User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 6:48:51 PM EDT
[#1]
It is a start.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:23:30 PM EDT
[#2]
We should just go back to dumb bombs & just obliterate entire grid squares...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:25:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We should just go back to dumb bombs & just obliterate entire grid squares... As a former gunbunny, I approve of this message. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:26:32 PM EDT
[#4]
The Fog of War is real and persistent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:28:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Seems like it might be easier to spoof electronically....
Conversely, by the time you made a receiver that would actually be robust and "integrity-reliable" enough for is job, would it really be cheaper than GPS or laser-based systems? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:47:50 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 8:12:47 PM EDT
[#7]
I think it could be used for some munitions, but not all... Having weapons with their own systems is for sure a redundant measure we would want in a time of war. However, in places like Syria and Iraq, these types of munitions would be very useful...
It's nuts to spend $1m every time you want to whack a guy in a hut. WWIII however is another story. We should have options for both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 8:23:00 PM EDT
[#8]
In the scenario described by Snee, today's guided or "smart bombs" could be replaced with bombs that simply receive targeting info from other sensors, like F-35s or E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.
Essentially, the "smart" part of the weapon's guidance would remain on the ship, plane, or other sensor node that fired them, instead of living on the missile and being destroyed with each blast. So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 9:45:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? My thought exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 9:47:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the scenario described by Snee, today's guided or "smart bombs" could be replaced with bombs that simply receive targeting info from other sensors, like F-35s or E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.
Essentially, the "smart" part of the weapon's guidance would remain on the ship, plane, or other sensor node that fired them, instead of living on the missile and being destroyed with each blast. Yeah, dumbest idea ever. Written by a fucking retard that doesn't know anything about anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 9:47:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My thought exactly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? My thought exactly. I'll need to see a PowerPoint first...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:22:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like it might be easier to spoof electronically.... Conversely, by the time you made a receiver that would actually be robust and "integrity-reliable" enough for is job, would it really be cheaper than GPS or laser-based systems? The central question is secure communications. It's baffling how we can hope to rely on systems dependent on secure communications. Everyone else in the world |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:29:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The central question is secure communications. It's baffling how we can hope to rely on systems dependent on secure communications. Everyone else in the world Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems like it might be easier to spoof electronically.... Conversely, by the time you made a receiver that would actually be robust and "integrity-reliable" enough for is job, would it really be cheaper than GPS or laser-based systems? The central question is secure communications. It's baffling how we can hope to rely on systems dependent on secure communications. Everyone else in the world Do you think we don't rely on secure communications every day all day long? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:38:30 AM EDT
[#14]
We've sure come a long way, just in my lifetime. As long as we're getting better, I approve.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:41:56 AM EDT
[#15]
Instead of bombs, deploy bums. Just throw illegals out if planes with dynamite shoved up their ass.
. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:39:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Instead of bombs, deploy bums. Just throw illegals out if planes with dynamite shoved up their ass. . Won't work, they always find a way to come back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:41:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Or you could, you know, use large naval artillery to shoot over said horizon with dumb projectiles and save billions.
We could put these guns on ships, and then send them to battle. WE CAN CALL THEM BATTLESHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:46:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We should just go back to dumb bombs & just obliterate entire grid squares... 
But I'm a big fan if this.... 
We stopped winning wars when we stopped fighting them in a manner to utterly destroy oir enemies and reduce them to complete devastation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:55:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the scenario described by Snee, today's guided or "smart bombs" could be replaced with bombs that simply receive targeting info from other sensors, like F-35s or E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.
