Firstly, why compare the hellfire to the FBU-38 and not the GBU-12 also carried by the Reaper, but roughly half the price of the Hellfire.
Secondly, there are very few weapons in the inventory that can match the Hellfire during counter insurgency.
Thirdly, the reason the GBU-12 is lesser used, is the size of the weapon, which in the modern war isn’t required, and the finesse of a weapon such as the hellfire is far more appropriate.
Also, there is a time and a place for JDAM weapons, but in an age where civilian casualties are unacceptable (as it should be) using a weapon such as a JDAM should be a last resort to a laser guided weapon, in my humble opinion!
What a strange critique of an informative and concise article!!
The criticized report highlighted the two MAJOR advantages of the new FBU-38 standoff weapon system over the Hellfire for use on a Reaper : (1) GPS-guided ability to “blind fire” through rain/fog/cloud/target-not-in-line-of-site-at launch conditions and (2) the cost effectiveness at $20K per FBU-38 unit vs. $110K per Hellfire.
Then the major supposed FBU-38 disadvantage proposed “is the size of the weapon” versus the “finesse” of the Hellfire. It is not clear if the complaint is criticizing the larger gross weight of the FBU-38 or it’s employment of 192 pounds of high explosives vs. the Hellfire’s 18-20 pounds. but this “issue” is disingenuous in either case as the US does have standard bombs somewhat smaller than the Mark 82. I’m sure US advanced technology can be employed to employ a variety of standard Iron Bomb alternatives to the Mark 82 in situations where “finesse” is expected to be a major concern. But at least with the FBU-3x family, the option of matching the size of the bang to the size of the job can be easily done anywhere along the deployment pathway.
What a strange article!!
Firstly, why compare the hellfire to the FBU-38 and not the GBU-12 also carried by the Reaper, but roughly half the price of the Hellfire.
Secondly, there are very few weapons in the inventory that can match the Hellfire during counter insurgency.
Thirdly, the reason the GBU-12 is lesser used, is the size of the weapon, which in the modern war isn’t required, and the finesse of a weapon such as the hellfire is far more appropriate.
Also, there is a time and a place for JDAM weapons, but in an age where civilian casualties are unacceptable (as it should be) using a weapon such as a JDAM should be a last resort to a laser guided weapon, in my humble opinion!
What a strange critique of an informative and concise article!!
The criticized report highlighted the two MAJOR advantages of the new FBU-38 standoff weapon system over the Hellfire for use on a Reaper : (1) GPS-guided ability to “blind fire” through rain/fog/cloud/target-not-in-line-of-site-at launch conditions and (2) the cost effectiveness at $20K per FBU-38 unit vs. $110K per Hellfire.
Then the major supposed FBU-38 disadvantage proposed “is the size of the weapon” versus the “finesse” of the Hellfire. It is not clear if the complaint is criticizing the larger gross weight of the FBU-38 or it’s employment of 192 pounds of high explosives vs. the Hellfire’s 18-20 pounds. but this “issue” is disingenuous in either case as the US does have standard bombs somewhat smaller than the Mark 82. I’m sure US advanced technology can be employed to employ a variety of standard Iron Bomb alternatives to the Mark 82 in situations where “finesse” is expected to be a major concern. But at least with the FBU-3x family, the option of matching the size of the bang to the size of the job can be easily done anywhere along the deployment pathway.