Return to Answer

Using standard military ordnance has the advantage of a rapid deployment, minimising time between issuing the strike order and its execution.

Wind farm turbines are dispersed structures, so each must be attacked separately.

I would suggest that a flight of 40 aircraft such as the F-16 be used, each carrying 6 AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missiles, each missile costing US$17,000. A maverick missile is easily capable of destroying a wind turbine when targeted upon the upper housing, where its shaped-charge warhead could destroy any number of critical components that would lead to the turbine failing completely. This option minimises the strike package's time over the target.

As an even lower cost solution, the 40 aircraft could open fire on the wind turbines with their GAU-4 20mm cannons. An F-16 carries 511 rounds for its 20mm cannon, and approximately 100 rounds would likely do sufficient damage for an operating wind turbine to tear itself apart. At 27 dollars per round, the cost of destroying one wind turbine with guns would be approximately 2700 dollars. This option would require more time over the target.

If both Mavericks and guns were used, 20 aircraft could take out the 200 wind turbines at an approximate ordnance cost of $9850 per target. This option involves the greatest time spent over the target for the strike package.

The possibility exists to use one GBU-39 glide bomb per tutbine at a minimum cost of 40,000 dollars per unit, or one GBU-32 JDAM per turbine at a cost of $18,000 each. From this, it can be seen that the AGM-65/20mm solution is the cheapest option in terms of ordnance expended and fewest aircraft. The 20mm solution is cheapest if there is no limit to the numbers of aircraft that may be deployed. The AGM-65 solution minimises both cost and time over the target area.

Obviously, the cost of operation of the launching platforms are not included in these figures.

As an additional bit of info, I have flown similar missions in simulation (Falcon 4.0, a very realistic F-16 simulator for PCs). Guns, dumb bombs or unguided rockets require aiming the whole aircraft at the target, which takes time during which interceptors could be approaching, and guns and rockets require holding the aircraft on-target long enough to do the job while dumb bombs require releasing the bomb at the correct moment. These weapons are much less accurate than they may seem to the general public.

Conversely, self-guided weapons such as AGM-65 Mavericks can be targeted and fired off-axis (without pointing the aircraft at the target) within a few seconds by a skilled pilot, and an entire salvo of 6 can be fired off in a single pass. Wind turbines would actually be more forgiving targets, as my experience is with shooting tanks in a column from the side of the column, while wind turbines in this scenario would be one after the other with significantly greater spacing.

Laser-guided weapons have the disadvantage that the attacking aircraft (or the designating asset) must hold the laser on-target until weapon impact. This increases the time over the target area, and increases the risk of interception.

The possibility exists to use guided surface to surface ballistic or cruise missiles, but all of these cost in excess of a million dollars per unit, and one would be required per wind turbine. The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile costs 1,537,645 dollars each, far in excess of the cost of sending in aircraft as I have described above.

Using standard military ordnance has the advantage of a rapid deployment, minimising time between issuing the strike order and its execution.

Wind farm turbines are dispersed structures, so each must be attacked separately.

I would suggest that a flight of 40 aircraft such as the F-16 be used, each carrying 6 AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missiles, each missile costing US$17,000. A maverick missile is easily capable of destroying a wind turbine when targeted upon the upper housing, where its shaped-charge warhead could destroy any number of critical components that would lead to the turbine failing completely. This option minimises the strike package's time over the target.

As an even lower cost solution, the 40 aircraft could open fire on the wind turbines with their GAU-4 20mm cannons. An F-16 carries 511 rounds for its 20mm cannon, and approximately 100 rounds would likely do sufficient damage for an operating wind turbine to tear itself apart. At 27 dollars per round, the cost of destroying one wind turbine with guns would be approximately 2700 dollars. This option would require more time over the target.

If both Mavericks and guns were used, 20 aircraft could take out the 200 wind turbines at an approximate ordnance cost of $9850 per target. This option involves the greatest time spent over the target for the strike package.

The possibility exists to use one GBU-39 glide bomb per tutbine at a minimum cost of 40,000 dollars per unit, or one GBU-32 JDAM per turbine at a cost of $18,000 each. From this, it can be seen that the AGM-65/20mm solution is the cheapest option in terms of ordnance expended and fewest aircraft. The 20mm solution is cheapest if there is no limit to the numbers of aircraft that may be deployed. The AGM-65 solution minimises both cost and time over the target area.

Obviously, the cost of operation of the launching platforms are not included in these figures.

As an additional bit of info, I have flown similar missions in simulation (Falcon 4.0, a very realistic F-16 simulator for PCs). Guns, dumb bombs or unguided rockets require aiming the whole aircraft at the target, which takes time during which interceptors could be approaching, and guns and rockets require holding the aircraft on-target long enough to do the job while dumb bombs require releasing the bomb at the correct moment. These weapons are much less accurate than they may seem to the general public.

Conversely, self-guided weapons such as AGM-65 Mavericks can be targeted and fired off-axis (without pointing the aircraft at the target) within a few seconds by a skilled pilot, and an entire salvo of 6 can be fired off in a single pass. Wind turbines would actually be more forgiving targets, as my experience is with shooting tanks in a column from the side of the column, while wind turbines in this scenario would be one after the other with significantly greater spacing.