Essentially, the "smart" part of the weapon's guidance would remain on the ship, plane, or other sensor node that fired them, instead of living on the missile and being destroyed with each blast. 2. Instead of "auto detect" select "businessinsider.com" and have it translate the article into English. 3. Drink some alcohol. 4. Step 3 can't be stressed enough. 5. Now go back and read the article and see if it makes more sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:55:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Instead of bombs, deploy bums. Just throw illegals out if planes with dynamite shoved up their ass. . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:59:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or you could, you know, use large naval artillery to shoot over said horizon with dumb projectiles and save billions. We could put these guns on ships, and then send them to battle. WE CAN CALL THEM BATTLESHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:02:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, dumbest idea ever. Written by a fucking retard that doesn't know anything about anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the scenario described by Snee, today's guided or "smart bombs" could be replaced with bombs that simply receive targeting info from other sensors, like F-35s or E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.
Essentially, the "smart" part of the weapon's guidance would remain on the ship, plane, or other sensor node that fired them, instead of living on the missile and being destroyed with each blast. Yeah, dumbest idea ever. Written by a fucking retard that doesn't know anything about anything. Got to give him credit for being consistent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:04:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Even if it were real, we couldn't save billions because that would mean some huge contributor to a congressman's election campaign wouldn't be getting billions of defense dollars.
We can't let that happen... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:14:03 PM EDT
[#24]
How times have changed. During WWII, in the bombinngs of Dresden, or the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, civilian casualties were an accepted part of doing business..maybe even a hoped for one, as some thought that the remaining civilians would then pressure their government to settle.
Now it seems much of the world wrings their hands over people displaced by war. It would seem that those affected by war would pressure factions to settle. Now, rather than getting involved in stopping or fighting the war, military age males in the Middle East, or ISIS/Daesh areas flee rather than fighting for their side. The Kurds being the admirable exception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:20:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think we don't rely on secure communications every day all day long? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like it might be easier to spoof electronically.... Conversely, by the time you made a receiver that would actually be robust and "integrity-reliable" enough for is job, would it really be cheaper than GPS or laser-based systems? The central question is secure communications. It's baffling how we can hope to rely on systems dependent on secure communications. Everyone else in the world Do you think we don't rely on secure communications every day all day long? Of course we do. How secure is secure? How can that security or lines of communication be broken? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:22:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing truly destroys morale like this.... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/08/16/books/ladd-600.jpg https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/10/world-war-ii-the-fall-of-nazi-germany/w27_50424023/main_900.jpg?1420519040 But I'm a big fan if this.... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/98/45/2f9845da9c60681bca403e541af9e758.gif We stopped winning wars when we stopped fighting them in a manner to utterly destroy oir enemies and reduce them to complete devastation. How well did statistical bombing work on Britain or Germany? Poorly. British morale endured; and it took thousands of bombs to kill German factories that a single fighter could whack today. If you were trying to inflict mass murder on a civilian population, weapons that hit their targets would still be more effective than weapons that miss them. Datalinks are cheaper than top shelf sensors. They aren't cheaper than a GPS/INS chip. When fighting against a peer opponent, getting rid of terminal guidance on the weapon is not a winning idea either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:27:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, dumbest idea ever. Written by a fucking retard that doesn't know anything about anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the scenario described by Snee, today's guided or "smart bombs" could be replaced with bombs that simply receive targeting info from other sensors, like F-35s or E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.
Essentially, the "smart" part of the weapon's guidance would remain on the ship, plane, or other sensor node that fired them, instead of living on the missile and being destroyed with each blast. Yeah, dumbest idea ever. Written by a fucking retard that doesn't know anything about anything. He is pretty good at making seemingly factual statements based on brief news articles quoting partial sentences from police reports. Oh, and beating dead horses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:47:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He is pretty good at making seemingly factual statements based on brief news articles quoting partial sentences from police reports. Oh, and beating dead horses. What in the world is your problem? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:08:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? The idea (which because this is Business Insider I'll give them a pass for because they're retards) is that the Navy will spend those billions saved on bombs on a deployable sensor network that feeds data into bombs that are only smart enough to take direction from the network. Of course, take this sweet money saving network down and the Navy might not have enough of the good shit in inventory to do the job. A consideration that would have to be taken into account when planning for conflicts with enemies who are technically proficient enough to make that a real risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:17:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The idea (which because this is Business Insider I'll give them a pass for because they're retards) is that the Navy will spend those billions saved on bombs on a deployable sensor network that feeds data into bombs that are only smart enough to take direction from the network. Of course, take this sweet money saving network down and the Navy might not have enough of the good shit in inventory to do the job. A consideration that would have to be taken into account when planning for conflicts with enemies who are technically proficient enough to make that a real risk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? The idea (which because this is Business Insider I'll give them a pass for because they're retards) is that the Navy will spend those billions saved on bombs on a deployable sensor network that feeds data into bombs that are only smart enough to take direction from the network. Of course, take this sweet money saving network down and the Navy might not have enough of the good shit in inventory to do the job. A consideration that would have to be taken into account when planning for conflicts with enemies who are technically proficient enough to make that a real risk. I'm not sure how you get much cheaper than a JDAM kit. And I'm not sure how you would make a dumb (but still smart enough) bomb more simple than a JDAM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:18:44 PM EDT
[#31]
It costs a lot of money to keep 26 satellites rotated in and out of the GPS constellation...
I wonder if this is anything to do with the quantum compass the Brits invented? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:23:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It costs a lot of money to keep 26 satellites rotated ina me out of the GPS constellation... I wonder if this is anything to do with the quantum compass the Brits invented? We aren't getting rid of the GPS constellation for any foreseeable future, too many non-military users are dependent on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:24:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Cheaper bombs means we can afford more freedom!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:27:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-nifc-ca-dumb-bombs-save-billions-2017-2 ...with an integrated network of sensors allowing the Navy to see beyond the horizon, the costly sensors and guidance systems the US puts on nearly every single bomb dropped could become obsolete. I thought they would just keep doing what they do now for weapons development and procurement. Convincing the AF to go in with them as a "joint" program, come up with all the requirements that drive cost like a motherfucker, then only kick in about 10% sticking the AF with the bill that they drove the cost crazy high on. That shit has been working for them for acouple decades now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:30:14 PM EDT
[#35]
i still think we should put fuses and fins on the piles of old 16 inch shells we have and drop them from planes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:31:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how you get much cheaper than a JDAM kit. And I'm not sure how you would make a dumb (but still smart enough) bomb more simple than a JDAM. Guidance fins on old telephone poles. Serious. Think about it. They expect us to bomb them. JDAMs are sooooo 2001. Imagine how terrifying it would be to stand there talking to Mula Koba Fuckface one minute, and then -FUMP- he's stuffed 10 feet in the desert floor under a creosote post. When they get over the shock of it, just start rolling pallets of telephone poles off of c-17s and c-5s at 30k feet. Fuck em. Next month, we'll just dumb drop old cars and shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:34:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course we do. How secure is secure? How can that security or lines of communication be broken? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like it might be easier to spoof electronically.... Conversely, by the time you made a receiver that would actually be robust and "integrity-reliable" enough for is job, would it really be cheaper than GPS or laser-based systems? The central question is secure communications. It's baffling how we can hope to rely on systems dependent on secure communications. Everyone else in the world Do you think we don't rely on secure communications every day all day long? Of course we do. How secure is secure? How can that security or lines of communication be broken? Lulz |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:37:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how you get much cheaper than a JDAM kit. And I'm not sure how you would make a dumb (but still smart enough) bomb more simple than a JDAM. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? The idea (which because this is Business Insider I'll give them a pass for because they're retards) is that the Navy will spend those billions saved on bombs on a deployable sensor network that feeds data into bombs that are only smart enough to take direction from the network. Of course, take this sweet money saving network down and the Navy might not have enough of the good shit in inventory to do the job. A consideration that would have to be taken into account when planning for conflicts with enemies who are technically proficient enough to make that a real risk. I'm not sure how you get much cheaper than a JDAM kit. And I'm not sure how you would make a dumb (but still smart enough) bomb more simple than a JDAM. and what does the dumb bomb that it gets attached to cost? Just in approx. ARFCOM numbers $87, $870, $8700 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:38:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? Couple dollar chip...I'll give you a hint, they cost a lot more than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:39:15 PM EDT
[#40]
You know a B1 full of junkyard car parts could probably still really mess up a lot of stuff especially if they are going low and fast when they drop.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:48:18 PM EDT
[#41]
A sensor tells you where a target is now, not where it will be in 5 minutes when the munition arrives.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:48:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guidance fins on old telephone poles. Serious. Think about it. They expect us to bomb them. JDAMs are sooooo 2001. Imagine how terrifying it would be to stand there talking to Mula Koba Fuckface one minute, and then -FUMP- he's stuffed 10 feet in the desert floor under a creosote post. When they get over the shock of it, just start rolling pallets of telephone poles off of c-17s and c-5s at 30k feet. Fuck em. Next month, we'll just dumb drop old cars and shit. It worked for the French. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:51:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guidance fins on old telephone poles. Serious. Think about it. They expect us to bomb them. JDAMs are sooooo 2001. Imagine how terrifying it would be to stand there talking to Mula Koba Fuckface one minute, and then -FUMP- he's stuffed 10 feet in the desert floor under a creosote post. When they get over the shock of it, just start rolling pallets of telephone poles off of c-17s and c-5s at 30k feet. Fuck em. Next month, we'll just dumb drop old cars and shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how you get much cheaper than a JDAM kit. And I'm not sure how you would make a dumb (but still smart enough) bomb more simple than a JDAM. Guidance fins on old telephone poles. Serious. Think about it. They expect us to bomb them. JDAMs are sooooo 2001. Imagine how terrifying it would be to stand there talking to Mula Koba Fuckface one minute, and then -FUMP- he's stuffed 10 feet in the desert floor under a creosote post. When they get over the shock of it, just start rolling pallets of telephone poles off of c-17s and c-5s at 30k feet. Fuck em. Next month, we'll just dumb drop old cars and shit. So basically a typical airborne Infantry heavy drop? 
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Dog_(bomb) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:01:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How times have changed. During WWII, in the bombinngs of Dresden, or the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, civilian casualties were an accepted part of doing business..maybe even a hoped for one, as some thought that the remaining civilians would then pressure their government to settle. That same civilian population was also directly relevant in terms of supporting the war effort, though. Now, not so much - mostly because most nations have fuckall ability to tool up for a long term conflict. You also need to consider the possible outcomes. Non-industrialized nations, or nations that had the shit bombed out of them had little ability to strike back in kind. Now they can just turn around and wreck your shit with electronic and bio attacks |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:01:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ROFL! So basically a typical airborne Infantry heavy drop?
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Dog_(bomb) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png/467px-Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png No, just no. I don't want anything beyond the guidance system to be purpose built for this. And we're only going to drop the guided ones about 10% of the time. We'll drop concrete fill, rocks, old cars, rusty rolls of barbed wire, and just about anything else. Anytime they see a plane in the sky, they'll know there's a chance it's going to shit something out that could kill them in a grotesque manner, not to mention roll in on them with real bombs and shit. I want the dejected survivors to sit around a cold camp at night and realize we are crushing them with our trash, for funzies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:13:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryWatch out for the red one. Red usually means "beware". Could be dangerous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:13:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How well did statistical bombing work on Britain or Germany? Poorly. British morale endured; and it took thousands of bombs to kill German factories that a single fighter could whack today. If you were trying to inflict mass murder on a civilian population, weapons that hit their targets would still be more effective than weapons that miss them. Datalinks are cheaper than top shelf sensors. They aren't cheaper than a GPS/INS chip. When fighting against a peer opponent, getting rid of terminal guidance on the weapon is not a winning idea either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
Nothing truly destroys morale like this.... <a href="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/08/16/books/ladd-600.jpg" target="_blank">https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/08/16/books/ladd-600.jpg</a> <a href="https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/10/world-war-ii-the-fall-of-nazi-germany/w27_50424023/main_900.jpg?1420519040" target="_blank">https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/10/world-war-ii-the-fall-of-nazi-germany/w27_50424023/main_900.jpg?1420519040</a> But I'm a big fan if this.... <a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/98/45/2f9845da9c60681bca403e541af9e758.gif" target="_blank">https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/98/45/2f9845da9c60681bca403e541af9e758.gif</a> We stopped winning wars when we stopped fighting them in a manner to utterly destroy oir enemies and reduce them to complete devastation. How well did statistical bombing work on Britain or Germany? Poorly. British morale endured; and it took thousands of bombs to kill German factories that a single fighter could whack today. If you were trying to inflict mass murder on a civilian population, weapons that hit their targets would still be more effective than weapons that miss them. Datalinks are cheaper than top shelf sensors. They aren't cheaper than a GPS/INS chip. When fighting against a peer opponent, getting rid of terminal guidance on the weapon is not a winning idea either. Would you view the cost of reconstructing destroyed areas within a city harmful to an enemy's bottom line? Flattening a business district costs a few lives, but takes a lot of manpower and money (two essential resources in an all-out war) to make the area operational once again. Leveling entire cities could be useful, depending on the enemy and the objectives of the beligerents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:17:14 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what does a JDAM kit cost? and what does the dumb bomb that it gets attached to cost? Just in approx. ARFCOM numbers $87, $870, $8700 Iron bombs cost 2-3k each. JDAM kits cost 25k each. A strike fighter costs about 20k an hour. Depending on the source, it can take 20 to 100+ iron bombs to kill a target a smart bomb will kill every time. Iron bombs may cost about the same if only measuring the munitions' price. But dumb bombs cost much more in flight hours, and tie up more planes per target so the rate of killing over time is crippled. Two fighters with smart bombs can kill a dozen targets, with iron bombs it takes six fighters to kill one target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:25:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, just no. I don't want anything beyond the guidance system to be purpose built for this. And we're only going to drop the guided ones about 10% of the time. We'll drop concrete fill, rocks, old cars, rusty rolls of barbed wire, and just about anything else. Anytime they see a plane in the sky, they'll know there's a chance it's going to shit something out that could kill them in a grotesque manner, not to mention roll in on them with real bombs and shit. I want the dejected survivors to sit around a cold camp at night and realize we are crushing them with our trash, for funzies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ROFL! So basically a typical airborne Infantry heavy drop?
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Dog_(bomb) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png/467px-Mk44_Lazy_Dog_bomb.png No, just no. I don't want anything beyond the guidance system to be purpose built for this. And we're only going to drop the guided ones about 10% of the time. We'll drop concrete fill, rocks, old cars, rusty rolls of barbed wire, and just about anything else. Anytime they see a plane in the sky, they'll know there's a chance it's going to shit something out that could kill them in a grotesque manner, not to mention roll in on them with real bombs and shit. I want the dejected survivors to sit around a cold camp at night and realize we are crushing them with our trash, for funzies. Or fill it with ninja stars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:26:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what does a JDAM kit cost? and what does the dumb bomb that it gets attached to cost? Just in approx. ARFCOM numbers $87, $870, $8700 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So a dumb bomb....that's smart enough to share guidance data from a sensor network and make corrections in flight will be a ton cheaper than a JDAM that receives location data for a couple dollar chip and makes corrections in flight? The idea (which because this is Business Insider I'll give them a pass for because they're retards) is that the Navy will spend those billions saved on bombs on a deployable sensor network that feeds data into bombs that are only smart enough to take direction from the network. Of course, take this sweet money saving network down and the Navy might not have enough of the good shit in inventory to do the job. A consideration that would have to be taken into account when planning for conflicts with enemies who are technically proficient enough to make that a real risk. I'm not sure how you get much cheaper than a JDAM kit. And I'm not sure how you would make a dumb (but still smart enough) bomb more simple than a JDAM. and what does the dumb bomb that it gets attached to cost? Just in approx. ARFCOM numbers $87, $870, $8700 Around $25,000 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
