Squad uses Javelin in the field to take out insurgent vehicle

[Capt. Toleran]

Preview of things to come in CMSF:

http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=true&token=62a_1176937754&p=57253&s=1

[Severin]

Well that was a good use of 100 grand. I suppose this would have been good for that "war whoop" thread.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Severin:

Well that was a good use of 100 grand. I suppose this would have been good for that "war whoop" thread.

I've always found it funny how people complain about using weapons systems. To my mind it would be a waste of 100 grand if it was left on a shelf for years and then thrown away because it had reached its shelf life. The cost comes up front when you build the thing, not when you fire it. If you fire it successfully and it achieves some goal then I suppose it has been money well spent.

[John Kettler]

Capt. Toleran,

Egad! What kind of camera did they use? A 1 pixel model? Makes YouTube video look clear. As you know, that's an achievement!

Severin,

Is it the Javelin missile only that costs $100K, or is it the missile and sight system combined?

For comparison the original TOW was $5K in then year dollars per missile (sans launcher and sight) in the early 1980s.

Cpl Steiner,

I don't know what other weapons the troops involved had, nor what was in that vehicle we saw blown to smithereens by the Javelin, but as a general rule, I think firing Javelins at cars, if that's what that was, is an ill advised use of an expensive resource. Mind, all bets are off if it's a carfull of explosives or explosive armed insurgents about to burst through the gates. That's different, and I only wish something similar had been available to stop that big Mercedes truck bomb that flattened the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Just as the Tigerfibel told the crews not to shell what they could machine gun, and not to machine gun what they could run over or crush, in order to conserve munitions and money, so, too, does it make sense to not kill ants (cars) with sledgehammers (Javelins), unless there's some pressing reason.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

To my mind it would be a waste of 100 grand if it was left on a shelf for years and then thrown away because it had reached its shelf life. The cost comes up front when you build the thing, not when you fire it. If you fire it successfully and it achieves some goal then I suppose it has been money well spent.

Depends on if the spent weapon has to be replaced by another weapon of the kind, before it would have been replaced due to reaching the shelf age. Which depends on other things, like the actual usage rate of the weapon vs. the expected usage rate (expenditure vs. stockpile).

In the current situation, use of Javelins for New Year's fireworks would probably be quite reasonable - BUT YOU NEVER KNOW! And a modern missile has more parts than just the warhead in it. Probably the circuits can be recycled.

[Redwolf]

It's $130,000 per shot, and while the ammunition would expire sooner or later the missile that has been shot now is getting replaced now and the whole system probably probably gets dumped at a time that is not identical to the missile shelf life.

The effective cost of this action was at least half of the $130,000, aka $65,000.

[Capt. Toleran]

I had thoughts similar to those above... but it was kinda funny to see technology in action, a quick-fix enabled by science and resources. It was humorous in a macabre sort of way, and yep, that would have been perfect for my war whoop thread.

[Flanker15]

What was going on in the video? Were they training or something? If that was a real target (with people in it) why were they randomly shooting and cheering?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Is it the Javelin missile only that costs $100K, or is it the missile and sight system combined?

For comparison the original TOW was $5K in then year dollars per missile (sans launcher and sight) in the early 1980s.

The expensive parts of the sights are on the missile, they go onto the ride.

The TOW by comparison leave everything with the gunner and only has a optical tracker on it's back. It's harder to use but also more powerful (top attack not counted, just warhead power).

You have to understand that the Javelin as it was invented isn't meant to be shot, ever. The Javelin goes to infantry units that are not supposed to meet tanks, ever. Enemy tanks are supposed to be dealt with by other arms, or if infantry battalions are hit by their dedicated anti-tank units - which use TOW by better trained soldiers.

The Javelin is only meant to be an easy to use last-ditch defense in case you get run over unexpectedly.

When the Javelin is fired at non-vehicle targets you even turn off most of the fancy targeting, but all the systems still go on the ride and WOOSH.

How many college years is $130,000?

BTW, some people quote $80,000 per shot.

[tiny_tanker]

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that.

That price also seems way to high. I know a Hellfire missile only costs around $50k and its a larger more expensive weapon type.

[Sirocco]

I've seen one or two videos with Javelin use. There isn't a cheap man portable big HE launcher available? I'm assuming there isn't as these wouldn't be in Afghanistan otherwise.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that.

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch?

[flamingknives]

Hellfire doesn't have an imaging infrared sensor in the nose, and has been in production for a good while, so there are some economies there. Plus its bigger, so you've got more room and mass for structure.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that.

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

It is true that the Javelin was primarily designed to take out enemy tanks by guys who weren't supposed to see the tanks, therefore having one around was pretty much an insurance policy. And a VERY good one at that. A rampaging platoon of T-80s, for example, could cause millions of Dollars worth of destruction to a Stryker or Bradley platoon even if it never scratched the hairs of even one soldier. Javelin gives Bradley guys a means of getting rid of their problem without risking the Bradley's and it gives the Stryker and light guys probably their only immediate means of destroying enemy armor since their vehicles aren't capable of doing it. From a cost standpoint, a couple hundred grand to take out a couple million bucks worth of enemy equipment *and* preserve millions of bucks worth of your own equipment offers a fantastic cost:benefit ratio.

What the Javelin was not supposed to do was blow up pickup trucks or take out a sniper on a rooftop. It can do these things VERY well, and therefore it is a combat effective use of the weapon, but from a cost standpoint... egads. Yet another example of how we are going to go bankrupt long before we get the upper hand on the enemy. Gadgets are great when they are used within their cost benefit parameters, not great at all when they aren't.

Remember... the fall of the Soviet Union (when it fell) is largely credited to the arms race. The Soviets literally went bankrupt trying to "keep up with the Joneses" as they say. What can happen to the Soviets is a simple economic reality of life. The Soviets didn't even believe in the market forces that are behind it, but that didn't stop it from biting them in the ass. We, in the West, firmly believe in these principles so you do the math

Steve

[Sergei]

Having now watched the video, why didn't they just keep firing at it with every rifle? The rate of fire of what by the voices at the beginning must be a squad or more sounds very low. I don't think the car would have made it.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that.

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch? </font>

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that.

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch? </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that.

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch? </font>

[flamingknives]

In the British Army they tend to use the CLU as an observation device. If the US army does as well, they probably would have been using it to look at the vehicle to start with.

[dog of war]

is the life of a soldier not worth more than this

during the falklands war the british used milan anti-tank missiles to take out argentine machinegun bunkers, small price if it meant not having to rush the bunker

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Severin:

Well that was a good use of 100 grand. I suppose this would have been good for that "war whoop" thread.

When you care enough to send the very best.

[Battlefront.com]

CLU is absolutely used as a "peeping tom" device at night.

is the life of a soldier not worth more than this

A pricetag can not be put on the value of a Human life, but things still cost money. The US economy is running in the red, and has been for years. The billions of Dollars being spent on the war in Iraq are not being spent cleaning up from Katrina, helping the Northeast clean up after a whopper of a storm, working to fix Medicaid/Medicare, etc. There have been cutbacks on law enforcement programs, criminals are let out due to cost problems of keeping them locked up, some criminals aren't even prosecuted because of money, etc. If there were plenty of money to go around, then there would be no problem. Let the military have everything it wants at any price.

But the reality is we do not have enough money and spending hundreds of thousands of Dollars to take out a truckload of disposible youth with $300 worth of weaponry in what is likely a stolen vehicle is not a cost effective way to deal with the problem in the big picture sense. As I said before, we spent the Soviet Union into its grave... don't be so sure it can't happen to us. Technically the US Federal Government is already bankrupt and over 50% of its debt is owned by foreign nations.

Having said that, none of this matters to thsoe soldiers. It's not their fault that their government put them there. It's not their fault that they found themselves in a position where a very expensive weapon was the solution instead of something more cost effective. So if they felt that was the best tool to get the job done... great, use it. But I hope someone higher up is thinking about how to get a more sustainable and fiscally responsible solution to tactical problems like this. Javelin is like using fine silk as toilet paper.

Steve

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But I hope someone higher up is thinking about how to get a more sustainable and fiscally responsible solution to tactical problems like this.

Steve

I doubt it Steve . The Afghan and Iraq Theaters are Light Infantry battlefields; the heavy units should have been withdrawn a few years ago which would have (and still would) dramatically reduce costs. I have no clue what the Generals are thinking.

[ April 22, 2007, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Sirocco]

I haven't watched the video, but it makes no sense to me that we can't field a cost effective solution to mid range tactical targets after all this time in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're practically throwing sports cars at relatively insignificant targets. On a war footing we should have fielded something more appropriate by now. No blame on the infantrymen on the ground for using the tools at hand.