THAT is an interesting argument. Bravo. Like it!Originally Posted by GI Zhou
Going back to the original theme of cost versus efficiency
If the issue is the effect vs efficiency the use of the Javelin IS VERY cost effective. The cost of a Javelin missile is far less than the cost of just one British soldier's widow's pension and his cost of replacement, let alone the costs if any are wounded by the shooter
THAT is an interesting argument. Bravo. Like it!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Umm, no. It's actually a very stupid argument.
Let me explain:
I observed a subsidy project a few years ago. It was an utter waste of money, the return was probably worth 20-40% of the investment only.
It was a pilot project and thus had to be evaluated in order to learn whether it works. The bureaucrat who invented the project (and whose career depended on it) paid an university to do an efficiency analysis project.
The university - knowing well that it would get no more contracts like that if it disappointed its client - wrote a study that plaseed the guy.
What did they do? They compared the project to similar projects. The result was favourable; the pilot project achieved 30% more per buck.
The problem: The alternatives were terrible. Complete waste of money projects. The pilot project was 30% better, yet still a terrible waste of money.
The benchmarking technique can be used with good effect if the comparison is done with the best known alternative (such as no stupid subsidy project at all or a check rocket on the bunker). It's utter BS if applied with a terrible alternative.
To be absolutely clear:
Would you like to be shot in your leg?
Compare it to the alternative of getting shot in your skull.
Is getting shot in the leg a good choice?
Why squander several per cent of our economic output (up to 20% is realistic) with terrible ressource allocations. This is a line of though that must not be tolerated - I'd rather tolerate bank robbers.
Last edited by SWCAdmin; 03-18-2010 at 01:37 PM. Reason: remove ad hominem attack
I would agree absolutely, and so would most I think, if it were an either or proposition. Either we expend a Javelin or we lose a soldier. That is an easy one. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is can we achieve the same effect, neutralized enemy position, without unnecessarily endangering a soldier, by other means? There are times when a Javelin is appropriate but it is too heavy, too awkward and too expensive to be the go to tactic. There are other ways to achieve the same end result that don't involve me lugging this heavy awkward piece of equipment around so that I can launch the equivalent of my pay for the next few years down range to kill one or two guys. That's not a good idea.
So is this a weight or a cost issue?
If we can get the same effect for less money, Im all for it, but JAV has range and accuracy that few cheaper or lighter systems can match.
Javelin is predicated on delivering accuracy, over a distance for under a certain weight. If we can get the same range, and accuracy for the same weight at less cost, then I'm very interested.
If you want real knotty problem then factor in the issues surrounding Loitering Munitions for cost effectiveness.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
All of the above plus the consideration that, in order to carry the Javelin and all its assorted bells and whistles, something else needs to get left behind, usually some combination of food water and ammo. Using Javelins as bunker busters strikes as the equivalent of using a backhoe to get rid of an ant hill. Will it work? Yes. Is it necessary to go that far? Not usually.
But how often do we need to be able to engage a bunker from that kind of range?
In my experience that "certain weight" is usually determined by people who don't have to carry it.
My question remains, do we really need that range and accuracy for bunker busting munitions?
Well I will tell the Australian Army they suffed up as the Javelin is being pushed down to the comapny and below. It appears all the experts forget that most leg infantry have access to some sort of motorised support to carry heavier munitions. If someone is shooting at a group of soldiers and they have access to a Javelin you can be damn sure it will be brought up and used.
Bunkers generally are hardened, have tiny aperture for a shot to go through it, so require a decent sized amount of kinetic energy/high explosive to penetrate kill/disable its occupants. LAWs are generally too inaccurate and lack the warhead to guarantee a kill. To get close enough to deliver a good shot will put the user in the kill zone of the bunker and did I mention land mines or IEDs.
As for the next best alternatives, the issues using LAW have been explained so the only real alternative is a Carl Gustarv if the force has any. If it is not available a Javelin or two and its sight are quicker and easier to bring up if needed than: a tank which most likely not be available, an attack helicopter using a Hellfire or HOT, artillery using a PGM and whoops no one to call in the coordinates or desgnate the target and at $85,000 the round costs more than a Javelin anyway. A Javelin will hit the target and destroy it so what is the argument about, as it has the range, accuracy and lethality. On the battlefield, soldiers don't give a flying f... about its cost, if it works its used. I guarantee there were 'chair borne commandos' in the PLA in 1979 complaining about the cost of PLA soldiers using their HJ-73 ATGMs (Sagger copies) against Vietnamese bunkers in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War.
You may go into range of a bunker before you can hit it with a relatively light weight and low-cost Bunkerfaust (600m), but that doesn't mean anything in itself. Especially not hat the bunker's team will get the first shot (if that bunker is manned at all and not an unoccupied or fake position).
The terrain may offer enough concealment to get into range unseen. Then there's no need for a Javelin.
