• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CTV News: Military to buy new shells costing $150,000 each

Big Foot

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Military to buy new shells costing $150,000 each
Updated Thu. Nov. 9 2006 10:15 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Canadian Forces are investing in a new high-tech shell to be used in Afghanistan. But at $150,000 per round, it could be the most expensive ammunition ever fired by the military.


"It's like shooting a Ferrari every time you use one of these things," Steve Staples of the Polaris Institute told CTV News on Thursday.


"These are incredibly expensive weapons. And really, it's overkill for the kind of mission we're doing."


Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor estimates Canada will have poured $4 billion into the Afghanistan mission by 2009. Just sending a squadron of Leopard tanks to the region costs $190 million.


But supporters argue the shell -- called the Excalibur -- is worth the added expense. U.S. defence contractor Raytheon promotes the shells as "the next-generation family of projectiles," and the U.S. military already uses them in Iraq.


"The forces on the ground have been pretty content with the weapon, in the sense that it has met the needs at this level, and they're looking forward to the future developments that Raytheon is working on at the moment," said Justin Tkach of Jane's Strategic Advisory Services.


According to Raytheon's pamphlet on the Excalibur, the "CPS-guided projectile provides accurate, first round fire-for-effect capability to all current and future 155-mm howitzers."


The shell uses software to direct it within 10-metres of its intended target, even when fired from up to 40 kilometres away, apparently minimizing unintended casualties. Standard shells are usually accurate to within 50 metres.


"Its accuracy will reduce collateral damage and permit its use close to friendly units, thus increasing employment flexibility," the pamphlet states.


It's that increased accuracy that caught the military's attention, said retired major major-general Lewis MacKenzie.


"You could imagine if they could find a group of Taliban that are about to ambush a Canadian convoy, or any other convoy at a range of ... 40 kilometres is an extremely valuable resource," he said.


But the Excalibur costs about $100,000 more than a regular shell, and critics like New Democratic MP Dawn Black argue the extra money would be better spent on reconstruction projects.


"We have to supply clean water," she said. "We have to supply electricity so that they can get on with some kind of economic development. And unless the people of Afghanistan see these kinds of differences, we're not going to win the hearts and minds of these people."


It's unlikely that argument will change the minds of battlefield commanders, who want any technology that improves their fighting power.


"I don't have a business plan when I'm fighting and trying to save Canadian lives and get rid of some pretty nasty people. I don't think about the bottom line," said MacKenzie.
Fair dealings, blah blah blah, from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061109/military_shells_061109/20061109?hub=TopStories

Surprise surprise, the NDP and Steven Staples don't like this. Besides, it's been known for quite some time we were/are buying these. I barely consider this news worthy. Another way for the media to try to knock the legs out from under the CF and the mission. Shame on them.
 
CTV.ca News Staff said:
"It's like shooting a Ferrari every time you use one of these things," Steve Staples of the Polaris Institute told CTV News on Thursday.


"These are incredibly expensive weapons. And really, it's overkill for the kind of mission we're doing."
I suppose he would prefer we use a less expensive regimental fire mission & kill a whole village as opposed to put one precision round into the fighting position of a half dozen Taliban.
 
Excalibur is old news and has been the subjects of posts here before.

What strikes me is that the critics obviously could care less about causing collateral damage.  These rounds will significantly increase our ability to target the enemy and, by extension, avoid civilian casualties.  Dawn Black and the Staples crowd don't seem to have factored that little fact into their inane ranting.
 
Well, if we're not putting the money into rebuilding said village, why don't we just level it, right? Or better yet, invest that money in the town THEN level it with inaccurate artillery. Mr. Staples and Ms. Black need to learn to stay in their lanes.
 
MCG said:
I suppose he would preffer we use a regimental fire mission & kill a whole village as opposed to put one precision round into the fighting position of a half dozen Taliban.

Put that way it would tell me that Stephen Staples condones 'colateral damage'.  If the Polaris Institute and NDP feel that way then it would seem they are the ones who are in the wrong.
 
WOW!  Look at all the people with the same thoughts on what the 'Less Than Knowledgeable' think about how warfare should be fought.

Let's just keep the Stephen Staples', the Polaris Institutes, and the Dawn Blacks of the world happy and just fire hundreds of thousands of those less expensive rounds and level the place, killing all and sundry, making the countryside look like the Somme in WW I.
 
Let's not be shy about using the little "Feedback" button on the story, folks - can't hurt.

