Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

That's good advice, thanks.

F-16.net Sponsor

What if someone developed a UAV that could just fly into the bunker or cave and then blow up?

elp wrote:

-In Afganistan, various types of "themobaric" weapons ( custom I assume ) were tried out in caves.... words describing the results as very good. ( metalic dust is puffed out inside the cave and then ignited in milliseconds, to a nice warm toasty brown.)

Hi Elp

Heres a video of the BLU-118/B Solid FAE: http://www.sunspot.net/media/quicktime/2002-08/4077759.mov

A brief descripton of the test can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm

Obi

flanker_hater, they exists and those are called cruise missiles Cool

, and if it was not for Samsung et.al. ROK would be as poor as their brothers in the north, as veaponry is not considered a cool enough gadget to sell on every street corner of the civilized and not so civilized world.

But hey, if we all buy a Hunday or Devou or whatever they are called, then they may be able to afford it.

Lamoey, good point except cruise missiles are a bit expensive vs. say something like a JDAM or GBU-10.

(1) UAVs are always going to be more expensive than cruise missiles.
(2) South Korea's booming economy is argueably one of their best defenses.

habu2 wrote:

(1) UAVs are always going to be more expensive than cruise missiles.

?????????????????

Yeah I agree with elp, what UAV is your country flying that cost more then UAVs?

Cruise missiles are internally guided, UAVs (aka RPVs) are remotely 'piloted' from the ground by a large crew. The cost of the UAV itself may not be much but the cost of the ground control station, uplink relays, launch and recovery teams and equipment, etc is substantial. Add the cost of a sensor turret and these are not disposable toys. The AN/AAS-52 MTS ball on a RQ-1 or MQ-1 Predator costs over USD$1,000,000. I'd say 'ask me how I know' but then, as they say, 'I'd have to shoot you'. Just have to trust me on this issue.

Habu, I didn't mean a Predator. Just slap a 100 lbs. of MDX or some random explosive on that R/C plane you built in your mother's basement and you have a UAV. Think outside the container a bit.
Oh and I don't have to ask you how you knew how much the sensor package cost, www.google.com is an amazing website.

flanker_hater wrote:

Habu, I didn't mean a Predator. Just slap a 100 lbs. of MDX or some random explosive on that R/C plane you built in your mother's basement and you have a UAV. Think outside the container a bit.

Oh if it were only that easy....

flanker_hater wrote:

Oh and I don't have to ask you how you knew how much the sensor package cost, www.google.com is an amazing website.

The cost wasn't the part I asked you to trust me on...

Yeah I know the cost. But it isnt even apples to apples on the topic of mission diversity. A UCAV can do many things for years.

A cruise missile is good for one target and thats it.

True, but the question was raised "why not fly a UAV into a bunker or cave and blow up" - that would eliminate follow-on missions by the UAV.....

Obviously cruise missiles, UAVs and GBUs are designed for specific tasks and missions. Asking one system to do the job of another is always going to result in compromises, whether they be technical or financial.

Perhaps the answer to this problem: http://www.local6.com/news/3899902/detail.html

Quote:

Yeah not to bag on the South Koreans but if I were them, I'd spend less time developing fancy cell phones and HDTVs and focus on detering the North with cool weaponery rather then depending on the United States to bail them out.

I think the Idea is that S. Korea doesnt end up a totally lifless and uselessly economically depleted country like N. Korea. Remember, N. Korea syphens 16% of its GDP annually into its armed forces. Actually, in my honest oppinion I dont think N. Korea is much a threat right now, unless they dont go out with an implosion like a assume and go out with an explosion. What I meen by that is N. Korea is about to collapse and a lot of Far Eastern Studies and History Graduate Students are predicting reunification in the next 10 years. As insane as that sounds its not too improbable. Heck, all Koreans still hate Japanese more than the opposite 38th || . N. Korea is about to fall in on itself, its economoy is toppleing rapidally and its gross earnings have been on steady decline yet Kim Jong Il still refuses to invest in economic reform over military spending. I think N. Korea is more concerned about a southern invasion than one from the North. At that the citizens of N. Korea are becoming annoyed. Their sentiment is starting to return to a more liberal stance (liberal in the essence they want to change the current regime) and at the same time much of the youth in South Korea is becoming (or so the articles say) annoyed by US occupation. Their sentiments are pushing closer to one another and its not as bad as it sounds. A unified Korea would be much less a threat to the US than one seperated like it is now. Not only that but Kim Jong Il did something his father never did, he agreed to talk to a South Korean representative on South Korean soil, making him an idle sentiment too. And it has been proven he could be negotiated with as the Clinton administration proved with their executive framework in 94, but we still havent built those blasted hydro cooled nuclear reactors in the north like we promised. (In that motif, we have no reason to criticize N. Korea for continueing its Nuclear weapons program as we (the US) have only made little progress on our end of the deal and China, S. Korea and Japan havent made any.)

But I think a unified Korea is much more possible than say a unified Taiwan and China in the next 10 years. (China says they will be unified by 2008 but thats a bunch of BS unless they want to launch and invasion...... )

-Aaron

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

North Korea's Caves, Bunkers and JDAM...