4 ms·
> each missile typically costing more than the targets it eliminates ??? A cheap tank cost upwards of a million dollars, while a javelin would cost in the low
by rmbyrro 5y ago
> each missile typically costing more than the targets it eliminates
???
A cheap tank cost upwards of a million dollars, while a javelin would cost in the low hundreds of thousands.
"Typically", a javelin costs at least 4x less than its targets. On average, I'd argue it's probably 8-10x cheaper.
- hyperbovine 5y agoFurther down in The Fine Article, it is explained that the javelin is frequently used against pickup trucks and other low value targets.
- mabbo 5y agoThe article goes on to describe situations in Iraq where the US was firing them at pickup trucks.
- didgeoridoo 5y agoI think the “typical” target in recent American wars is a twenty year old Toyota pickup with a machine gun bolted to the bed. In that case, the Javelin is at least 10x more expensive.
- rmbyrro 5y agoAh, that makes sense then. Presumed they were used literally against tanks. But it makes sense to use against lightweight vehicles that pose somewhat similar threat against infantry.
- x3n0ph3n3 5y agoTanks are not the most frequent targets, though. Trucks and jeeps were the most common targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- adventured 5y agoThat's fine. In the context of deployed US soldiers on a battlefield, the US can trivially afford to take out trucks and jeeps with Javelins if it makes sense in the scope of harming the enemy's capabilities.
- robonerd 5y agoEven if it were true, it wouldn't necessarily matter. Cost-to-cost comparisons, while having some value, don't give the full picture. Real wars aren't wars of attrition between opponents with balanced resources. It's also hard to put a dollar value on the experienced tankers killed by those missiles. The loss of hardware is only part of that picture.
- nickff 5y agoIn addition to losses directly caused by the Javelins themselves, these missiles force the enemy to change tactics, often slowing their advance and making the battlefield safer for friendly forces (such as by destroying anti-air vehicles).
- TMWNN 5y ago>Cost-to-cost comparisons, while having some value, don't give the full picture. Real wars aren't wars of attrition between opponents with balanced resources. Israel's Iron Dome system was and is criticized for its missiles costing far more than the rudimentary Palestinian projectiles they shoot down. While true, the true measure is whether the Iron Dome missiles are worth more than the damage the Palestinian weapons would cause.
- true_religion 5y agoThere is also psychological damage to your populace to take into account. In Israel’s case, the iron dome prevents enough civilian deaths that the public and war hawk politicians don’t clamor for a “real” war against Palestine. An actual war could quickly spiral out of control if third parties intervene, and the cost of that is far greater the attrition of using a missile defense that’s too good at its job.
- theptip 5y ago> The irony of using Javelins to destroy pickup trucks and machine guns is that the roughly $80,000 Javelin missiles cost considerably more than the weapon systems they are destroying. This has reportedly has led U.S. forces to at times hold back on using the weapon in Afghanistan. This was not talking about their earlier uses vs. tanks, rather later targets when there were fewer tanks on the board.