 
Forgive my ignorance. What's the difference in accuracy here? I always assumed our gunners were pretty accurate in general.
 
Well!  Google is your friend.  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm 
The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is the Army's fire and forget, smart munition. It provides capability to attack all three key target sets, soft and armored vehicles, and reinforced bunkers, out to ranges exceeding current 155mm family of artillery munitions. Because of its accuracy and increased effectiveness, Excalibur reduces the logistical burden for deployed ground forces. It also provides lower collateral damage through its concentrated fragmentation pattern, increased precision and near-vertical descent.

Less rounds would be required to be fired to hit a target.  Less rounds would be missing the target and killing/injuring/damaging surrounding personnel/equipment/facilities/buildings.  More efficient.  Perhaps even more cost effective also.
 
Colin P said:
I know it's expensive, but I doubt very much it's $150,000 per round.

I have no problems beleiving it will cost 150k a round once everything is factored in.  Simply look at the complexity of the weapon.

http://proceedings.ndia.org/5560/Wednesday/Session_III-A/Gudjohnsen.pdf

After all, an AIM-7 Sparrow AAM costs 250k......why can't Excalibur cost 150k ?
 
No rocket motor and electronic cost way cheaper now. I suspect they are factoring in the cost of the contract to provide X number of shells. the contract will provide for other stuff that costs a fair bit. As more are made likely the unit cost goes down. Just my guess of course.
 
Colin P said:
No rocket motor and electronic cost way cheaper now. I suspect they are factoring in the cost of the contract to provide X number of shells. the contract will provide for other stuff that costs a fair bit. As more are made likely the unit cost goes down. Just my guess of course.

Most likely, as with any other military contract.  But if you are paying X amount for the shells and support services........divide that by however many shells you buy.....still adds up to "cost per shell" does it not ?

Precision costs money......better get used to it
 
If I am not mistaken the actual cost of the system when compared to conventional munitions accomplishing the same job is about the same or only slightly more. The idea being that FFE would be one shell. There would be no need for multiple rounds, corrections, repeating and then finally hitting and killing the target. The idea is that one shell does what it used to take a minimum of 10. Factor in the costs associated for firing rounds etc. the cost comparison looks pretty reasonable. Of course one must not forget that this system can almost eliminate the worry of collateral damage and fratricide.
 
rant/
Why is it we can buy a CF18, and all its' sundry weapons and systems and not blink an eye at the cost, but the moment it's artillery, everybody wants paper-Mache prices.
/end rant

note: not aimed at the commenters
 
Cardstonkid said:
this system can almost eliminate the worry of collateral damage and fratricide.

Thats at the top of the list of things that will NEVER happen........
 
Dawn and Mr Staples can take a bleeding hike. Its our soldiers lives on the line and they need the best. The very best. End story. They have several oocassions of 155mm being fired in battles in the panjawi region, so excalibur may be just the ticket.

It may cost more than one shell, but hey if that one shell hits the target exactly first time then we don't need those 2-5 rounds to adjust right? Keep in mind I am not a gunner, FOO or MFC.

We should spend more on reconstruction? Get serious. We need to eliminate the threat otherwise they will blow up all these wonderfull water wells, schools and other infrastructure projects.

Dawn, get your nose out of our business.

Mr Staples, give it up, you know NOTHING about war, warfighting or combating terrorist at the root level.
 
I hate to ask a rookie question.....

but what is the cost for 1 normal artillery shell?

I once heard $700 but that was years ago and I don't
trust that information to be accurate.
 
700 bucks is the range of a 105 HE shell,

Hopefully the MND will just say "Jack, how much is an afghan life worth to you?" 

These rounds are accurite to within 10 metres and have a range of 40km,

Current rounds, even when fired by the Lav FOO vehcle, with MET, and all the computers and GPS going nuts, can be counted on within 50 meters.  Whcich might as well be a mile if you have to fire into a compund inside a village.

I can't wait to see what will happen if we start looking harder at the BONUS round, imagine, active hunting rounds floating above the battlefield....Kill bots are next.
 
If firing excalibur rounds reduces the need for Air power firing precision weapons, then this is a prett good deal, no risj to friendly life, no risk to a 50 000 000 dollar plane, no fuel, no 500 000 dollar missle, just a 150 000 dollar bullet.  Sounds very fiscally conservative to me.  Aren;t the smallest precision weapons on the planes starting at 250 pounds, what if you need a smaller bang?
 
Back
Top