Laser-guided weapons have the disadvantage that the attacking aircraft (or the designating asset) must hold the laser on-target until weapon impact. This increases the time over the target area, and increases the risk of interception.

The possibility exists to use guided surface to surface ballistic or cruise missiles, but all of these cost in excess of a million dollars per unit, and one would be required per wind turbine. The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile costs 1,537,645 dollars each, far in excess of the cost of sending in aircraft as I have described above.

Another option that I rejected was the AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile. This is an air to ground missile with a range of 110 km, but its cost of 720,000 dollars each makes it too expensive in comparison to the other options despite its suitability for the role.

Using standard military ordnance has the advantage of a rapid deployment, minimising time between issuing the strike order and its execution.

Wind farm turbines are dispersed structures, so each must be attacked separately.

I would suggest that a flight of 40 aircraft such as the F-16 be used, each carrying 6 AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missiles, each missile costing US$17,000. A maverick missile is easily capable of destroying a wind turbine when targeted upon the upper housing, where its shaped-charge warhead could destroy any number of critical components that would lead to the turbine failing completely. This option minimises the strike package's time over the target.

As an even lower cost solution, the 40 aircraft could open fire on the wind turbines with their GAU-4 20mm cannons. An F-16 carries 511 rounds for its 20mm cannon, and approximately 100 rounds would likely do sufficient damage for an operating wind turbine to tear itself apart. At 27 dollars per round, the cost of destroying one wind turbine with guns would be approximately 2700 dollars. This option would require more time over the target.

If both Mavericks and guns were used, 20 aircraft could take out the 200 wind turbines at an approximate ordnance cost of $9850 per target. This option involves the greatest time spent over the target for the strike package.

The possibility exists to use one GBU-39 glide bomb per tutbine at a minimum cost of 40,000 dollars per unit, or one GBU-32 JDAM per turbine at a cost of $18,000 each. From this, it can be seen that the AGM-65/20mm solution is the cheapest option in terms of ordnance expended and fewest aircraft. The 20mm solution is cheapest if there is no limit to the numbers of aircraft that may be deployed. The AGM-65 solution minimises both cost and time over the target area.

Obviously, the cost of operation of the launching platforms are not included in these figures.

As an additional bit of info, I have flown similar missions in simulation (Falcon 4.0, a very realistic F-16 simulator for PCs). Guns, dumb bombs or unguided rockets require aiming the whole aircraft at the target, which takes time during which interceptors could be approaching, and guns and rockets require holding the aircraft on-target long enough to do the job while dumb bombs require releasing the bomb at the correct moment. These weapons are much less accurate than they may seem to the general public.

Conversely, self-guided weapons such as AGM-65 Mavericks can be targeted and fired off-axis (without pointing the aircraft at the target) within a few seconds by a skilled pilot, and an entire salvo of 6 can be fired off in a single pass. Wind turbines would actually be more forgiving targets, as my experience is with shooting tanks in a column from the side of the column, while wind turbines in this scenario would be one after the other with significantly greater spacing.

Laser-guided weapons have the disadvantage that the attacking aircraft (or the designating asset) must hold the laser on-target until weapon impact. This increases the time over the target area, and increases the risk of interception.

Using standard military ordnance has the advantage of a rapid deployment, minimising time between issuing the strike order and its execution.

Wind farm turbines are dispersed structures, so each must be attacked separately.

I would suggest that a flight of 40 aircraft such as the F-16 be used, each carrying 6 AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missiles, each missile costing US$17,000. A maverick missile is easily capable of destroying a wind turbine when targeted upon the upper housing, where its shaped-charge warhead could destroy any number of critical components that would lead to the turbine failing completely. This option minimises the strike package's time over the target.

As an even lower cost solution, the 40 aircraft could open fire on the wind turbines with their GAU-4 20mm cannons. An F-16 carries 511 rounds for its 20mm cannon, and approximately 100 rounds would likely do sufficient damage for an operating wind turbine to tear itself apart. At 27 dollars per round, the cost of destroying one wind turbine with guns would be approximately 2700 dollars. This option would require more time over the target.

If both Mavericks and guns were used, 20 aircraft could take out the 200 wind turbines at an approximate ordnance cost of $9850 per target. This option involves the greatest time spent over the target for the strike package.

The possibility exists to use one GBU-39 glide bomb per tutbine at a minimum cost of 40,000 dollars per unit, or one GBU-32 JDAM per turbine at a cost of $18,000 each. From this, it can be seen that the AGM-65/20mm solution is the cheapest option in terms of ordnance expended and fewest aircraft. The 20mm solution is cheapest if there is no limit to the numbers of aircraft that may be deployed. The AGM-65 solution minimises both cost and time over the target area.

Obviously, the cost of operation of the launching platforms are not included in these figures.

As an additional bit of info, I have flown similar missions in simulation (Falcon 4.0, a very realistic F-16 simulator for PCs). Guns, dumb bombs or unguided rockets require aiming the whole aircraft at the target, which takes time during which interceptors could be approaching, and guns and rockets require holding the aircraft on-target long enough to do the job while dumb bombs require releasing the bomb at the correct moment. These weapons are much less accurate than they may seem to the general public.

