Yes dumb bombs are very cheap when compared to smart bombs. But somehting else should be pointed out. The whole purpose of a bomb is the warhead, whithout it a bomb is usesless. the first bombs were simpley dumb bombs with a guidence system and fins strapped on. This system may stil be used today or smart bombs may come straight from the factory, I don't know which is the case. But as I said earlier, dumb bombs are basically a casing, fuse, explosive, and fins if we are talkign about high-drag bombs. Put the guidance and fins I was talking abou earlier and the bomb is smart.

But 700,000 dollars is a lot for one bomb. You can get missiles for this price, which are essentailly (not literally) dumb bombs with smart bomb guidance plus a rocket motor strapped on, making this a very complex system over just a smart bomb.

In a WW3 production would be serioulsy stepped up. There would be many mnay more guidance systems for smart bombs avaliable, so this shortage that exist in Kosovo would stil exist but not be like the US wouldn't make thousands from funding that is used during a world war. In 1945 the US spent 90% of its budget on defense. If push came to shove the US would do the same, and spend around 1.5 trillion on defense. Cost is not really an issue for dumb bombs would vastly out number planes in a ratio so in favor of the bombs that the airplane industry would have trouble building enough planes to drop the bombs (remember F-22's aren't as esay to build as an F-16)

At the beginning of the war the US would suffer greatly from a lack of prepardness, but what major war has the US fought and been prepared for, not many.

Also as dumb bombs run short, the use of these bombs becomes resticted. Never would a smart bomb be used to destroy a single tank when there is not only a shortage of bombs but a C&C center that still is vital and operating, especially against an opponent that uses Soviet style control, as did Iraq. And if you look at that war the vast majority of bombs dropped there were not smart.

And it can be said that smart bombs actually help SAVE money. One situation was in Vietnam. I don't remember the name of the bridge but will find it if you like. Anyway, F-4's had tried over and over the destroy this bridge which was on a major convoy route, But AAA and SAMs were so thick the fighters could never fly low enough to acuratley drop their bombs, and therefore never damaged the bridge. In addition to this several F-4's were also shot down in the attempt. Add up the cost of these planse, fuel not only of the attacking but also support planes, as well as their ammo, the lose of the dumb bombs which missed, and then human life. The cost of destroying this target was far too high because of failure. Well someone invented a guided missile, and the next flight comes in and the bridge is gone. Did the dumb bombs cost less to make and drop, absolutely, but they cost less to DESTROY the target, absolutley not.

Dumb bombs means the planse have to fly low, adn near to the target. This puts a muilt-million dollar plane at stake. A smart bomb can be dropped from 40 KM away (best situiation) and still hit its target. If the plane is flying into a strong wind the bomb can be dropped from 4km away, much shorter but also remember at a mich higher altitude than a dumb bomb can be dropped. This means the plane is more survivable, because it can fly out of the range of AAA and have far more time to prepare to dodge a SAM. And altitude can become speed very quickly, SPEED IS LIFE.

This also helps attacking planes in the ATA role. When fighting ATA it is good to be above the oppenent. Dumb bombs mean fly low, putting the plane at still a greater risk.

Any target which is above a certain threat level will cause the need for a smart bomb, since using dumb bombs is too risky.

With every type of target a smart bomb offers the advantage of increased survivablity, whether dropping cluster bombs on troops or penetrators against hardened structures.

Earlier I said that the GPS bomb is less useful against tanks and such becuase fixed postitions of these objects rarely occurs and therefore the GPS location would not be known. What I forgot was that F-22's and JSF haev a GPS system on board. As long as the F-22 can locate the target, the GPS data can be feed to the bomb. these bonmbs may work less effeciently against moving targets, but I'll look into that more. If the target does move the plane will have to constantly locate the target and then send info to the bomb, I do not know if this is possible, but then again why couldn't it be.

Even better possibilities lead to the use of JSATRS and GPS bombs. If the targeting info from a JSTARS plane is accurate enough, this data could be transfered to the F-22 or JSF, which then flies within 10 miles of the target and drops the bomb, without using its own sensors.

Back to cost, as shown earlier in Vietnam failure is very costly. One retired USAF general said that yes these bombs are expensive (i know I said this recently), but when he sent 4 F-111's out and was certain they would come home with 15-16 tank kills, that was cheap.

Rigth now lasers are mroe accurate than GPS bombs, but remember that GPS bombs still have an average accuracy well within the kill zone as considered by battle damage assessment teams, and they offer many advantages (and disadvantages) over laser guided bombs.

Well I've been tying a lot in all my posts lately, but one more thing. Take the B-2 into consideration. yes it is mighty expensive. But just comparing its cost to one other bomber is not fair. Take into consideration the size and amount of money that a strike package would cost. Tankers, Bombers, Fighters, all with million dollar pilots, muntions. the costs rise very quickly. Then take into consideration that soe of these planes will likely be lost. Even more money. But send 2 B-2's and the target will be destroyed and both planes will return home (or at least closer to a sure thing as anything else out there), and only 1 mid-air refueling to go anywhere in the world. Keep this in mind when thinking about smart bombs. Yes individually they are expensive, but in the long run they do save money.