Cost of Cruise Missiles

[Bill Greenwood]

At about $1.41 million cost of each "Tomahawk" cruise missile , the recent strike of 59 against Syrian airfield totals $83 million, not counting of course the cost the launching ship. They were spaced 1 minute apart, fly low, 100 ft at 550 mph with a 1000 lb explosive and claimed to be 85% accurate.
An expensive hour, but no U S personnel were lost. In the old days wars were often naval battles and.or then land battles, and then air warfare and increasingly may be moving to this type of hi tech attack, with less people directly involved.

[Bill Greenwood]

This cruise missile attack reminds me of the Doolittle B-25 raid on Tokyo which did little real damage, but was physiological boost for the country. Whether this is a real deterrent to Syria air force remains to be seen.

[rwanttaja]

At about $1.41 million cost of each "Tomahawk" cruise missile , the recent strike of 59 against Syrian airfield totals $83 million, not counting of course the cost the launching ship. They were spaced 1 minute apart, fly low, 100 ft at 550 mph with a 1000 lb explosive and claimed to be 85% accurate.
An expensive hour, but no U S personnel were lost. In the old days wars were often naval battles and.or then land battles, and then air warfare and increasingly may be moving to this type of hi tech attack, with less people directly involved.
The question is, if an equivalent number of manned sorties had been launched, what is the probability that one or more aircraft would have been lost? A loss of a single Hornet would have made it almost a wash.

And, of course, there's the risk of the loss of the aircrew. Hard to put a dollar value on that. Plus, there's the prospect of a young Navy ensign being beheaded on live TV if she ejected but landed in the wrong spot.

Roll out the Tomahawks!

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

This cruise missile attack reminds me of the Doolittle B-25 raid on Tokyo which did little real damage, but was physiological boost for the country. Whether this is a real deterrent to Syria air force remains to be seen.
Well, let's look at the math, first. Each Doolittle's 16 B-25s carried 2,000 pounds of bombs. Each Tomahawks carried a thousand pounds of explosive, and there were 59 of them. So almost twice the bombload left the ships last night.

Navigation and targeting were crude in the extreme for the Doolittle raid. Navigation was basic, intelligence was minimal, and the replacement of the Norden bombsight with a 20-cent replacement affected how accurately ordnance could be delivered.

The Tomahawks, in comparison, could use a combination of inertial and GPS navigation to get very close to their targets. We haven't heard any details yet, but there's a good possibility there were UAVs overhead designating targets with lasers. Possibly even SEAL teams.

And the intel should be far, far better. It's very probable planners knew exactly where the chemical munitions were stored. And I bet each place got at least one Tomahawk. Likely, others hit the aircraft parking areas of the planes that actually performed the chemical missions. I've heard reports that the US notified the Russians of the attacks, but depending on how much time was allowed, it's likely the munitions and aircraft didn't get far. And the munitions themselves may even have been more vulnerable, outside the bunkers.

The thing on my mind is...blowing up the chemical canisters doesn't necessarily destroy the contents. Five thousand kinds of hell are drifting downwind, in Syria today. US chemical warfare munitions blew up in Bari, Italy during WWII, and caused a lot of problems to GIs and Italian civilians.

Both missions certainly were political in nature. Militarily, of course, last night's was far more effective.

Ron Wanttaja

[FlyingRon]

They weren't stressing accuracy with the Doolittle raid. They just wanted bombs on Tokyo rather than any strategic targets. The idea was to show (primarily to the US homefront) that we could bomb the Japanese mainland as they hit Pearl. The risk of the Norden's falling into enemy hands was not worth the risk. One of the planes indeed got captured by the Russians, who while technically our ally, weren't someone we were overly open with our most strategic secrets.

[rwanttaja]

Civilian post-strike imagery has been released, complete with sliders so us amateur BDA'ers can check out the results.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/index.html

One shows a remote bunker that picked up at least two Tomahawks, maybe three. Suspect that was where Assad's chemistry set was stored.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Message sent to Assad and the Russians but in my opinion a complete waste of $83 million as the runways were purposefully not targeted to make the airbase inoperative. Huh??? What kind of military strategy and logic was this? South Pacific, WW2, island to island takeover, don't bomb the Japanese airfield runways, we need them later to land our own planes? Military intelligence is way beyond an oxymoron.

