what's the point of planes as ordnance delivery method?

what's the point of planes as ordnance delivery method?

is it because having bombs that carry themselves to the target all the way across (cruise/ballistic missiles/dumb rockets) instead of from the launch point from the plane would require to duplicate an expensive booster and guidance systems over and over to then blow it up instead of having a much higher cost one but whose price is amortized over many launches so it's actually cheaper per bomb in the end?
and it also provides more capabilities since much more of the bombs weight can be explosive and not propeller and sensors, so it's range is extended and damage amplified.

similar thing for interceptor aircraft vs SAM

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ah yes also forgot that the glide bomb/missile is launched from the sky so it has extended range due to already being in the air so it doesnt need a booster to get there and having potential energy given to it by the planes speed

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Want to use zeppelins instead?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      he is neither for or against planes.

      This is an ESL-garbled chest thumping thread about Russia's glide bombs. Its kinda hard to read OP because ESL and snowBlack person IQ.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        stupid Black person I'm just asking about planes indent care about your schizo Russia Ukraine posting

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Take the FAB russia uses as an example, and the JDAM the ukrainians/americans use to a lesser extent
    >absolute looney-tunes sized fricking HUGE boom, HIMARS missiles don't compare whatsoever
    >dirt cheap, there's nothing special about it. its just a gigantic bomb you slap onto a plane
    >can sling this thing to places artillery cant reach
    >much more accurate, especially with "guidance kits", etc - even the Russian FAB admittingly has scary pinpoint accuracy
    it's quite simple. and that's just one example of an arm launched from a plane as fire support for ground troops. don't overthink this; it just compliments the disadvantages of things like MRLS, tube artillery on the ground.

    cons
    >millions of dollars and a trained pilot down the tubes if it gets shot down
    >if you miss, you likely can't hit the same area for a while because AA (and soon to be Ukrainian F16s) will catch onto your shenanigans
    >can't saturate the target for long periods of time or over a big area like launching an MRLS volley

    probably many other pros and cons. this is just off the top of my head.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >FAB

      he is neither for or against planes.

      This is an ESL-garbled chest thumping thread about Russia's glide bombs. Its kinda hard to read OP because ESL and snowBlack person IQ.

      You called it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What do you mean by
        >FAB
        ???

        he is neither for or against planes.

        This is an ESL-garbled chest thumping thread about Russia's glide bombs. Its kinda hard to read OP because ESL and snowBlack person IQ.

        >This is an ESL-garbled chest thumping thread about Russia's glide bombs.
        i disagree with this sentiment. this could very well be just someone asking about why plane launched shit has an advantage over ground launched shit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You fellating FAB outs you as an vatBlack person shill.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so it's a precise very powerful pgm to severely degrade structures or delete an asset from the map completely, while ground launched pgms do the same but scaled down in both power and range

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Planes carry everything: guns, bombs, rockets, missiles. Plus they have capabilities to carry all sorts of sensors and EW.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I know but I'm asking about having missiles bombs and rockets delivered by plane vs by ground launch

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ground launch is the poverty solution.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A bomb dropped by a plane, a surface-to-surface missile, and a howitzer — and all the in-between permutations — are all fundamentally the same thing. Expending energy put energy onto a target over a distance. The specific form of energy and delivery is a trade-off between distance, energy cost and range, For example, shooting an artillery shell has a very low up-front cost, but due to material limitations only a small amount of energy can be realistically used. A missile vs plane vs cannon differs in level of investment vs range / energy, and one form may be more beneficial than the other depending on various factors. For example, cost vs situational awareness and kill chain time, so in a fire support role an actual plane loitering nearby may be more valuable in delivering energy to a target than a ground-to-ground missile or artillery even though it’s also the least efficient from a cost perspective.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      also arty can be used to suppress while planes cant l, although after receiving JDAMs they'll probably be pretty rekt anyway

      so you hit the target with the lowest level thing that can produce the needed effect in the needed timeframe

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so how does a state decide which and how much to procure for its armed forces and why?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what's the point of planes
    it carriers radar and targeting pods
    >as ordnance delivery method?
    it can launch ordnance immediately instead of phoning up the guy on the ground, telling him the target location, and asking him to launch, which takes time and isn't an instantaneous affair like in your video games

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think people are missing the point that planes provide power projection and the ability to drop GBUs and precision guided munitions from a plane is 1st world country solutions, whereas piss poor countries like Russia rely on zerg rocket spam which doesn't allow you to project cross continent power like launching F35s vertically off an aircraft carrier....

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Your suppositions are correct.
    In addition, an aircraft brings a human observer closer to the point of firing/impact that can theoretically react to changing conditions. An aircraft can abort an attack in a way a missile cannot, and also strike a different target of opportunity is the original target has disappeared or moved.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no reaction image on this earth that can convey just how profoundly mentally moronic you are

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ofc theres isnt since I am not

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To bomb nato mercenaries in ukraine.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *