Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
These systems can come handy on our western border. Artillery strikes on JUA camps across the border at the start of the year were quite effective. One of their top commanders along with a dozen fighters perished and many of their training compounds were destroyed.
But the constant bombardment for two days created a diplomatic issue with Kabul.
If the effective range of this system is 50km and we can use our proxies or intelligence operators to designate targets by laser, then it is pretty much like launching an air strike without our planes violating Afghan airspace. As it will be a precision(well sort of) strike, there won't be much protest coming out of Kabul.
This seems rather more likely than bunker-busting, for the simple reason that faced with this weaponry, I would build a multitude of bunkers. Even one missile per bunker (unmanned or remotely manned) will turn out to be prohibitively expensive. OTOH taking down very tightly configured targets has two results: the target goes down; there is MINIMAL collateral damage, and given the history of drone-based strikes, this is an important criterion.
It will be exactly a precision strike, given the last stage of laser-designation. Even otherwise, it is likely to be very effective against high-value targets.
Regarding Khafee's remark, I gather from it that both sides are using guided artillery shells; there is fairly authentic information about the use of Krasnopol by Indian artillery.