01-21-2005, 09:56 PM
[quote=Armin,Jan 21 2005, 11:28 AM]
[QUOTE]Believe it or not, Occhi, I don't doubt the pilots' accuracy to hit their targets...
(and, sometimes, everything else in the vicinity[/QUOTE])
Aye on that last bit: one of the problems with using an area weapons for a point target. :(
[QUOTE]But seeing how incredibly sensible, precise and, most of all, SUCCESSFUL, the people who PICK their targets in the past have been, some scepticism is well called for.
Chinese embassies in Serbia anyone? :P [/QUOTE]
How do you decide what is and what is not a target? Been there, done that, and I can only say that
It ain't like a video game.
It is one of the more byzantine and arcane processes I have ever run across or been involved with.
As for the Chinese Embassy, a NATO target in 1999, that apparently was a location apparently not known to the intelligence services of 19 NATO nations. Interesting. Or, maybe, was it that some nations chose not to share their intelligence? (Of course, one wonders if the Belgrade phone bookand a Michelin Road map would be considered a valid open source . . . :P )
[QUOTE]And how much was the success rate for those "high priority targets" during the Iraq campaign? ZERO out of 50 prime targets hit?
One would assume that such targets are *especially* well chosen, carefully picked and timed. So probably success rate with "everyday targets" is even worse :mellow: [/QUOTE]
By worse you appear to mean "less than perfect / zero defects?' Yes, no one can afford a zero defects weapons system. Not even rich old USA.
In any case, you raise an interesting point, Armin. Those high priority targets you mention are not now, and were not then, static. They were not "a factory located here" but rather "a place where XXX will be at YYYY time . . . we think."
What is the trigger that determines when XXXX is indeed there, but at ZZZZ time? Do you still have weapons release criterion? With what degree of confidence?
The timing part, no matter how carefully predicted, I can assure you from personal experience is exactly the most difficult part to get right when you are tying to use a "X hundred" pound bomb against a person. A weapons cache, when discovered in a building, is a trivial target by comparison. A person is, to my thinking, a target better suited for a rifle round: from a sniper. Can't always get a sniper where you want him to be, when you want him to be, either. :P
Can't say more than that.
[QUOTE]The pilots may hit the house they are aiming for. What that house actually IS is anyone's guess...[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Sometimes, a house gets hit and it turns out to have been a weapons cache. Secondary explosions are a real giveaway on that one, yet the media reports them often as a "re attack" by aircraft. Interesting, no?
As to the numbers being optimistic, I think in in terms of the percentages, not really. Not within the past two years.
The problem is one of perception, as well as "what criterion constitutes a successful attack and what does not." If you do not clearly define what metric you are trying to use, and what it means, the number is rendered meaningless.
Example: Hit within X meters of Y target with 3 500# bombs.
Pretty high success rate with LGB and GPS bombs. Caveat: when those puppies go bang, the radius of damage is measured in tens and hundreds of meters, depending on fusing and other factors. And a bit of luck, good bad and otherwise.
Example:
Weapon dropped and no one hit/dead except persons A, B, C, D and J. Not sure that can have much success in any urban environment. Out in the desert, sure. In the middle of a town or city? Not likely. Batting even 5/10 on a shot like that would be excellent targeting and execution.
Example:
Building or bridge destroyed: if you put at least as many munitions on the target at it takes to turn in into rubble, trivial in detail. The deciding factors then become
Weapons reliability
Sensor reliability
Crew training and proficiency
Weather
Simple mechanical failure
and of course
Intelligence and target acquisition
to include
Are your maps and charts up to date? Do the photos match the target you think you are going to hit? Is the FAC looking at the same building you are, he from 0 feet and you at 7000 feet?
Is there ever an error free attack? Yes. Can one expect Every attack to be error free? No.
Occhi
[QUOTE]Believe it or not, Occhi, I don't doubt the pilots' accuracy to hit their targets...
(and, sometimes, everything else in the vicinity[/QUOTE])
Aye on that last bit: one of the problems with using an area weapons for a point target. :(
[QUOTE]But seeing how incredibly sensible, precise and, most of all, SUCCESSFUL, the people who PICK their targets in the past have been, some scepticism is well called for.
Chinese embassies in Serbia anyone? :P [/QUOTE]
How do you decide what is and what is not a target? Been there, done that, and I can only say that
It ain't like a video game.
It is one of the more byzantine and arcane processes I have ever run across or been involved with.
As for the Chinese Embassy, a NATO target in 1999, that apparently was a location apparently not known to the intelligence services of 19 NATO nations. Interesting. Or, maybe, was it that some nations chose not to share their intelligence? (Of course, one wonders if the Belgrade phone bookand a Michelin Road map would be considered a valid open source . . . :P )
[QUOTE]And how much was the success rate for those "high priority targets" during the Iraq campaign? ZERO out of 50 prime targets hit?
One would assume that such targets are *especially* well chosen, carefully picked and timed. So probably success rate with "everyday targets" is even worse :mellow: [/QUOTE]
By worse you appear to mean "less than perfect / zero defects?' Yes, no one can afford a zero defects weapons system. Not even rich old USA.
In any case, you raise an interesting point, Armin. Those high priority targets you mention are not now, and were not then, static. They were not "a factory located here" but rather "a place where XXX will be at YYYY time . . . we think."
What is the trigger that determines when XXXX is indeed there, but at ZZZZ time? Do you still have weapons release criterion? With what degree of confidence?
The timing part, no matter how carefully predicted, I can assure you from personal experience is exactly the most difficult part to get right when you are tying to use a "X hundred" pound bomb against a person. A weapons cache, when discovered in a building, is a trivial target by comparison. A person is, to my thinking, a target better suited for a rifle round: from a sniper. Can't always get a sniper where you want him to be, when you want him to be, either. :P
Can't say more than that.
[QUOTE]The pilots may hit the house they are aiming for. What that house actually IS is anyone's guess...[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Sometimes, a house gets hit and it turns out to have been a weapons cache. Secondary explosions are a real giveaway on that one, yet the media reports them often as a "re attack" by aircraft. Interesting, no?
As to the numbers being optimistic, I think in in terms of the percentages, not really. Not within the past two years.
The problem is one of perception, as well as "what criterion constitutes a successful attack and what does not." If you do not clearly define what metric you are trying to use, and what it means, the number is rendered meaningless.
Example: Hit within X meters of Y target with 3 500# bombs.
Pretty high success rate with LGB and GPS bombs. Caveat: when those puppies go bang, the radius of damage is measured in tens and hundreds of meters, depending on fusing and other factors. And a bit of luck, good bad and otherwise.
Example:
Weapon dropped and no one hit/dead except persons A, B, C, D and J. Not sure that can have much success in any urban environment. Out in the desert, sure. In the middle of a town or city? Not likely. Batting even 5/10 on a shot like that would be excellent targeting and execution.
Example:
Building or bridge destroyed: if you put at least as many munitions on the target at it takes to turn in into rubble, trivial in detail. The deciding factors then become
Weapons reliability
Sensor reliability
Crew training and proficiency
Weather
Simple mechanical failure
and of course
Intelligence and target acquisition
to include
Are your maps and charts up to date? Do the photos match the target you think you are going to hit? Is the FAC looking at the same building you are, he from 0 feet and you at 7000 feet?
Is there ever an error free attack? Yes. Can one expect Every attack to be error free? No.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete