But the troops have found that missiles can be just as effective as cannon fire and the AC-130 can launch missiles from higher altitudes (beyond the range of enemy anti-aircraft guns or missiles).

===================================================================================

One should keep in mind that missiles cost an order of magnitude greater (and and then some) more than cannon fire.  Missile manufacturers hate shells because they're cheap - and missiles mean big profits.

 

That said, in contested areas if a missile means saving our guys during daytime (when a shell cannot be used) it makes sense. 

 

 

1) If you are not in a contested area then you should not be using either missile or cannon fire from aircraft.

2) It takes a specially modified aircraft to handle the stress from firing large caliber shells (>1kg of HE) or massed medium or small caliber shells. Missiles can often be deployed from ‘aircraft of opportunity’, allowing several times the number of potential launch platforms without maintaining a separate air fleet.

3) Shells are an order of magnitude cheaper than missiles on a per round basis, but missiles are more than 2 orders of magnitude more effective on a per round basis, largely because the higher accuracy and more vertical trajectory allows missiles to be used in situations where cannon cannot, including ‘danger close’, urban settings where the cannon’s low angle trajectory is blocked by buildings or concern over civilians in beaten area, and situations where the target can be identified and designated from the ground, but not by the gunship.

 

Missiles are not replacing cannon fired from aircraft because of bribes or collusion. Missiles are replacing cannon fired from aircraft simply because the missiles are more cost effective.

Real , physical   cost  of  missiles  several times cheaper than selling  price.  Techonology, know how  makes  missile  expensive  but by  that  how  you  support scientiest.

Cannon  might  be expensive  when  we  compare  how  much  copper, iron used.  

My understanding of guided weapons and cost is that dud rates must be far lower than is the case with shells - as "smart munitions" are often used (as WN said) in situations where collateral damage could be extreme, reliability and accuracy are incredibly important, that means a lot of quality control, high-tolerance manufacturing and expensive and resilient electronics/sensors - they could be produced cheaper/cruder but probably not to the tolerances (or with the components) necessary to keep the dud rate down to acceptable levels - killing innocents by mistake is disastrous in humanitarian terms and acts socially, politically, and operationally against the causal entity (ISAF for example).

 

R 

Perhaps systems like "viper strike" (an evolved BAT munition) represent a good compromise between accuracy and cost. I'm sure the above post is mostly correct but the blast zone (radius) are typically several tens of meters for a howitzer - from what I've seen it doesn't seem overly precise.

 

R 

I think you are right, lonestarpilot'sis bragging about the 105mm howitzer’s capability to take out an infantry target despite its inherently limited accuracy due to large kill radius for fragments, and ignoring the reluctance to use it in many situations because of same.

 

Another munitions we may be seeing more of is the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, a “screw in” laser guidance system for the 70mm Hydra rocket that allows it to work with the Hellfire missile to deliver a variety warheads out to 10km. Hellfire missiles can be replace by APKWS quad packs on a 1 for 1 basis, giving 4 times the shots.

APKWS is an 'elegant' solution, with distributed receiver optics mounted in the fold-out fins and the full range of hydra warheads - the thing that it probably can't/doesn't do (as a result of a limited aerodynamic/guidance package) is the sort of top-down parabolic flight profile that Hellfire/Javelin/Spike excel at as anti-armour missiles - whether that limits its usage in urban areas I don't know but a top-down attack is one of the major points that the Viper-Strike system seems to sell as being advantageous as a precision weapon. 

 

WRT warheads etc, most hellfire missiles fired use the same HEAT warhead that would be employed against MBT's- combined with a near-vertical trajectory this results in a weapon that has a surprisingly small lethal radius (depending of course on what surface it impacts) - that's not to say it is not overpowered for the targets it is typically asked to hit (especially against individuals) but rather that it allows the weapon to be employed in situations that would be impossible for pure blast-fragmentation warheads. I've seen several examples of Hellfires hitting insurgents whose companions, only a few meters away were then apparently uninjured enough to run long distances to attempt to get to safety - compare that with videos of the 105mm howitzer shells impacting and it's no wonder they would aim to be able to kill a light vehicle in one or two shots - a 30-40m kill radius surely helps. 

 

Again, coming back to the consequences of collateral damage it surely makes sense to employ whatever system is required to avoid the sorts of repercussions that killing civilians cause - asides from the basic humanitarian argument that it is a basic requirement of civilised societies. APKWS/Viper Strike and several other precision systems will offer an affordable capability - Brimstone has done this against armoured targets - while it's certainly little or no cheaper than Hellfire its warhead has been optimised to the extent that it is regarded as a safer option than Hellfire and can thus be employed in populated areas.