.

[Capt. Toleran]

BTW, this claims to be the vid in question:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2087addf7e

[Bigduke6]

if it saves our troops lives then it is a good thing to me

as for the others to replace the snipers the I see it kind of like the kzinti if you kill enough you might find 1 who is willing to talk and negotiate

darwin at work

This is an insurgency in Iraq we're talking about. Not the natural selection of bullfinches on an isolated Pacific island.

The point to this munition is that it allows a U.S. squad in contact to land about 100 kg. of explosives on something with the accuracy of a sattelite-guided munition.

As the Iraqi resistance has shown, there are other ways to get explosives next to things you want to blow up. Car bombs. Roadside bombs.

The most accurate explosive delivery system the insurgents have is the Jihadi, a/k/a as the suicide pedestrian bomb. Though not perfect, this weapons system has a dramatic advantage over the U.S. GPS-guided munitions, as the Jihadi is guided by an intelligence light years better than any smart weapon - the human brain.

If this zippy U.S. munition costs a million bucks (say), how much does the insurgent version cost?

Explosives: $5 - 20

Care and feeding of Jihadi: $5

Religious support: Free

Bribes to local security: $100 - $1000

Prior intelligence collection: 0 - $100

Max cost of weapon system: $1,130

Min cost of weapon system: $110

Like any weapon a suicide bomber is not perfect. In firefights he's pretty ineffective. He can't carry 100 kg. But on the other hand his CEP is a whole lot better than five meters. If a suicide bomber functions properly, he detonates within centimeters of the target.

Still, every once in a while a suicide bomber will panic and blow up the wrong people. Once in an extremely great while a suicide bomber will defect to the infidels and tell them everything he knows, which of course a GPS-guided munition will never do.

That said, we have to remember GPS-guided munitions are only as effective as the targeting information the humans give them. In the case with the house and the AK firers, a laser-guided munition would be pefectly happy to blow up if it found valuable hostages or children or critical intelligence inside the building, while a suicide bomber - theoretically - might think twice.

But no matter how you argue which system is more effective tacticaly, price-wise the insurgents have a hands-down edge. For the cost of one U.S. weapon, the insurgents can launch somewhere between 900 and 9,090 suicide bombers.

Theoretically, of course, there would remain the possibility the U.S. could still get the better of this exchange rate if it was willing and capable of outspend the insurgency by a factor of roughly 1,000 to 10,000 to one, and both sides were equally determined to keep launching explosives until they ran out of resources.

But if the Iraqis are willing to be more ruthless than the Americans - i.e., more willing to expend resources to win the war - then even these calculations out the window, and the real equation is even more in the Iraqi favor.

All of which, of course, begs the question: Is there a more cost-effective way of getting rid of a couple of obstreperous Iraqis with Kalashnikovs, than a million-dollar GPS-guided munition?

I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Bribe the AK firers

2. Bribe the AK firers' relatives

3. Pay the police and judges in the AK-firers' neighborhood a serious salary.

4. Keep the Americans out of the neighborhood.

None of those options, of course, makes American business much money, or will advance the careers of conventional arms-tracked U.S. military personnel.

I think this is a big reason why we get repeated lickspittle reports on zippy new weapons systems and "awesome" U.S. tactical capacity, and few to no reports what might be the he smartest way to use civilian resources - taxpayer dollars -to have a chance at winning the war.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

How much does it cost for fuel to have a nearby F16 loitering at 25,000 feet?

We had a recent discussion on this in Austria because of weird claims about the Eurofighter Typhoon costs.

I would say for modern jets (Typhoon, Gripen) the figure is somewhere in the Ballpark between 20.000 and 30.000 EUR max. for a flight hour. That includes not just the fuel, but also add-on costs like maintainance, airbase etc.

What does an LGB cost, 100.000 bucks tops? Likely even less. Sounds a helluva lot cheaper to me.

[luderbamsen]

Bigduke6,

You're talking about tactics and doctrine, not weapons technology. Do you have a point? sure. Is the US doctrine in Iraq flawed? Well, results certainly haven't been good up until now.

But a weapons system should be judged by what capabilities it provides compared to cost, not on wether the US policy in Iraq is flawed or not. Is the GMLRS a waste of money then? Or is it's capabilities worth the cost? Damned if I know.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[Beastttt]

BigDuke

the point I was making WAS resources

you need to take into account that it takes about 16 yrs min to build their guidance system

also their guidance system can on occasion fail to detonate properly or even get intercepted also it seems that at best the enemy can only field about 2 or 3 aday

the guidance system also can be intimidated before it ever gets programed and just will not have anything to do with the programer

the next weapon system I see that needs to be designed is one that seeks out the programers and elminates them

however the programers seem to have a defence that shields them from most attacks

attacks on the programers probably needs to come from a different direction

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

if it saves our troops lives then it is a good thing to me

as for the others to replace the snipers the I see it kind of like the kzinti if you kill enough you might find 1 who is willing to talk and negotiate

darwin at work

This is an insurgency in Iraq we're talking about. Not the natural selection of bullfinches on an isolated Pacific island.

The point to this munition is that it allows a U.S. squad in contact to land about 100 kg. of explosives on something with the accuracy of a sattelite-guided munition.

As the Iraqi resistance has shown, there are other ways to get explosives next to things you want to blow up. Car bombs. Roadside bombs.

The most accurate explosive delivery system the insurgents have is the Jihadi, a/k/a as the suicide pedestrian bomb. Though not perfect, this weapons system has a dramatic advantage over the U.S. GPS-guided munitions, as the Jihadi is guided by an intelligence light years better than any smart weapon - the human brain.

If this zippy U.S. munition costs a million bucks (say), how much does the insurgent version cost?

Explosives: $5 - 20

Care and feeding of Jihadi: $5

Religious support: Free

Bribes to local security: $100 - $1000

Prior intelligence collection: 0 - $100

Max cost of weapon system: $1,130

Min cost of weapon system: $110

Like any weapon a suicide bomber is not perfect. In firefights he's pretty ineffective. He can't carry 100 kg. But on the other hand his CEP is a whole lot better than five meters. If a suicide bomber functions properly, he detonates within centimeters of the target.

Still, every once in a while a suicide bomber will panic and blow up the wrong people. Once in an extremely great while a suicide bomber will defect to the infidels and tell them everything he knows, which of course a GPS-guided munition will never do.

That said, we have to remember GPS-guided munitions are only as effective as the targeting information the humans give them. In the case with the house and the AK firers, a laser-guided munition would be pefectly happy to blow up if it found valuable hostages or children or critical intelligence inside the building, while a suicide bomber - theoretically - might think twice.

But no matter how you argue which system is more effective tacticaly, price-wise the insurgents have a hands-down edge. For the cost of one U.S. weapon, the insurgents can launch somewhere between 900 and 9,090 suicide bombers.

Theoretically, of course, there would remain the possibility the U.S. could still get the better of this exchange rate if it was willing and capable of outspend the insurgency by a factor of roughly 1,000 to 10,000 to one, and both sides were equally determined to keep launching explosives until they ran out of resources.

But if the Iraqis are willing to be more ruthless than the Americans - i.e., more willing to expend resources to win the war - then even these calculations out the window, and the real equation is even more in the Iraqi favor.

All of which, of course, begs the question: Is there a more cost-effective way of getting rid of a couple of obstreperous Iraqis with Kalashnikovs, than a million-dollar GPS-guided munition?

I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Bribe the AK firers

2. Bribe the AK firers' relatives

3. Pay the police and judges in the AK-firers' neighborhood a serious salary.

4. Keep the Americans out of the neighborhood.

None of those options, of course, makes American business much money, or will advance the careers of conventional arms-tracked U.S. military personnel.

I think this is a big reason why we get repeated lickspittle reports on zippy new weapons systems and "awesome" U.S. tactical capacity, and few to no reports what might be the he smartest way to use civilian resources - taxpayer dollars -to have a chance at winning the war. </font>

[Bigduke6]

My points are two-fold:

1. The write-up of the weapon makes the weapon seem wonderful, while in fact it is a big waste of money, at least for a war like Iraq. There are plenty of ways to kill off insurgent-type opponents precisely, and a GPS-guided munition at the end of a 16-year development cycle is almost the least cost-effective solutions to the AK-firer problem imaginable.

Thus I accuse the reporter of lack of professionalism, and more specifically of rewriting a weapons manufacturer's brochure and labeling it "news".

2. Further, I accuse the decsion-makers responsible for fielding this weapon - and that's generals and civilian officials involved in the development cycle mostly - of wasting taxpayer money and, possibly, criminally mismanaging it.

The sketch on the relative cost of a suicide bomber was intended to demonstrate that just because the official experts say something is so, doesn't make it so. If you are irresponsible about choosing your weapons for war, you may get defeated.

And seeing as it's tqxpayers, uh, paying for the weapons, I contend taxpayers ought to be able to put a reality check on stuff their military is buying. This weapon fails my reality check.

Hope that's clear.

[Wicky]

Does that argument hold true re. jet aircraft / rockets in ww2?

Conflict is a hothouse for weapons development -so maybe not immediatly cost effective it leads to new kit in the toolbox ready for next war.

[Bigduke6]

Wicky,

Fair comment, but at minimum that doesn't excuse the writer of the article from getting the practicality, or perhaps better the cost-efficiency of the weapon very wrong.

At maximum, commitment of resources towards development of a new munition guided by sattelites in a urban war against insurgents, falls into the same category as the Germans' pouring resources into Tiger tanks: a weapons manufacturing decision hugely wasteful of limited resources.

So direct answer yes, I would argue that arguement holds true for jet aircraft and rockets in WW2. Hindsight tells us the resources would have been better spend (say) on better and more numerous rocket-propelled AT weapons.

Jets may not quite fall into that category because as is well known they might have had a huge effect had they been used early on as interceptors, but you get my point, I think.

After all, weapons development is fine, and certainly there will be another war. Still, the name of the game is winning the war that you are in, and wasting resources isn't a good way to do that.

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

While I do not want to get into a debate with you regarding your cost/benefit analysis of a homicide bomber, I do think your comparison of such to a GMLRS is flawed.

If a tactical unit is under fire from an enemy in a structure, a U.S. "launched" homicide bomber would be inappropriate and most likely unable to kill the enemy. On the other hand, a GMLRS round should do nicely.

Likewise, an insurgent "launched" homicide bomber could probably not be stopped by a GMLRS round. In fact, the vast majority of insurgent homicide bombers target civilian - soft - targets. Not hardened tactical combat units.

The two weapons systems are not meant to either perform the same mission or to fight each other. (Comparing a T-72 to an Abrams would be appropriate at some levels, as would comparing the cost of an RPG-7 to a Bradley.)

So, as accurate (or not) as your analysis may be, it is not an agument that can be used effectively with regards to the GMLRS system.

Regards,

Ken

[Bigduke6]

Just my opinion.

[flamingknives]

Perhaps it's my opinion that it's the greatest thing since the pointy stick, but if I were to wax lyrical about I would think it polite to provide reasons and discuss the same, if I were posting on a discussion forum.

[Bigduke6]

FK,

I thought I had put enough verbiage out there for people to chew on.

Ultimately the question is one of taxonomy: How do you define things? The definition we're groping for here is "What's the definition of a good/useful/efficient weapon?"

My arguement is that the GMLRS is not a good etc. weapon, as it is wasteful of resources. Since the opposition in the war has ways of killing people too, and one of them is a suicide bomber, I thought good way to illustrate how wasteful the GMLRS is of resources, is to compare it to the cost of a insurgent suicide bomber.

Sure the two "systems" are not perfectly comparable. But then, no weapon really is. Compare T-34 and Panther, and the conclusion on which tank was better is all over the map. It all comes down to how you define "good".

My definition of a good weapon includes the obligation of the weapon to contribute usefully towards winning the war. If it is so wasteful as to detract, then it is not a useful weapon.

My contention is the money spent developing the GMLRS would have been a whole lot better spent on non-military effort. My suggestion was spies, bribes, police, stuff like that. After all, it's not like the US military has no precision-guided munitions. What we're talking about is just the newest and fluffiest one.

My further contention is that fielding such a weapon creates an imperative to use it, and further to continue to develope bigger and better weapons along the same lines. Which is all well and good, if the tactics the weapon supports are valid.

I think the validity of depending on precision-guided munitions in a mostly urban insurgency is at least questionable. In general, weapons do not defeat insurgencies. Intelligence, police work, bribes, and money defeat insurgencies.

Since the US effort to supress the insurgency in Iraq is less than successful, I think it is fair to conclude the US is spending too much money on weapons like the GMLRS, and too little on spies, police work, bribes, etc. etc.

Therefore I argue the GMLRS is a big fat waste of money, and I contend the news report advertising it as the greatest thing since sliced MREs is misleading.

But if you think the GMLRS development program will produce results superior to my suggestiona, if you think that "news report" at the beginning of this thread gives a critical (as opposed to cheerleading) impression of the weapon's utility, then I'm sure you'll make one hell of a post.