The terrain may offer a long line of sight. Then you call in an AFV with a gun, an AT team with an ATGM (NOT organic to your Inf Plt) or indirect/aerial support fires.
Thee most likely alternative is another one, though: The line of sight is rather short and the bunker crew spots (and shoots at) you (the moving one) before you spot it (the well-camouflaged stationary one).
In that case you're closer than 600 m and can much quicker respond with a Bunkerfaust than with a Javelin (the Bunker might even be within the minimum range of Javelin!). It's furthermore likely that the bunker is situated for flanking fire and in a terrain full of concealment; that generally makes it unlikely that your fixed Plt would be able to call for non-organic fires to shoot at the Bunker from outside of 600 m range.
In the end, ATGM at Plt level likely make no sense for an infantry attack/patrol unless you keep them in reserve for AT work.
Some countries buy ATGM for the bunker busting role and have the Carl Gustarv/Bunkerfaust etc as well. It depends on what your army has, how far you are from the main base, the terrain etc. Anyone can make up a scenario to justify their argument. The fact is that a Javelin missile is cheaper than the cost of a Western soldier's pension and medical costs if wounded, or his widow and children's pension if killed. That justifies its cost in economic terms and that is where my argument finishes. QED
Well my opinion is you need a 1-1,500m SACLOS wire guided system like M47 DRAGON, but NOT DRAGON. AT-7/AT-13 Metis-M is probably about right. System like that might be a bit of a game changer at the platoon level. It's basically the reasoning behind Mini-Spike.
Last edited by William F. Owen; 03-19-2010 at 04:06 PM.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
What you are therefore saying is that if a Javelin is not used to neutralize a bunker, casualties are inevitable because no other means exist to neutralize a bunker. That simply is not the case. There are other means to neutralize bunkers effectively. I am not one to tell someone to take a tool out of the toolbox. There are certainly times when the use of a Javelin would be appropriate. I am simply saying that it should not be the go to TTP. I mentioned cost because that is a factor whether we like it or not. If cost were no issue we could have unlimited air cover, but, of course we don't have that. But that is, by far, not among my chief concerns.
My first concern is my natural dislike of the over-reliance on technology. The more bells and whistles a piece of equipment has, the greater the chance that it will fail when you need it most.
My second concern is the weight and size of this thing. It works out to roughly forty pounds for one missile plus the CLU. Forty pounds doesn't sound like much until you consider that modern soldier, at least in the US Army, before he even picks up his weapon ammo or a single piece of equipment is already loaded down with body armor. Then he has his weapon, all his ammo, food and water, communications gear and then whatever other equipment he needs. Now you are going to add forty pounds on top of that, plus twenty-six pounds for every extra missile that you are carrying. And let's not forget the size. I don't have the dimensions of the CLU and it has been a while since I handled one but I recall that they are pretty good size, something that would take up a lot of space in a ruck. The missiles are almost four feet long. Now either somebody has to strap it to the top of their ruck so that it sticks out a foot and a half or so on each side or they have to sling it on their body so that it will always be in the way. And all this so that you have the capability to engage a stationary bunker at range. That is assuming, of course that there are no restrictions on using a missile on the target and that you are not within the minimum distance of seventy-five meters. Carrying it in a vehicle mitigates the weight issue but it still takes up a good amount of space and the question remains, what is getting left behind so that the Javelin can be brought along?
My next concern is with the habits it builds. If the Javelin becomes the go to TTP for bunker clearing, what happens when the bunker is within the seventy-five meter minimum range? What if you don't have a Javelin because it was a bunker complex and you did not have enough reloads, or because the missile or the CLU was broken or one of the crewmen was wounded and now you don't have the equipment? Those of us who have been in the military know that when you have a go to technique or procedure, alternatives tend not to get practiced as much as they should. You can argue all day long that that is wrong and that it shouldn't be that way and you would be absolutely right. But the way things are and the way things should be often do not match up. Over-reliance on technological solutions to problems invariably leads to bigger problems later on.
Taking the habits argument to the next level, what happens if and when we go to war with someone who has armor? Do we continue to engage bunkers (which we can neutralize by other means) with Javelins and hope that we have enough to deal with any armor (which we generally cannot neutralize any means other than ATGMs)? Or do we change a combat TTP right before we go to war?
My final concern is that this whole concept smacks of the whole idea that combat can be made safe. Combat is an inherently dangerous undertaking but in our modern world people have been conditioned to believe that it can be made safe or at least a whole lot safer than is truly and practically feasible. That breeds a sort of risk adverse mindset that is absolute anathema to the successful prosecution of war. Prior to Iraq, the only time I ever wore body armor was on occasions when we would be throwing live grenades. Most of the time we did not have it and we did not miss it. Now I cannot go outside the wire unless I have been individually wrapped in rebar and dipped in concrete. God help the commander who has a soldier who is injured or killed when he was not wearing all of the myriad pieces of required body armor protection. So now the talking heads in DC can point and tell John Q. Public, "See we have fixed the armor problem and now little Jane and little Johnny are safer." And they are safer from small arms and shrapnel, but at the cost of being much slower, much less agile, more prone to overheating, having much less endurance and just generally being that much more miserable and that much less alert. Is there a time and a place where armor should be mandatory? Absolutely. Does it need to be mandatory for everyone at all times without exception or modification? Absolutely not. But that is the state of things. And the list of things that have come about in recent years to make things safer, without enough consideration to the cost of that safety (I'm not talking money here although that is an issue as well), or whether that "safety" is even real or simply a comfortable illusion.
