/k/ - Weapons

>>526550

Because the missile is a one use item that already costs a couple ten thousand dollarydoos every time you use one, not even talking about storage and trasporting them from A to B.

Do you really want to make them more expensive?

>>526550

I don't need to see a flag to see that this is a leafpost

Why don't they just make planes a cheap ass platform to launch long range missiles with large payloads for when your target is out of range of ship launched shit/the ocean or to fling crap from different angles? Faster travel than land based shit, can go anywhere outside of AA range. Think like the apache in the fulda gap.

>>526556

we call them "submarines"

>>526550

>>526551

>>526556

Lockheed started designing stealth version of ATA missiles and they're like 6.7 million per missile. You're basically wasting an Abrams tank on every shot, it's nuts. This is why surface to air missiles are more economical for the Russians, a full size surface to air missile costs less than a modern medium ATA because it's not miniaturized, and it has a similar range to the ATA+Fighter.

>couple ten thousand dollarydoos every time you use one

AMRAAM is $1.9 million as of 2017.

We've forgotten how to make cheap missiles or cheap airplanes. Jet fighters cost around $30-50 million when they're not built by crazy people, pilotless prop drones or manned Tucanos cost about $15 million. A full missile load on a jet fighter (2x short 6x medium) would cost about $15 million as well, if the fighter survives to bring back three missile loads, you've paid it back in full.

IF we somehow built ATA missiles under $100k, and we built aircraft (even prop is fine) under $5 million, and we used regular englisted to fly them instead of overtrained college boys… then yeah… that would work.

That's what the National Guard tried to do with the Blitzfighter, but the Air Force and Navy blocked funding.

>>526561

>subs

>cheap

I think he means launching missiles from something disposable, so even if it gets hit it's not a huge loss.

>>526594

>an array of EFPs for the warhead

That's something I've been thinking about too. An other thing is barrel launched AA missiles for howitzers.

>Should we bring back hyper velocity KEP missiles like LOSAT for ground vehicles to fire at tanks?

Any vehicle with those would have better AT firepower than most current MBTs. So yes, they would be a good thing to have.

>>526550

Infantry, not airplane expert or anything here.

I'm just spitballing but I imagine best case sanario is seriously reduced payload and problems with the connection to the airplane being problematic for stealth, as well as highly expensive beyond practical reasoning. Worst case sanario is probably impossible.

>>526594

>How does the initial purchase cost of an aircraft compare to the cost of parts/maintenance crew?

>Roughly how does the cost of a jet fighter break down into its parts?

It doesn't. By that I mean there's no constant relation between purchase price, part price, or maintenance/operation prices. It varies according to manufacturer(s), sometimes you have other manufacturers providing parts, sometimes aircraft are built under license in other countries with different labor wages… it's all a mess.

>would it be a good idea to create an air to air missile that has a proximity fuse and an array of EFPs

That's basically Russian missiles, although they use mild steel not copper. It's why the Malaysia airlinies flight was confirmed hit by a missile produced in USSR, the entry marks of the shrapnel looked like little butterflies which is partly because they're explosively formed, they move fast around 2.5km/s or in their effective range (~500m) it's a fraction of a second. Some fragments traveled about 200m, then went lengthwise through the airplane starting at upper left cockpit and exiting at lower left tail, and were probably still dangerous on the other end.

Western SAM shrapnel is little balls of tungsten, it's a bit more dense coverage but has other downsides.

>>526569

> pilotless prop drones or manned Tucanos cost about $15 million.

Combat-worthy MiG-21s costs slightly more than a million.

>>526662

He's probably talking about after it gets through the US defense industry. I can't imagine the SA countries pay $15mil for their Tucanos.