On 16 May 2016 at 12:15, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
This drone and its operator would be priority targets for the said sniper.

And yet it seems to be very popular with the user community.

This is because the user community doesn't pay for it.

Reading more on the weapon, it seems to me counter-sniper role is not what it is intended for.

Finding a sniper from a flying platform would be quite a task

Also handy for taking out mortar positions.

However, the article says a loiter of 20 minutes at 100m altitude for the armed version. Doesn't give speed, but a mortar can be anywhere up to 3km away, and with no way to locate it, it will not be a quick trip. (However, another article says these are deployed with artillery/mortar locating radars towed by HMMWVs from the ISR company, so perhaps counter-mortar use is practical)

Meanwhile launching the munition discloses the operator's location if the enemy is not without their own 'tricks'. UAVs are widely advertised, but not the counter-UAV measures that are also prolifirating.

What other online items suggest is the use against retreating enemy, in which case the value of a Taliban fighter to the US taxpayer is $40k (some claim a much higher unit price).

The weaponised version has a shotgun rather than a grenade effect when fired, so there are tactical limitations, and the weapon can't be recalled, but can be abandoned in flight.

Counter-sniper tactics don't usually require airstrikes, but destruction of buildings is not an impediment, and can be achieved by other means. In any case, partial destruction is usually enough.

*American* counter-sniper tactics tend to depend on what's available. Generally, when American units get into trouble, they call for artillery and air support. GIven the terrain in Afghanistan, air strikes, while slower, are more likely to be available.

Everyone's infantry depend on what's available.

A sniper, or enemy mortars, have been the routine of infantry warfare for at least 200 years.

Terrain is terrain. Why do you mention Afghanistan? The outcome of that war can't be rectified by this technology.

A cheaper idea is to mount a laser reformatory on the drone and use conventional munitions to engage.

$40k IMHO is too expensive a 'consumable' for infantry, particularly on foot.

Half the price of a Javelin, 2.5x the cost of a SMAW. Slightly less than the cost of an hour of flight time for an F-15, with a wait time of zero minutes.

This is why infantry like to work alongside tanks. Combined Arms.

The modern tank HE ammo is ~$100 ea.

Not all armies have easily deployable cost-effective tanks though

How much is a trooper worth, Greg?

Depends on the army and amount invested in training

Acheiving outcomes via warfare without personnel casualties is what sci-fi all about with robot armies

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook." -Alan Morgan

----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=JydxSB9tZc6TS63HiAHJcg6SAwighNGJ