Ok I think that I have ranted long enough.
I thing the answer may be that Javelin is an option. It's one tool in a box.
When I did my Junior Brecon/Combat Commanders course, the answer to "how do I kill a bunker" was "Milan!" - then it was "OK, you do not have Milan, what now?" - then we got on did it, "old-School, a-la 1918!" Worked well.
You can "what if" tactical doctrine all day. The aim is "better rather than worse", applied using good judgement - which is why I equipment without training is useless. Nothing is perfect.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Nor should they. Good luck with a "strategic financial corporal"
Ubout pretty much sums it up and Fuchs righly points out that the discussion can not be undertaking in isolation.
Said that I'm pretty curious about that last tool called Mini-Spike. It has quite some things going for it and could be put in the right context to some good uses.
Firn
That's why I made the comment about not telling anyone to take a tool out of their tool box. I absolutely agree that Javelin should be an option, if it available, but some here are presenting it as if it should be the go to option. That I do disagree with.
A Javelin to take out a bunker? Why not use the 25mm on your Bradley, or the .50 or MK19 on your M113? Or are we suggesting that Javelins are going to be humped by light infantry? If it's an airfield seizure and you're jumping in and you think you're likely to need it, maybe that makes sense. If you're carrying these things for any significant distance "just in case" a Javelin is needed, then I think that is absurd. These things are heavy and enormous. The CLU is nice to have so long as you've got enough of the bulky, heavy batteries, but we often carried the CLU without the Javelin simply because the missile was too bulky, heavy, and unlikely to be used, to justify bringing it. If you're in wheeled vehicles and got room - okay, fine. But as for dismounts, I don't think anybody in my entire battalion used a Javelin for anything other than killing tanks. Could they have? Sure. But why? Bunkers were cleared with 25mm at a distance and 40mm closer in, or hand grenades at close range. If someone had wasted a Javelin on a bunker or on some knucklehead in a building then his squad leader would have rightly throttled him.
They are and should be. Every place is not iraq and every war isn't
like these. Light infantry has no 25mm or 40mm AGLs nor even many .50s. They also are allergic to armored vehicles...
Other than the narrow examples I cited (airfield seizure or a mission of short duration in which need of Javelins is likely) how could the weight and bulk of Javelins, CLUs, and those giant batteries (I forget the nomenclature) possibly offset any lack of capability? I think I've stated this elsewhere, but the elation that most PFCs felt after destroying a T-72 in Iraq was not the joy of eliminating a mortal threat to themselves and their buddies. It was the joy of not having to hump that heavy, awkward, sunofabitch any longer.
I totally agree. I never said it was the only tool, just that there is an economic argument showing it is cost-effective to use one against a bunker, nothing else. Everyone else is adding their fice cents worth. I've been told that slewing the tracks of a tank over a bunker makes a very satisfying sound as well.
Day to day combat in an envirionment where armored vehicles
are used by the bad guys can be a seemingly very long duration 'mission.' METT-TC applies to Javelins just as it does to everything else. Guys in the late 40s used to complain about carrying the "heavy and clumsy" M9 RL -- until they tried to shoot T-34s and found out they didn't stop 'em.
They got the bigger, heavier and more clumsy 3.5" M20 and didn't complain a bit. That was in Korea. Hopefully we won't go there again...
Javelins are like everything else, a pain to carry when you're on foot -- but literally vital when they're needed. Don't base everything on one war. Or on peacetime, which is essentially what now we're now in -- except for the guys outside the wire in Afghanistan. Sometimes.
No real need for Javs in Iraq and, time and place dependent, not so much in the 'Stan. No one really needed Recon or Scout platoons in Iraq, either. That isn't guaranteed to be true at another time and place. I guess Javelins are like that old saw about guns. "You usually do not need a gun but when you do, you need it really bad."
As an aside, my time in both light and mech infantry showed me that they are two different breeds of cat. Neither is 'better' than the other; neither is 'wrong' in what they do and how they do it. They just do things quite differently and they literally think on a different plane. Not having a vehicle to come home to gives one a different outlook and changes what's important. And what one has to carry...
Ken White, well said! I'll bookmark this post1 comment. Your example was about complaining that concerned weight and soldiers on the ground. I'd like to add bureucrats complaining about price. If it works, then buy it or "Buy quality, cry once!"
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks