Obviously I don't need to know anything classified. And I'm not interested in discussing whether the missile strikes were legitimate/good/effective.

I'm just curious why we used missiles that cost $1M to $1.6M each (So $60M to $96M) to drop 1000lbs of explosives each.

Google tells me that a precision guided iron bomb costs anywhere from $20K to $40k. So 2.5% to 4% of the cost of the Tomahawks.

Of course, the loss of a single F-16 would be several million. Apparently they were $20M each when first built, the cost today would be much higher, I'm sure.

Do the Syrians have good (Russian) air defenses? I thought we were pretty good at avoiding/suppressing AAA.

Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Of course there is the cynical view that we haven't ordered cruise missiles in a while and we've got to keep the military industrial complex churning.

---

Essentially what I was thinking.

But... it probably also sends a nice little reminder to countries near the South China Sea and near the Sea of Japan without calling them out by name. You know - Trump 4D Chess and all.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Of course there is the cynical view that we haven't ordered cruise missiles in a while and we've got to keep the military industrial complex churning.

---

My shop does work for Raytheon, who makes the tomahawks.

$$$

Bomb baby, bomb.

Enough damage done to make our point clear to Assad......

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Of course there is the cynical view that we haven't ordered cruise missiles in a while and we've got to keep the military industrial complex churning.

---

Navy said bombing Libya with cruise missiles actually saved us money because they needed to dispose of those cruise missiles anyway...

There is an S-400 at Latakia.

Also, we wouldn't have used dumb bombs.

Either we would use the laser guided which would up the cost to about the same as the Tomahawk or GPS guided, which are a comparative value.

A Tomahawk is substantially more expensive than our "smart bombs." Our newest platforms for smart bombs aren't close to $1m a pop.

You have to keep in mind the strength and precision of the US' air power has been on display for several years in Syria and Iraq. The Navy, on the other hand, hasn't had as much to say in Operation Inherent Resolve, even though the Navy is the US' most impactful power-projection capability.

Therefore, I'd say the Tomahawk option probably had more to do with:
1. Reemphasis of US Naval power to the world
2. Expending aging weapons instead of demilitarizing and
3. Less risk than flying over a hostile air base with Russian fighters nearby

........the correct answer is #3. There was no upside in risking having the chastisement of Syria turn into a physical confrontation with Russia. Cruise missiles were simply the best tool for that particular job.

No doubt that would be the most important reason but I am positive they chose the option with the most advantageous effects (across the DIME spectrum) beyond simply destroying a target.

Because a bombing request would take 6 months to get through Air Force bureaucracy for final approval. And that's with "presidential priority".

"My shop does work for Raytheon, who makes the tomahawks.

$$$

Bomb baby, bomb."

Well my shop makes fuze components for precision guided bombs. So I say, use real bombs!

Rock1982 said:

---

There is an S-400 at Latakia.

---

Which apparently doesn't work against cruise missiles.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

Rock1982 said:

---

There is an S-400 at Latakia.

---

Which apparently doesn't work against cruise missiles.

---

Not necessarily. Why would the Russians waste 59+ very expensive missiles to take out something that wasn't targeting any of their people. We did give them a heads up prior to the strike.

Brewskis said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

Rock1982 said:

---

There is an S-400 at Latakia.

---

Which apparently doesn't work against cruise missiles.

---

Not necessarily. Why would the Russians waste 59+ very expensive missiles to take out something that wasn't targeting any of their people. We did give them a heads up prior to the strike.

---

True.

There's also an "I'm staying out of this" factor that gets blurred when you insert your people into the battlespace (which includes the sky above). Maintaining that perceived distance is well worth the expense - which will be virtually unnoticed to the Navy, let alone the DoD.

easttexasaggie04 said:

---

"My shop does work for Raytheon, who makes the tomahawks.

$$$

Bomb baby, bomb."

Well my shop makes fuze components for precision guided bombs. So I say, use real bombs!

---

My name is farmer95, I work for Raytheon and I approve this message. (We actually make both)

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Of course there is the cynical view that we haven't ordered cruise missiles in a while and we've got to keep the military industrial complex churning.

---

FYI the Navy buys cruise misses every single year and they will continue to do so if they (or Congress) want to keep the production line active

Awesome. Our fuze parts go to General Dynamics - OTS.

Also you don't have to squawk on IFF/SIF to penetrate their ADIZ with a Tomahawk