3 ms·

As I point out in another comment, the cost of a laser guided bomb is $20K [1]. Less than the operational cost of flying the f-16 for one hour [2]. The idea tha

As I point out in another comment, the cost of a laser guided bomb is $20K [1]. Less than the operational cost of flying the f-16 for one hour [2]. The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12_Paveway_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12_Paveway_II 2. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551/cost-per-hour-to-fly-us-military-aircraft/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...

ryao 3y ago
Now I think the F-16 is prohibitively expensive. Interestingly, the A-10 costs $19,000 per hour to fly too: https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everything-you-need-know-about-10-warthog-thunderbolt-ii.html https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everyth... Lets say we have 6 targets and a 2 hour mission. Let us assume that the F-16 and A-10 both cost $20,000 per hour to fly. That would be $160,000 for the F-16. Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. That would be $40,780 for the A-10. Oh, and the F-35 costs about $40,000 per hour to fly. For that, the same mission costs $200,000. > The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy. Unfortunately, the math does not favor those munitions.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  > Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. Except they don't don't $1 each. They cost $136 : https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost That's not counting wear on the gun. And if flying low to strafe results in even one additional loss, all those savings are even more than offset. But more importantly, this whole comparison is moot because for every hour flying a combat mission, a pilot is flying many more hours in training.
  - ryao 3y ago
    > Regular rounds fired by the GAU 8 also known as PGU-14/B Armour Piercing Incendiary Depleted Uranium Rounds comes at a hefty price of 136.70 dollars a pop. While those are pricy, the military does not fire those from the A-10 anymore: > Armor-piercing incendiary rounds “go through soft targets very cleanly and don’t do much damage unless they hit a critical component,” said the former A-10 pilot. “The type of targets in Iraq and Afghanistan did not warrant using API.” https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-incendiary-rounds/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-... Non-incendiary rounds are much cheaper. I cannot find an exact price on it, but I imagine that they are negligible in comparison to fuel.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      They don't cost a dollar a round, I'll guarantee you. Standard ball .50 BMG ammo is $3 a round on a good day, incindiary is even more than that. I'm very curious how you got this figure of $1 for armor piercing incindiary 30mm shells.
      - ryao 3y ago
        Whatever the cost is, expect it to be neligible, such that even if it were $10 per round, it would not make a difference. That being said, I do not think the cost to the USAF is public. I picked $1 since no figure that was reasonable would make any difference.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        It costs $53 dollars a round, not $10: https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY10/PROC/F/352010.pdf https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY10/PROC/F/352010.p... And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
        ryao 3y ago
        The original article said that they used a mix of those rounds and dummy rounds, so the costs are actually lower, but lets assume $53 per round: 3900 rounds per minute / (60 minutes per hour) * 2 seconds per shot * 6 shots * $53 = $41340, compared to $20,000 * 6 = $120,000. The total cost is half for the A-10 after you add the cost of fuel. However, keep in mind that this does not consider that they also fire the "dummy" ammunition that is just regular bullets. > And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons. Assuming that a nation is able to keep funding these missions during peace time, then the only real concern would be the costs during war time, which will undoubtedly be prohibitive. That being said, the A-10 has a history of doing far more in CAS roles than other aircraft. That is because the A-10 is simply better at it.
  - ryao 3y ago
    > And if flying low to strafe results in even one additional loss, all those savings are even more than offset. If flying low saves the life of 1 additional solider, it would be worth it.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      And conversely, if precision munitions saves the life of 1 more soldier than strafing, it's worth it.
      - ryao 3y ago
        An A-10 could drop those in addition to firing bullets. Intentionally limiting capabilities by getting rid of the A-10 in favor of the F-35 would be endangering lives. :/

ryao 3y ago

Now I think the F-16 is prohibitively expensive. Interestingly, the A-10 costs $19,000 per hour to fly too: https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everything-you-need-know-about-10-warthog-thunderbolt-ii.html https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everyth... Lets say we have 6 targets and a 2 hour mission. Let us assume that the F-16 and A-10 both cost $20,000 per hour to fly. That would be $160,000 for the F-16. Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. That would be $40,780 for the A-10. Oh, and the F-35 costs about $40,000 per hour to fly. For that, the same mission costs $200,000. > The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy. Unfortunately, the math does not favor those munitions.

Manuel_D 3y ago
> Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. Except they don't don't $1 each. They cost $136 : https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost That's not counting wear on the gun. And if flying low to strafe results in even one additional loss, all those savings are even more than offset. But more importantly, this whole comparison is moot because for every hour flying a combat mission, a pilot is flying many more hours in training.
- ryao 3y ago
  > Regular rounds fired by the GAU 8 also known as PGU-14/B Armour Piercing Incendiary Depleted Uranium Rounds comes at a hefty price of 136.70 dollars a pop. While those are pricy, the military does not fire those from the A-10 anymore: > Armor-piercing incendiary rounds “go through soft targets very cleanly and don’t do much damage unless they hit a critical component,” said the former A-10 pilot. “The type of targets in Iraq and Afghanistan did not warrant using API.” https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-incendiary-rounds/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-... Non-incendiary rounds are much cheaper. I cannot find an exact price on it, but I imagine that they are negligible in comparison to fuel.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    They don't cost a dollar a round, I'll guarantee you. Standard ball .50 BMG ammo is $3 a round on a good day, incindiary is even more than that. I'm very curious how you got this figure of $1 for armor piercing incindiary 30mm shells.
    - ryao 3y ago
      Whatever the cost is, expect it to be neligible, such that even if it were $10 per round, it would not make a difference. That being said, I do not think the cost to the USAF is public. I picked $1 since no figure that was reasonable would make any difference.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        It costs $53 dollars a round, not $10: https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY10/PROC/F/352010.pdf https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY10/PROC/F/352010.p... And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
        ryao 3y ago
        The original article said that they used a mix of those rounds and dummy rounds, so the costs are actually lower, but lets assume $53 per round: 3900 rounds per minute / (60 minutes per hour) * 2 seconds per shot * 6 shots * $53 = $41340, compared to $20,000 * 6 = $120,000. The total cost is half for the A-10 after you add the cost of fuel. However, keep in mind that this does not consider that they also fire the "dummy" ammunition that is just regular bullets. > And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons. Assuming that a nation is able to keep funding these missions during peace time, then the only real concern would be the costs during war time, which will undoubtedly be prohibitive. That being said, the A-10 has a history of doing far more in CAS roles than other aircraft. That is because the A-10 is simply better at it.
- ryao 3y ago
  > And if flying low to strafe results in even one additional loss, all those savings are even more than offset. If flying low saves the life of 1 additional solider, it would be worth it.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    And conversely, if precision munitions saves the life of 1 more soldier than strafing, it's worth it.
    - ryao 3y ago
      An A-10 could drop those in addition to firing bullets. Intentionally limiting capabilities by getting rid of the A-10 in favor of the F-35 would be endangering lives. :/