Nations sign the ban on cluster bombs.

[Asher]

CBU-105 cost: $360,000 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm)
Hellfire cost: $58000 (http://www.redstone.army.mil/history.../HELLFIRE.html)

6 CBU-105 = $360,000 * 6 = $2.16 million

For the same money as 6 of those bombs, the military could buy 37 Hellfire missiles.

By my calculations, 6 cluster bombs need to kill at least 35 tanks to be cost effective. So how many did they kill?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm pointing out you're just counting differently. Why not count the "sub-munitions" (which are the real bombs) as their own?

Fine, let's play this argument. They used 6 smart cluster bombs.
- How much do these cost per unit?
- How much space do they take up inside a B-52?
- How many tanks did these "six" bombs destroy?
- What is the cost of other weapons to destroy these, eg Hellfire or other kinds of guided munitions?

Once you answer these relevant questions, you may have a valid argument. Until then it's laughably incomplete, like something I'd expect from an arts student.

You forgot to aks about the delivery systems, because a B-52 can;t deliver Hellfires, for example, the possibility of their loss, and loss of aircrews, fuel costs, the ability of said airframes to hover above the battlefield, and others that have yet come to mind.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


You forgot to aks about the delivery systems, because a B-52 can;t deliver Hellfires, for example, the possibility of their loss, and loss of aircrews, fuel costs, the ability of said airframes to hover above the battlefield, and others that have yet come to mind.

Can't Predators launch Hellfires?

These are all factors to consider also, but I'm fairly certain the B-52s cost more in delivery systems + fuel + aircrews than Predator.

[GePap]

A Predator

1. Carries a limited amount of missiles
2. Has a limited flight range
3. Is far more vulnerable to groundfire
4. Is slow compared to military jets

Using Predators against militants is a different things from using them against an actual army, with weapon systems capable of easily taking a predator out (given that they are in no way stealthy and are not very manuverable).

The survivability of the delivery system is a key component of any battlefield decision. In this case, a B-52 had no risks, while something like the Predator would most likely not have made it, and depending on the conditions, it might have been highly risky to send in A-10's or attack helicopters, which are the other viable delivery systems.

[Naked Gents Rut]

These are all factors to consider also, but I'm fairly certain the B-52s cost more in delivery systems + fuel + aircrews than Predator.

One loitering B-52 has the equivalent firepower of dozens (hundreds?) of Predators.

The CBU-105 (CBU stands for cluster bomb unit) carries 40 "skeet" bomblets. These "smart" bomblets are designed to self-destruct if they do not detect a valid target and deactivate within minutes if they hit the ground and do not explode.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm

So, 6 CBU-105s can disperse 240 sub-munitions. Assuming a 25% kill rate (low based on past results), this would kill 60 vehicles.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


One loitering B-52 has the equivalent firepower of dozens (hundreds?) of Predators.

It also costs more than dozens (hundreds?) of Predators, and you need to have a full crew and put their lives at risk.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
A Predator

1. Carries a limited amount of missiles
2. Has a limited flight range
3. Is far more vulnerable to groundfire
4. Is slow compared to military jets

Using Predators against militants is a different things from using them against an actual army, with weapon systems capable of easily taking a predator out (given that they are in no way stealthy and are not very manuverable).

The survivability of the delivery system is a key component of any battlefield decision. In this case, a B-52 had no risks, while something like the Predator would most likely not have made it, and depending on the conditions, it might have been highly risky to send in A-10's or attack helicopters, which are the other viable delivery systems.

Why would you make the assertion that a B-52 has no risk?

The B-52 has a distinct risk for the loss of American lives, the Predator has none.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher


Why would you make the assertion that a B-52 has no risk?

The B-52 has a distinct risk for the loss of American lives, the Predator has none.

The Iraqi systems that could have targeted a B-52 were taken out early in the war, and there were no enemy interceptors. There was no risk of enemy fire.

At the point in which the US had actionable intelligence as to the location of those units, they had a B-52 in play with these weapons and they used it. It is impossible to say whether the US would have been able to bring some other delivery method into use within the timeframe they had to neutralize this unit before they either could no longer track it was well, or before it went into some developed area, or engaged coolition forces in combat.

I would bet good money that Predator drones were a non-option because of their speed (lack thereoff) and vulnerability.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


The Iraqi systems that could have targeted a B-52 were taken out early in the war, and there were no enemy interceptors. There was no risk of enemy fire.

At the point in which the US had actionable intelligence as to the location of those units, they had a B-52 in play with these weapons and they used it. It is impossible to say whether the US would have been able to bring some other delivery method into use within the timeframe they had to neutralize this uint before they either could no longer track it was well, or before it went into some developed area, or engaged coolition forces in compbat.

I would bet good money that Predator drones were a non-option because of their speed (lack thereoff) and vulnerability.

Even so, B-52s can drop considerably cheaper ordinance as well.

The point of all of this is the US has tons of options, and it's incorrect to say the only way the US could take out a column of antiquated Iraqi tanks is with cluster bombs. The "only six!" argument is ridiculous given how pricey each single unit is.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The point of all of this is the US has tons of options, and it's incorrect to say the only way the US could take out a column of antiquated Iraqi tanks is with cluster bombs. The "only six!" argument is ridiculous given how pricey each single unit is.

It's the best way, not the only way. Good luck taking out a column of tanks with six of any other kind of munition. Or one sortie, for that matter.

[GePap]

Well, the cheapest ordinance are dumb bombs, and those are a civilian casualty nightmare waiting to happen.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


It's the best way, not the only way. Good luck taking out a column of tanks with six of any other kind of munition. Or one sortie, for that matter.

Again, why do you focus on the quantity? Do you know the size of these things and the cost?

Quantity doesn't matter, size and cost do.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, the cheapest ordinance are dumb bombs, and those are a civilian casualty nightmare waiting to happen.

Heh. Anywhere you drop cluster bombs, you should be able to drop dumb bombs.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Quantity doesn't matter, size and cost do.

Of course quantity matters. Planes can only carry a certain number of bombs. Eliminating a target with fewer bombs allows a single plane to engage more targets on a single sortie.

Anywhere you drop cluster bombs, you should be able to drop dumb bombs.

Dumb bombs are extremely inaccurate, so it takes far more of them to eliminate a target than a cluster bomb or a PGM.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Of course quantity matters. Planes can only carry a certain number of bombs.

No, you're confusing quantity with size. It's not like B-52s can carry "six bombs total", they can carry X many lbs with X many inches in their dimensions.

Dumb bombs are extremely inaccurate, so it takes far more of them to eliminate a target than a cluster bomb or a PGM.

Yet they are far cheaper.

There are also smart bombs to use, you don't need to have cluster munitions to be guided bombs...