Quote:
|
Originally Posted by magic-spaceship
but As for MLRS cost and soviets cheapness - well there is a lot of reasons for that. Part of the cost of the MLRS is because of the climate which it is developed and produced in. Many western weapons are considered high cost - while their also considered high quality, while russian weapons are known for being cheap and not of the highest quality. I dont think you really want to go with cost as a argument. Have you ever considered the fact that the US has no need for a rocket the size of the smerch? Whats the point of having a rocket between the MLRS and ATACM? That just puts strain on the supply and support system - while we have other systems that supplants its need. Plus once the inflight gps guided rockets are brought into use - that will mean more effective rockets - meaning more bang for your buck and less rockets having to be put on target to detroy it.
|
Hi magic-spaceship
both things are needed - mass launch weapons with cheap munitions, and hihgly precise and expensive munitions.... each has its own application.
Precision weapons is good to be applied against single and very expensive targets... for example good use against critical infrustructure. However you will not apply a guided missle to kill one soldier. Another limitation is that sometimes you have a massive assault and you don't want to kill a particular target but rather everything in a certain area.... then MLRS is good thing for that.... it makes a massive assault quite a risky if enemy can cover you with salvo....
This is exactly the reason why to have something between ATACM/Iskander and MLRS/Grad..... the cost of use. One ATACM is worth more than a $0.82 mln (in 1991) while a MLRS salvo would cost you around $0.05mln and covers much larger area... That is why ATACM is used against worth targets like SAMs, command centers, munition storages etc... Nobody would shout it against a tank which is worth $1-2mln.
Grad salvo would cost you around $2,000 ($50 per rocket). While SMERCH would cost $0.08-$0.16mln depending on type of munition. If you know that a column of tanks/APC is approaching you anywhere closer than $90km then Salvo from 3-4 SMERCH trucks is good response..... column is destroyed (each tank $1-2mln, or much more if it is Abrams :-) while you spent max $0.64mln..... plus may have lost 4 SMERCH trucks.... still you made your enemy huge, huge damage....
That is why I don't understand how did you prevent Iraqis using this weapons.... or maybe they just did not have munitions...
Regarding Cheap vs Expensive and High Quality vs Low Quality.... US weapons are expensive not because of high quality.... look at your Army trucks - Stryker is worth more than 2mln while BMP 3 costs just $0.8mln.... believe me no need to compare these two APCs.
Hi cost can come from many reasons:
- lack of administration of your millitary spendings (read my post about Shuttle vs Soyuz);
- sometimes expensive and inefficient R&D build into the price;
- higher manufacturing costs in US ;
- and sometimes really higher quality of underlying materials and components....
Here many guys lead by Sniper have their own subjective judgement about reliability of Russian hardware, though having little experience with it or judging by untrained Iraqis... Try to be ojective and isolate yourself from unsupported judgements. There are bad piece of equipement on any side.... but in general millitary equipement made in US, Europe and Soviet Union is quite reliable.....