Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Smart Bombs

0 helpful
23 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

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? :p

23 replies

by thechas

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

by oz_media

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.

by jardinier

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, blow 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.

by oz_media

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.

by jamesrl

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

by cortech

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.

by hereinoz

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 blow 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

by ippirate

Oz,

One of the major underlying factors to the type of munition employed is the target itself. In the majority of the cases sited above, these were either well defined or high risk targets. To put is simpler well defined would be something like a bunker with specific and well known coordinates. The latter would be a munitions depot beside a mosque. Smart bombs are utilized in these situations due to the precision of the weapon and the limitation of secondary damages, casualties.

To "dumb" bombs. You have to start the thought of these off with perspective. Remember, these weapons include everything from what you see falling from the belly of a B-52 to what is shown on the bottom of an A-10. These weapons are utilized in scenarios where risk/cost/gain analysis is to constrained for precision weapons (i.e. $10,000 to destroy that artillery piece or 5x $1,000) or when collateral damage is low concern (such as engaging a field of armor or long stretch of radar). In both of these cases it comes to pure math. Do I waste 10,000 per tank or drop 5, for a total of 5,000 spent with a known success factor of 98.2% with a spread that wide.

by oz_media

I figured what I think is the obvious, 'dumb' bombs would be used in more of a carpet bomb scenarion whereas smart bombs would be used to strategically remove specific targets in congested/key areas.

In that same sense though, MANY of the weapons video shots from Gulf war are with a smart bomb taking out a building/target in a big dusty area with nothing else in sight.

Many 'dumb' bombs were recovered in heavily populated areas and streets, by US army as well as children playing in the area.

I drew the conclusion from the video footage shows, where they had a silo type building in the middle of nowhere, and the cool camera followign the smart bomb right into the mail slot of the silo structure. Impressive, but necessary?

They then showed all the children playign near a massive unexploded bomb laying a few feet from the schoolyard fence.

now I know that you are completely right in th propsed use and proper use of such weapons and I agree with you, but this footage form the Gulf War showed the exact opposite happening.

Note: This wasn't an anti-war show, it wasn't propaganda to get people to DISlike war, in fact it was almost propaganda as to how effective US weapons have become over time.

I just think the people who produced the show, did a terrible job of showing the proper use of them and while saying how effective smart bombs were, they in turn discounted conventional bombs and even showed how they can land near civilized areas (childrens school) and not detonate.

while showing the superiority of NEW bombs, they really downplayed the ability of standard bombs.

by bucky kaufman (mcsd)

re:
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.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

You probably shoulda waited to post this next year. You're letting the cat out of the bag early. Shhhh.

by oz_media

I really didn't want to go the flame war route here, I have put up with several yeas of two way bickering on a forum full of peers that, like America, have become divided due to US politics.

I am not looking to talk about Bush OR Republicans here. This is a different topic all together, we are discussing weapons, not Iraq. You can save your rant for someone else's thread but it most certainly isn't welcome here.

You need to get over your issues, or else SHUT UP AND GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, other than just bitching like a sore loser all day. If that's as constructive as you can be, I certainly feel sorry for anyone partnering in your business ventures. You mentality is draining and testing to say the very least, absolute BS is what most would say though.

Why don't you dig a hole, wait four years and if you see your shadow, come out and start campaigning for your new choice?

You will be successful and not see Bush reelected for a third term I'm sure. :)

I have a feeling that even if this war drags out another 5, 10 or even 20 years, LONG after Bush is gone from office, you will STILL be complaining about 100,000 dead Iraqi's as if you have a point and a purpose.

by jkaras

I have seen way too many History channel or what have you on newer weapons as well as older weapons. It is a very interesting topic, and absolutely horrific at the same time. Out of all the weapons I've seen footage about only two scare the bagezzes out of me. They are 1.(I dont know the name of the bomb)a bomb that I heard about during the first Iraq war that explodes about two miles above its target and throws out an umbrella of fire for a three mile radius. What happens that the fire steals all, not some, not most, but all the oxygen in that three mile radius causing the soldier to have all of his air forcably expell itself out of his body and fall dead in mere seconds. If I ever have to face combat, I want a fighting chance to live or at least get wounded, this negates that possibility. The only good thing is that you leave a good looking corpse.

Lastly I dont know the name of it again but there is a "smart gun that uses lasers to calculate the distance to target, lets say a little shack where someone is hiding from you. The marksman can adjust the round to pierce the wall and explode inside the building sending shrapnel inside to kill all inside. Its accuracy is staggering and so far the only downside is that its too heavy yet to be completely practicle. I'm all for being safe but now technology is over taking the need for tactics with a medium size army. There are more weapons that make you say wow, but on the other hand just think of either you or someone you know being on the receiving end of these weapons makes you shiver worse than anything you could think of.

by jamesrl

First off, not an expert, but am also interested in the subject. The first item you describe is a Fuel air bomb. They have been thoroughly tested and deployed - think they may have been used in Vietnam. I think your size projections are a little high though - the current technology can affect a hundred yards, but not miles.

The bomb works by spreading a fuel mixture to the right consistancy through the affected space, and then igniting it.

The movie "Outbreak" shows what one would look like - it creates a mushroom cloud.

Using laser to target is not new - Special forces have used them for years to paint a target for a missle or guided bomb, and even some specialized artillery shells. What you are describing would have to have some way of guiding itself and that a lot to ask of a "gun". Its not new to have something that is both armour piercing and explosive - the 50 caliber machine gun bullets used by the US in WWII do that.

James

by cortech

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.

by tomsal

"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.

by jardinier

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.

by tomsal

I just read it.

Thanks, perhaps I skimmed over that before.

Of course right now I'm so numb due to my own life stresses I'm so observant today, you could probably insult my family and I'd probably go "oh".

But it is nice to see "US support for Australia".

by jardinier

Hello Tom.

Before you get your knickers in a knot because a few Aussies and Canucks indulge in some obviously light-hearted banter, you might like to check the comments in other discussions, by your American (mostly former Republican) peers at their reaction to the re-election of Bush.

Many are horrified by the prospect of another four years of Bush. I would say that many of the criticisms of your President by your own peers are far more scathing than anything previously offered by non-Americans.

And please also bear in mind that the primary reason why Aussies have been so vocal in these discussions is that, thanks to our PM, "Honest" John Coward, on his own initiative and without any bipartisan discussion (which is the normal practice before committing Australian troops to a war) joined the COW for what was blatantly his own personal agenda.

If the question had been put to the Senate, we would have stayed out of your stupid war.

Further, our Prime Minister does not bear the title of Commander in Chief of the armed services. He is just a politician pursuing his own agenda for his own gratification.

by tomsal

Yep. I agree, I think your PM John "Coward" as you called him is pretty pathetic.

I think our (as in US) president here is pretty pathetic.

The "stupid war" is beyond words -- that is how pathetic that is.

As for the folks here who do the scathing remarks of Bush, I don't mind as much when people disagree for reasons that have some kind of validity to them. But a lot of the folks here, just look like little kiddies who are crying because their team didn't win so they bitch and whine about it, crying as if it matters.

Those folks I can't stand....at all.

I don't know that non-american criticism for the prez is worse or better than american criticism.

Anyway ...have a good day.

later.

This discussion is closed to new replies.