General discussion

Locked

Smart Bombs

By Oz_Media ·
This morning I was watching a show about tactical weaponry in the military, pretty cool toys!

They were showing the evolution of the smart bomb and the accuracy of which it was used during desert storm.

One thing they boasted was that although only 19% of the bombs used in Iran were actually smart bombs, they were accountable for 75% of successful military hits. A pretty impressive stat !

Then I thought of the flipside, if 10% were accountable for 75% of the successful hits, then that in turn would mean that 90% of the bombs used were accountable for only 25% of the successful military targets being hit! Or a 75% failure/miss rate! "oooops sorry sir, one in four is good !"

That's a lot of misses isn't it?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

23 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Review your math

by TheChas In reply to Smart Bombs

Hi Oz,

Let's take a quick look at the math here.
To make things easy, we'll use 100 bombs as the total.

If 19 smart bombs made 75% of "successful" hits, this calculates out to only 25 out of each 100 bombs used made successful hits.

So, of the 81 "conventional" bombs used that account for 25% of the hits, only 6 of these actually destroyed their intended target.

Which means that conventional bombs have a 7.4% success rate.

What is not in your information, is the actual success rate of just the smart bombs. The above assumes that the 19 smart bombs were 100% successful. If the smart bombs were only 80% effective, that would reduce the net effectiveness of the conventional bombs to 4.7%

Sort of explains why London was not destroyed by the Blitz.

Why neither Germany nor North Vietnam were destroyed by intense bombing.

The US still had to have ground troops invade Iraq in both Gulf wars in order to accomplish the military objective.

Chas

Collapse -

There is a typo there first if all

by Oz_Media In reply to Review your math

I did make a typo, it should be 10% not 19%.

Yes I did simplify the math somewhat didn't I (what a goof !), it sounded wiered at the time too.

So lets say 100 total bombs, 10 of them smart bombs and those ten bombs accounted for 75% of the accurate hits.

THat leaves 90 bombs accountable for the remaining 25% of accurate hits.

I'm still not impressed, I thought it was a little more evolved than that.

Collapse -

No worries ....

by jardinier In reply to Smart Bombs

The US is going to test its newest smart bombs in Australia (thank you John arse-licking Howard). With that degree of (in)accuracy, they should help to reduce the number of kangaroos, and with any luck, **** themselves up at the same time.

[AAP, November 5, 2004]
The United States is reportedly preparing to test new-generation weapons, including smart bombs, on Australian territory under an agreement currently under negotiation.
Canberra and Washington were currently hammering out a new defence training agreement which included multi-million upgrades to Queensland's Shoalwater Bay facility and the Northern Territory's Bradshaw training area and the Delamere Air Weapons Range, Brisbane's Courier-Mail newspaper today revealed.
According to the report, former ANZUS treaty adviser Ross Babbage, who has just returned from defence briefings in the US, revealed that tactics and cutting-edge communications would also be tested under the proposals, bringing the two nations closer together.
Professor Babbage said there would be experimentation with self-guided smart bombs and live or "dummy" bombing raids into Australia from US aircraft carriers. Smaller versions of smart bombs, which could pinpoint hinges on tanks, would also be experimented with, while Bradshaw would host extensive special operations, ground forces and surveillance training.
A joint training centre would be built to link Australian and US forces and provide real-time battlefield assessments. Prof Babbage said the public had not yet been told the significance and benefit of the training to Australian forces.
"What I can see happening is rather more than what has been revealed," Prof Babbage told the newspaper. There will be things that will be learned together, they will try completely new things."
Prof Babbage said the deal would send a strong message to the region of US support for Australia.

Collapse -

Makes you wonder

by Oz_Media In reply to No worries ....

Why countries can't test bombs in thier own country?

Are they manuifactured or developed in australia? This would make it logistically correct.

They are too dangerous to test in America due to population density? What's wrong with all those barren areas?

I am completely ignorat to why countries, almost all of them I think, test weapons in OTHER countries. I can understand weapons and rockets being deployed at sea, however I am sure the ocean life is still confused, but why in other countries?

Someone knows I'm sure.

Collapse -

Cruise missles were tested in Canada

by JamesRL In reply to Makes you wonder

Because we had a larger air weapons testing range than the US does. Its also a way to get allies on board with the program - its more difficult for a new government to rail against a new weapon, if the previous government allowed testing of it.

James

Collapse -

Population??

by CorTech In reply to Makes you wonder

Not that I'm attempting to justify it, but the article stated that they are launching them off a carrier, and most of our coastlines are pretty heavily populated. I don't know how remote your Northern Territory is, but maybe that's why they aren't testing them here.

Collapse -

The main reason

by HereInOz In reply to Makes you wonder

The reason that the US wants to test its bombs here in Australia is that the US military generally has a woeful record of hitting the wrong target, and anihilating the odd ally with misdirected ordnance.

Therefore we offer them large areas of barren land around the target, so that when they do get their co-ordinates wrong, at least they don't **** up the local school.

Mind you, it is still possible for a US pilot, in the heat of the moment, to mistake a Land Rover for a Leopard tank. Therefore I will be staying a good distance away when it all happens.

Perhaps, Jules, we could tell them that Kirribili House is the target!! With our luck the old bugger would be out jogging, or they would hit the Opera House instead. It is a house, after all.

Cheers,

Alan

Collapse -

Boom baby

by CorTech In reply to The main reason

I don't know why we'd want to practice bombing on a country we like. Why don't we practice somewhere like France??? Just kidding.

Collapse -

by TomSal In reply to The main reason

"The reason that the US wants to test its bombs here in Australia is that the US military generally has a woeful record of hitting the wrong target, and anihilating the odd ally with misdirected ordnance."

LOL!! Where do you guys come up with some of this stuff!! Good lord the anti-US spin is so thick from select people on TR you need an oxygen mask to keep from drowning in it.

But anyway...for the record every nation with a modern military has had its share fair of inaccurate weapons firing.

And about the test firing...well the atomic bomb was initially tested on US soil and that is a heck of a lot more devastating than any cruise missile or smart bomb in the current arsenal. Of course that was many decades ago, and as another poster pointed out I think the fact that australia's population density doesn't hold a candle to the population density of the US is a overwhelming no brainer, the fact that no matter how distasteful it may be for some to know, but Australia is also an ally of the US, and don't act like Australia is just helping the US out because of its "good hearted nature", they are getting support from the US in return, its a mutually beneficial relationship.

Finally, conventional weapons are tested constantly on US soil all over the US ...so why is this being made an issue of as "US has some nerve to test their weapons on another country!"...I think its laughable, because obviously some folks don't know what really is going on here.

Anyway...ugh my first day back from a long weekend getaway trip...oh joy!

later.

Collapse -

Please re-read my posting "No worries"

by jardinier In reply to

and note the following remarks:

"A joint training centre would be built to link Australian and US forces and provide real-time battlefield assessments. Prof Babbage said the public had not yet been told the significance and benefit of the training to Australian forces.
"What I can see happening is rather more than what has been revealed," Prof Babbage told the newspaper. "There will be things that will be learned together, they will try completely new things."
Prof Babbage said the deal would send a strong message to the region of US support for Australia.

I can't speak for anyone else, but you will see that I deliberately included the references to increased co-operation between Australia and the US.

Back to Community Forum
23 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums