Don’t knock iron bombs. Only 10% of the bombs used during Desert Storm were PGMs.
But I like to knock them, so excuse me if I keep doing that.
Percentage in DS is meaningful because... ? During Vietnam it was <1%.
DS was 8% according to data I found.
Air strikes on Yugoslavia had 35% guided weapons use.
Invasion of Iraq had 68% guided weapons use.
Libya bombings: UK MoD had 76% guided weapons use. Some other NATO countries had 100% use.
So the trend is very evident.
Whether you want to bomb enemy's fixed infrastructure or relocatable (or even moving) targets, guided weapons are preferred.
Russians, which did claim their SVP-24 system is good enough, still increased their stocks of guided weapons, adding next gen LGBs and adding satellite guided bombs to their arsenal.
Various computer assisted systems are great, of course one is going to use them with unguided bombs. BUT, they can only do so much. To maximize results and minimize the number of
sorties/planes needed for a mission, guided weapons are still preferred.
I can't find ANY official info on precision of SVP-24, for example. Unofficially, 3-5 meter precision is usually cited and regurgitated online but without giving any altitude context. Which is crucial. Norden sights from ww2 also used computer (analog one) with automated bomb control and an autopilot, but have proved to be quite imprecise as the altitude increases. To the point where bombs missed a few hundred meters when dropped from 6000 m or so. Modern computer controlled systems should indeed be expected to improve upon that, perhaps even get the bombs to tens of meters when dropped from similar altitudes, but that could still be improved upon. Today guided bombs have moved on from the beginnings of JDAM. 2-3 meter precision is something that can be regularly expected from guided bombs nowadays.
While LGBs may indeed expose the plane in certain situations, there's other situations where unguided bomb delivery exposes the plane to even greater dangers.
LGB use may have the plane fly 8+ km high, potentially 10+ km away (horizontally) from the target. (It could be 20 km with today's lasers, who knows) While longer reach SAMS will endanger it, various other anti air systems won't.
A plane delivering unguided bombs will necessarily be flying both lower and closer to the target. Probably so close it's going to almost overfly it. So various shorter ranged systems will come into play, endangering it. Sure, it may not get seen by longer ranged radars in its low flying approach, but it doesn't mean it will be safer overall. Longer ranged SAMs are also bigger targets, so they are going to be hunted first. While short range AA will usually always remain a threat.
Whether PLAAF uses guided bombs more but hides that fact - well, that's possible. I'd personally say it's not likely, though. PLAAF doesn't seem to hide seemingly more important stuff. Various new weapons are seen on planes every few years, so why would satellite guided bombs be different? Satnav is almost certainly used in various cruise missiles already. (I would very much like to see high res close up images of KD-88 though, from all angles)
I'd personally expect the reason to be that PLAAF simply did not get around to implement them. They may think their importance doesn't warrant the investment yet. They may (correctly or not) assume that getting close to targets of a peer opponent is going to be unlikely anyway, so stand off missiles are the most numerous weapon they intend to use. And that tactical bombing missions is something PLAAF is simply not tasked with, so the occasional LGB is enough for those. I personally think that'd be a grave mistake, not to include tactical strikes within the core mission set of PLAAF. I am not talking about frontline bombing. But about battlefield interdiction and bombing of various fixed sites (ports/airports/barracks/depots/factories) as well as time-important targets. (enemy has a MLRS battery in the area or a radar, etc) Those targets are going to be so plentiful that various KD-88 missiles are likely NOT going to be nearly enough to cover them in sufficient numbers. China would need literally hundreds of thousands of such missiles to cover such target classes. And KD-88 is likely both too expensive and too large (usually 2 per most planes if sufficient range is to be achieved) to be used as a mainstay weapon. Counting on the Rocket force or even PLA's artillery and MRLs to do that mission is inadequate. Rocket force's cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are simply too expensive for the numbers needed. And the ranges involved and geography of the Pacific war theater don't allow the PLA to get close enough.
For comparison: US has upward of 400 000 JDAMs, LGBs and SDBs. And is planning to expand its arsenal of cruise missiles from roughly 10 000 to 15 000.