Conversely, self-guided weapons such as AGM-65 Mavericks can be targeted and fired off-axis (without pointing the aircraft at the target) within a few seconds by a skilled pilot, and an entire salvo of 6 can be fired off in a single pass. Wind turbines would actually be more forgiving targets, as my experience is with shooting tanks in a column from the side of the column, while wind turbines in this scenario would be one after the other with significantly greater spacing.

Laser-guided weapons have the disadvantage that the attacking aircraft (or the designating asset) must hold the laser on-target until weapon impact. This increases the time over the target area, and increases the risk of interception.

The possibility exists to use guided surface to surface ballistic or cruise missiles, but all of these cost in excess of a million dollars per unit, and one would be required per wind turbine. The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile costs 1,537,645 dollars each, far in excess of the cost of sending in aircraft as I have described above.

Using standard military ordnance has the advantage of a rapid deployment, minimising time between issuing the strike order and its execution.

Wind farm turbines are dispersed structures, so each must be attacked separately.

I would suggest that a flight of 40 aircraft such as the F-16 be used, each carrying 6 AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missiles, each missile costing US$17,000. A maverick missile is easily capable of destroying a wind turbine when targeted upon the upper housing, where its shaped-charge warhead could destroy any number of critical components that would lead to the turbine failing completely. This option minimises the strike package's time over the target.

As an even lower cost solution, the 40 aircraft could open fire on the wind turbines with their GAU-4 20mm cannons. An F-16 carries 511 rounds for its 20mm cannon, and approximately 100 rounds would likely do sufficient damage for an operating wind turbine to tear itself apart. At 27 dollars per round, the cost of destroying one wind turbine with guns would be approximately 2700 dollars. This option would require more time over the target.

If both Mavericks and guns were used, 20 aircraft could take out the 200 wind turbines at an approximate ordnance cost of $9850 per target. This option involves the greatest time spent over the target for the strike package.

The possibility exists to use one GBU-39 glide bomb per tutbine at a minimum cost of 40,000 dollars per unit, or one GBU-32 JDAM per turbine at a cost of $18,000 each. From this, it can be seen that the AGM-65/20mm solution is the cheapest option in terms of ordnance expended and fewest aircraft. The 20mm solution is cheapest if there is no limit to the numbers of aircraft that may be deployed. The AGM-65 solution minimises both cost and time over the target area.

Obviously, the cost of operation of the launching platforms are not included in these figures.

Using standard military ordnance has the advantage of a rapid deployment, minimising time between issuing the strike order and its execution.

Wind farm turbines are dispersed structures, so each must be attacked separately.

I would suggest that a flight of 40 aircraft such as the F-16 be used, each carrying 6 AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missiles, each missile costing US$17,000. A maverick missile is easily capable of destroying a wind turbine when targeted upon the upper housing, where its shaped-charge warhead could destroy any number of critical components that would lead to the turbine failing completely. This option minimises the strike package's time over the target.

As an even lower cost solution, the 40 aircraft could open fire on the wind turbines with their GAU-4 20mm cannons. An F-16 carries 511 rounds for its 20mm cannon, and approximately 100 rounds would likely do sufficient damage for an operating wind turbine to tear itself apart. At 27 dollars per round, the cost of destroying one wind turbine with guns would be approximately 2700 dollars. This option would require more time over the target.

If both Mavericks and guns were used, 20 aircraft could take out the 200 wind turbines at an approximate ordnance cost of $9850 per target. This option involves the greatest time spent over the target for the strike package.

The possibility exists to use one GBU-39 glide bomb per tutbine at a minimum cost of 40,000 dollars per unit, or one GBU-32 JDAM per turbine at a cost of $18,000 each. From this, it can be seen that the AGM-65/20mm solution is the cheapest option in terms of ordnance expended and fewest aircraft. The 20mm solution is cheapest if there is no limit to the numbers of aircraft that may be deployed. The AGM-65 solution minimises both cost and time over the target area.

Obviously, the cost of operation of the launching platforms are not included in these figures.

As an additional bit of info, I have flown similar missions in simulation (Falcon 4.0, a very realistic F-16 simulator for PCs). Guns, dumb bombs or unguided rockets require aiming the whole aircraft at the target, which takes time during which interceptors could be approaching, and guns and rockets require holding the aircraft on-target long enough to do the job while dumb bombs require releasing the bomb at the correct moment. These weapons are much less accurate than they may seem to the general public.

Conversely, self-guided weapons such as AGM-65 Mavericks can be targeted and fired off-axis (without pointing the aircraft at the target) within a few seconds by a skilled pilot, and an entire salvo of 6 can be fired off in a single pass. Wind turbines would actually be more forgiving targets, as my experience is with shooting tanks in a column from the side of the column, while wind turbines in this scenario would be one after the other with significantly greater spacing.

Laser-guided weapons have the disadvantage that the attacking aircraft (or the designating asset) must hold the laser on-target until weapon impact. This increases the time over the target area, and increases the risk of interception.