[rwanttaja]

Message sent to Assad and the Russians but in my opinion a complete waste of $83 million as the runways were purposefully not targeted to make the airbase inoperative. Huh??? What kind of military strategy and logic was this? South Pacific, WW2, island to island takeover, don't bomb the Japanese airfield runways, we need them later to land our own planes? Military intelligence is way beyond an oxymoron.
Very difficult to destroy a runway to the point it cannot be used, unless you go nuclear. All you do is make craters, and with modern construction equipment, they're easy enough to fill back in again. Historically, you rarely see single raids knocking airfields out of action for any length of time. In any case, that particular airfield is probably not the only airport, let alone military airport, in Syria.

Besides, the Syrian Air Force is equipped with Russian equipment. Russian fighters are designed to operate off rough and/or roughly repaired runways, as they figured NATO would target their airfields.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

In any case, that particular airfield is probably not the only airport, let alone military airport, in Syria.
Ron Wanttaja

Of course it isn't but we're being told it was the airfield that stockpiled the chemical weapons used by the Syrian Air Force. The US attack was clearly symbolic, not strategic.

[Mayhemxpc]

The link that Ron posted speaks volumes. What was intended to be hit was hit and destroyed. As Ron pointed out subsequently, airfields are difficult to put out of service for long. Better to go for high payoff targets. The best way to put an airfield out of service for a limited time, anyway, is a mix of ground penetrating bombs and cluster-bomb units (CBUs). Neither of these is typical cruise missile payload. Aside from that, there is significant international pressure against using CBUs as the Ottawa Convention (which the US is not a party to) seems to prohibit them. Even then, a well trained military (especially one with Russian advisers) can still have the airfield at least partially mission capable in about 12 hours. Of course follow-up airstrikes would make that more difficult.

[1600vw]

The best way to take an airfield out of service. Destroy all the airplanes.

Tony

[Floatsflyer]

The best way to take an airfield out of service. Destroy all the airplanes.

Tony

Aaahhh......all those at that airbase or everyone in the country? You do see the flaw in your thinking?

[1600vw]

Aaahhh......all those at that airbase or everyone in the country? You do see the flaw in your thinking?

We have done this before. The war in Iraq we took out all airplanes. Airfields were of no use for no airplanes. We have done this many times. When we went into Kuwait, We took out all enemy aircraft there also. No flaw in my thinking. The flaw is believing we have never done this.

[Floatsflyer]

We have done this before. The war in Iraq we took out all airplanes. Airfields were of no use for no airplanes. We have done this many times. When we went into Kuwait, We took out all enemy aircraft there also. No flaw in my thinking. The flaw is believing we have never done this.

Your flawed thinking is only surpassed by your flawed memory and revisionist history.

"We" did not take out all the Iraqi airplanes. NEVER HAPPENED. Prior to the 2003 invasion, Sadam flew most of his Air Force outside the country to other countries and most of the rest were parked in underground bunker hangars. Only the tiniest number of Iraqi fighters ever left the ground.

When did "we" go into Kuwait and take out all the enemy aircraft there? What enemy aircraft? By the time "we" went into Kuwait on the ground to liberate them from the short Iraqi occupation, the Iraqi army was already fleeing back to Iraq and were famously decimated on that highway.

[1600vw]

Your flawed thinking is only surpassed by your flawed memory and revisionist history.

"We" did not take out all the Iraqi airplanes. NEVER HAPPENED. Prior to the 2003 invasion, Sadam flew most of his Air Force outside the country to other countries and most of the rest were parked in underground bunker hangars. Only the tiniest number of Iraqi fighters ever left the ground.

When did "we" go into Kuwait and take out all the enemy aircraft there? What enemy aircraft? By the time "we" went into Kuwait on the ground to liberate them from the short Iraqi occupation, the Iraqi army was already fleeing back to Iraq and were famously decimated on that highway.

More then one way to take out aircraft or airplanes. If they can not fly they are not a thread and there for taken off the battle field. Nothing flawed in that thinking. You do not have to destroy airplanes to take them out. Removing from the battle is just as good as destroying them.

[Floatsflyer]

Tony, if I've told you once, I've told you many times, please resume your medication.

[Hal Bryan]

Come on guys, you know better. This one's run its course.

- Hal

Special Guest Moderator