brar_w wrote:The GMLRS/GMLRS-AW has a 2016 fly-away cost of roughly $142K. IF you're aiming for guided targeting at triple digit KM distances you aren't going to get it down to thousands or even tens of thousands.
What is the range and warhead type and any idea how much the price will vary with increase/decrease in range to say 200 kms and 400 kms
This one is actually sub-100 km (Officially 70+ km) range with GPS aided INS. The longer range guided sub-200km rounds are the ATACMS which will run you $600,000+. I would assume that the 400 KM LRPF will probably cost around a $1 Million.
I'm sorry if the question is repetitive but the price of incoming vs. defending missile comparison is interesting. If the enemy is launching a USD$ 150, 000 munition at you, what would be a good/ acceptable cost of defence?
Don't get me wrong because personally, I have a totally different matrix of what is acceptable cost.
If the enemy is launching one at you, you will use the system that is going to get you the absolute best shot of getting a kill. That's what you would do at the tactical level. However planners will plan for layers to the AD that try to compensate for the adversaries offensive capability. You're air defenses are a reflection of the offensive capability you are trying to deter or thwart so if your opponent is going to be building a vast aresenal of cheap, relatively cheap, medium-cost, and high end systems you will naturally respond by developing something that negates this.
This is the classic salvo competition where you not only have to defend the incoming salvo, but respond with you're own offensive capability to prevent future salvos. This has offensive and defensive elements and you must mix defensive capability (ability to defend against different types of threats) with offensive capability - i.e. What you bring to bear once the battle starts and what you can do to defeat prior to the salvo. The latter is what is now loosely termed as "Left of Launch capability". It could be something to the effect of taking out a satellite and making the incoming salvo less precise or a cyber attack that degrades command and control. A classic Let of Launch is the pre-emptive TEL hunt against ballistic missiles.
A lot of this depends on the threat. The Israelis for example defend fixed installations and have a defined threat around their border. The Tamir, its size and cost works for them. When the US Army looked at it and at the threat it wanted something that had higher magazine capacity and lower cost to the Tamir. Hence they inserted a competing interceptor that was tiny, and a fraction of Tamir's cost. In the Indian context the IA and IAF would naturally have to do their own analysis to see what the capability of the threat is, what a saturation attack looks like and which systems to procure to defend against it but ideally from a planning and procurement process you wan't to provide a cost-effective and survivable air defense system against the conventional threat. The larger interceptors are designed around defeating challenging targets and given some of the payload it requires defeating them at a particular altitude and at a particular stand off range. That essentially dictates their size, weight, warhead, speed and guidance and through it - COST. Those aren't necessarily the attributes you look for on a CRAM hence if the threat is large enough you layer up. Same reason you don't use the S400 as a point defense system.