4 ms·
I don't know why you would discount ATACMS. Technically that's artillery, and end-to-end it's cheaper than aircraft.
by gozur88 11y ago
I don't know why you would discount ATACMS. Technically that's artillery, and end-to-end it's cheaper than aircraft.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y agoWhile I don't have number in front of me, my instinct is that ATACMS is more expensive and less flexible on a per target basis than aerial bombardment using an A-10.
- dragonwriter 11y agoEven if so, it might still be cheaper to keep units equipped, trained, and operational with it between actual combat missions, which might make it more cost effective on a long-term analysis. Combat aircraft are expensive even when they aren't fighting.
- gozur88 11y agoIt's not more expensive when you consider the entire system: training, aircraft maintenance, air traffic control, time-on-station, wear and tear on the airframe, top cover in contested airspaces, etc. Plus the occasional loss. During peace time an ATACMS sits in its sealed container doing nothing and requiring no maintenance, whereas pilots require constant training. Maybe if we had a WW II style conflict where you were doing three or four productive sorties a day, but I can't imagine we'll see a conflict like that again