is bombing about as cheap as shelling for them? Or is precision of the modern long range artillery inherently less than of the laser guided bombs, and they are afraid to miss? Or do they have political reasons for why bombing is a nicer thing to do than keeping the mobile artillery within shooting range of the neighborhoods of the people they don’t like?
If you believe that Israelis randomly bomb “neighborhoods of people they don’t like”, you’d have a good point.
where does my OP imply that they randomly bomb anybody? Quite the opposite, it is entirely focused on the issue of precision targeting of just the people that they don’t like, in their own neighborhoods. E.g. like Ahmed Yassin - Wikipedia got hit with a missile from a helicopter.
And I am asking, why do they use bombs and missiles instead of artillery for the purpose?
A GPS-guided precision artillery round has a CEP of less than 10 meters – meaning 50% of the shots will be within 30 feet or so of the target. A Hellfire missile has a CEP that’s somewhere in the neighborhood of a meter.
An artillery round is going to throw an awful lot of shrapnel everywhere, because that’s what it is designed to do. A Hellfire does not.
For anyone else who didn’t know what CEP stands for: Circular error probable - Wikipedia
so precision difference is pretty big. Got it, thanks.
Planes can get to where the ordinance is needed faster than ground bound assets, can’t they? It takes a little bit of time to transport, unpack and setup the classic howitzer type artillery.
They already have the planes, pilots, and bombs, so it might be more economical to just “shoot what they brung”, even if the theoretical per-shell cost of tube artillery was cheaper. Also there’s a pilot in the plane and he can see what he’s shooting at at all times, being in the sky and all, while a howitzer crew can only see as far as the next hilltop. A considerable advantage if precision is what you want.
yeah, but that’s why I am discussing the self-propelled ones. E.g. this thing XM2001 Crusader - Wikipedia seems to have 30 miles range. Or do you think that accurately aiming and shooting such cannon is a relatively slow process as well, in addition to it being inaccurate as discussed upthread?
Slight correction. Early versions of the Hellfire are optimized for armor penetration via their shaped charge warhead. A number of the latest version have “enhanced” fragmentation. A tungsten carbide band (pre-fragmented) is bonded to the missile skin around the diameter of the high explosive.
There are a bunch of factors that can affect the decision of which weapon to use. For instance, laser guided weapons need a laser a LOT closer to the target than the theoretical max range of an artillery piece. And since it’s dangerous to put people in on the ground to illuminate a target, the best choice for illumination is likely to be an aircraft. And, if your’re going to send an aircraft anyway…
and israelis are already several years into their own technology for smart bombs (both plane- and battlefield-launched.) smart artillery is still the province of the kanskis and the germans.
I think that the OP is under the mistaken impression that the Israelis rely entirely on airborne bombing against the Palestinians.
This is absolutely not the case, as rocket fire across the Gaza border is responded to using everything from static and mobile artillery, mortars, gunships and indeed aerial bombing. I suppose that it depends on what resources whoever is tasked to respond to the threat has at hand at the moment, and what restrictions he is under regarding collateral damage.
Huh. I hadn’t even realized that smart-artillery existed yet.
Neat.
It does, but I’m thinking a smart bomb is easier (and cheaper) to make from existing stocks than a smart shell.
Take a bog standard Mk. 82 iron bomb, glue a laser receiver on the nose and directional fins on the tail and it’s ready for a precision drop using any plane. Replace the laser receiver with a GPS and you don’t even need target designation (though that involves knowing where the target is before the plane takes off).
By comparison, standard arty shells don’t come with directional fins and it’s probably pretty difficult to add some to existing shells.
But that’s leaving out a big part of the cost calculation. The cost of the aircraft’s flight. Fuel and maintenance has got to cost a lot more than a guided artillery shell surely?
Just found this info too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1156_Precision_Guidance_Kit. $3,000 isn’t too much.
Probably, but it’s a sunk cost anyway - the maintenance guys get paid whether they service a plane or sit on their asses, the jet fuel has already been bought and stockpiled. Might as well use it.
Besides arty guns need maintenance too, don’t they ?
The program got cannedapparently.
As mentioned before, the airplane has some added value from having much longer effective range than the artillery. An airplane can drop a bomb on a target from farther away than any mobile artillery piece can fire, even before you include the fact that the plane can travel at hundreds of miles an hour, increasing its effective range of fire coverage considerably over an artillery piece.
That said, modern militaries use both airplanes and conventional artillery (not to mention rocket artillery like the MLRS system). You keep a variety of tools and use whatever is best for the given job.