GMLRS: "the 60-kilometer sniper rifle"

[luderbamsen]

Bigduke6,

You have some valid points, but in my honest opinion you're comparing apples to oranges, plus throwing in some baked beans and peanutbutter for good measure.

I agree wholeheartedly that precision guided munitions cannot defeat an insurgency, and you're certainly not the first to note the apparent lacking ability of the US to deal with a non-conventional enemy.

But then again you cannot judge the validity of a weapons system solely on how useful it is in Iraq. Surely, GMLRS isn't the answer to all issues in Iraq, but then again Iraq isn't the only war in the world.

Otherwise, you should also argue that the US Navy should get rid of all its anti-submarine weapons and sensors because the insurgents in Iraq don't have submarines.

What GMLRS provides is the ability for ground units to deliver precision strikes without relying on airpower (which may not always be availible for a number of reasons). The question then is wether such a capability is generally (not specifically in Iraq) a substantial advantage for ground units and if it's worth the cost (which we still don't know).

Personally, I agree that the US military should probably save some money on conventional warfare and spend more on the capabilities you have mentioned, but I fail so see why GMLRS should be singled out.

And you most certainly cannot judge the pros and cons of GMLRS on the quality of the article, or lack thereof.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

Oh, absolutely - I understand you're comparing the utility of weapon with regards to its resource consumption.

Here's my example: I can kill with a rock. They're plentiful, indigenous to many areas, and quite effective when used against a skull. Pretty much the lowest resource consumption per kill. (Except for renewable clubs: grow some trees and harvest clubs as needed. Hmmm, or buckets of water? Force your opponent's head into the bucket, wait 5 minutes, reuse the bucket of water. Or drink it.)

Now, I'll let you create a force with as many rocks as you'd like. I'll sit on the hill with a resource hog Abrams. Eventually, I will die. I will run out of ammo, and fuel. Given enough rock-wielding true-believers, I will be overmatched. One of me in exchange for hundreds to thousands. All your rocks will, of course, be reused.

What cost in resources do you give to the human? Is it the same for both sides?

So, the obvious point here is that the cost of the weapon must be balanced by its effectiveness - for that particular purpose you're examining.

How good would a T-34 be in a future orbital batttle?

Regards,

Ken

[Bigduke6]

A T-34 would of course clean the skies in sub-orbital battle, as it is such a studly tank the sattelites will shut themselves down out of respect.

luderbamsen and c3k,

Sure, the moment you disconnect the weapon from the context of an insurgency, you've got me. But the article frames the weapon's effectiveness in Iraq. That to me is absurd, if nothing else because of all the other precision-guided munitions out there that have not produced a successful result against the insurgency. Why make a big deal about one more?

The rock/M1A1 analogy is pretty funny. If I was in charge of the cavemen, I would just wait for the M1A1 crew to get out of the tank, and then bean them with the rocks. They want to sit on the hill, let 'em, those tankers gotta eat sooner or later.

Or maybe distract the tankers with a young Raquel Welch in a fur bikini. (This is prehistoric we're talking about, after all.)

[Bigduke6]

Yeah, I'll take that over an M1A1 any day.

[Sergei]

But if you took her inside the M1A1, you could have the cake and eat it too.

[birdstrike]

Mmmm... cake

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

Ahhhhh. Well done.

Ken

[dan/california]

Back to the original topic of this thread. This article says in excess of 120 GMLRS unitary warheads have been fired in Iraq so far. Sounds operational to me, and very bad for Syrian strongpoints.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20061108.aspx?comments=Y

[civdiv]

BigDuke I will say that the troops in Iraq are thrilled with this new capability. The accuracy and responsiveness are better than any system they have. And the reality is, we don't know what the thing costs. As someone pointed out, the cost guess may be based on research and development costs, and as more are produced, the costs will come down.

Planes break, bombs hang, and the weather doesn't always cooperate. And a success rate well over 95% (The 95% is based on both weapons that won't fire, ie; duds, and weapons that stray just a few feet from the target.) is pretty darned good.

So you got some jihadist firing at you, are you going to send some soldier/marines in, to what is freqeuntly a booby-trapped building? What's a life worth? Most are carrying around 400 grand of SGLI, plus if they die their families get their salary for life, and their kids goto state schools for free, not to mention their health benefits. And we are talking about a life here. But in sheer monitary costs the death of a married military person with two kids is definately going to cost more than a million dollars.

And in the one example of multiple firings we had what, 6 fired that killed 48 terrorists? And in the video it wasn't just one guy, it says 'insurgentS', so more than one was taken out.

So, IMHO, your cost-benefit analysis is silly. And rolling foreign or military policy vis-a-vis Iraq is even sillier. Some squad leader is under fire and he and his men are in danger. And 2 minutes later the threat is dead, and they are all safe. I'm sure he would have problems with your argument.