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

[The Bread Guy]

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

This is EXACTLY the point I made in my "Feedback" e-mail to CTV.ca - maybe next time, someone should ask THAT question to those opposing this sort of thing....

 

[McG]

I hate to ask a rookie question.....

but what is the cost for 1 normal artillery shell?

Well, I cannot confirm the numbers but, if you want to do the math, the article gave us this:

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.

…

But the Excalibur costs about $100,000 more than a regular shell, …

 

[Colin Parkinson]

$50,000 for a Point detonating 155mm?, must have been a Liberal contract with the appropriate side funding streams into their parties coffers.

Ok now I doubt everything in the article, media bs strikes again...

 

[vonGarvin]

This whole complaint thingy by SS (steve staples) and the fiscally wise NDP is indicative of almost every one of their policies.  They cannot look beyond their noses.  Take DDT for example.  The hippies told us that it was killing bazillions every year.  OK, it's banned.  Now malaria is wiping out those kids.  But you never hear of that, you hear about AIDS, because its "trendy" and affects "the stylish" in a higher proportion in our society.
150k/round is expensive, don't get me wrong, but only to amplify on what's already been said:
1.  How much is a life worth?
2.  At 50k/round "PD" or "VT" 155, after 2 corrections, you've caught up.  And this Excalibur seems as though in some cases only one round would be needed, vice 5 rounds/gun on an FFE by "VT" or "PD" rounds
3.  The NDP complain that our soldiers aren't properly equipped.  Here's something that will save lives, but they complain.  Go figure.
4.  The NDP are idiots.
5.  This story is not a story.  Slow news day.

 

[Rodahn]

This whole complaint thingy by SS (steve staples) and the fiscally wise NDP is indicative of almost every one of their policies.  They cannot look beyond their noses.  Take DDT for example.  The hippies told us that it was killing bazillions every year.  OK, it's banned.  Now malaria is wiping out those kids.  But you never hear of that, you hear about AIDS, because its "trendy" and affects "the stylish" in a higher proportion in our society.
150k/round is expensive, don't get me wrong, but only to amplify on what's already been said:
1.  How much is a life worth?
2.  At 50k/round "PD" or "VT" 155, after 2 corrections, you've caught up.  And this Excalibur seems as though in some cases only one round would be needed, vice 5 rounds/gun on an FFE by "VT" or "PD" rounds
3.  The NDP complain that our soldiers aren't properly equipped.  Here's something that will save lives, but they complain.  Go figure.
4.  The NDP are idiots.
5.  This story is not a story.  Slow news day.
[/quote

To further expound on item #4, as somebody so quaintly stated in another post the NDPeons.......

 

[Cloud Cover]

To be honest, the government should have seen this coming. They are going to take the same drubbing for buying 30 excaliber rounds for 5million as they would for buying 1000 for 150 million, so they should have bought 1000 "precision guided tube lauched artillery shells."

I can't figure O'Connor and the Harper government out.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

From a former U.S. Army redleg earlier today (http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006651.html):

What caught my eye was the price tag. Last I saw on Excalibur was $220K a pop, with a hope for full-rate production to drive it down to $33K (pretty optimistic based on past experience). I did some checking, and $150K is in the neighborhood. What really caught my eye was this:

But the Excalibur costs roughly $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.

Heh. Just what is a "regular" projectile to these people? Last I saw a price, oh, 2003 or so, a standard 155mm HE went for $240 w/o fuze. I did some digging, and I found some pricing for some stuff in the works, usually a form of special fuze or add-on guidance package that can go as high as $20K for some long-range navy stuff in the works.

He's still plugged into DoD, so I'd trust his assessment here.

I also think the earlier point that touched on CAS is a good one: PGM's from an M777 are as close as we're going to get to being able to call in our own cavalry over there in the immediate future.  I know it can't replace CAS, but it's better than nothing, and it's a lot cheaper than operating a CF-18.

 

[dglad]

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.

Actually, this is one thing I do agree with (the rest of the story is nonsense...it would be criminal to use unguided rounds in situations where precision-guided rounds are called for, are available, but we don't have them because we wanted to save a few bucks).  We DO need to spend more on reconstruction, both in terms of dollars and effort, irrespective of the threat.  The fact is that we may never actually ELIMINATE said threat, so holding back on reconstruction while waiting for that happen could actually undermine the strategic objective of winning over the Afghan people.  Frankly, if we build a school and the Taliban blow it up, who's the bad guy?  If we put in wells for fresh water and the Taliban destroy them, to whom is the sympathy likely to accrue?

To put it another way, the surest way to "eliminate" the threat is to make the Taliban an increasingly unattractive option to the local population (let's see...a school for my children, a clinic to keep my family healthy, new wells for fresh water...or a bunch of misogynistic theocrat-thugs interested only in dictating how I live?  Hmmm....)  After all, the strategic centre of gravity of any insurgency is its support from and credibility with the people.  The military efforts in the meantime can remain focused on containing, dislocating, disrupting and pre-empting the insurgents, and otherwise protecting the reconstruction efforts as much as possible.  The insurgent threat, under these conditions, becomes ever more marginalized and irrelevant until it ceases to be a meaningful threat at all.

For that matter, one could argue that under such a scenario, the Taliban destroying the new schools and wells we build actually contributes directly to our desired end-state....

 

[Kirkhill]

Would it be too cynical to suggest that for $150,000 the artillery finally buys the ability to hit what they are aiming at?    :warstory:

But really.... the truth of the matter is what others have noted.  As I understand it with a conventional round the farther you shoot the greater the chances that you are going to miss the target.  That means two things:
- having to shoot many more rounds (using up gas in forklifts, trucks, aircraft and boats as well as wearing out barrels, all the aforementioned vehicles and the muscles of the drivers and gunners)
- missing many more times which potentially kills and maims  non-targets as well as creating a lot of damage that costs a lot more to repair than the price of  $500 bullet.  

The only other ways to get the same kind of precision support is from:
- the Tanks (which can't be everywhere in the 5000 sq km area that a pair of M777s can cover with a 40 km range - and make delivery within minutes if not seconds),
- the GMRLS missiles (which we don't have but would be really nice to have)
- or through delivery by air which requires not just an aircraft, pilot and gas but a ground crew and runway which have to be defended.  (Not to mention the Hotel with Hot and Cold running maids for the Air Force).  

Interestingly enough the price of the Excalibur is in the same price bracket as the GMRLS, the Small Diameter Bomb and, I believe, the Hellfire.  All of them are in the $50-150,000 dollar range vs $200 to $2000 for similarly sized dumb rounds.

It isn't just the cost of the round.  That is just the manufacturing cost. Its the cost of manufacturing the round, the cost of transporting it to the target from the factory and the cost of missing - all versus the effect it produces.

Edit: dglad - just read your post while writing mine - there's a lot to be said for that strategy.  How many Afghans could we hire to make mudbricks to rebuild a school (or better yet perhaps set up a cinder-block plant), for the price of an Excalibur?  Not that it is an either or situation - just a matter of how many Excaliburs vs how many bricks.

 

[DavidAkin]

I know it's expensive, but I doubt very much it's $150,000 per round.

Hey Colin --
I'm the reporter who filed the story -- and I saw your subsequent post here that you thought it all  a pile of BS -- but on this small point -- allow me to provide my source: The Defence Minister in the House of Commons [Hansard online here http://tinyurl.com/yy7gtq ]

I was the only reporter in the Press Gallery at the time -- about 10 pm. This exchange, in the middle of a four-hour debate, is between Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Dawn Black. O'Connor made these comments with the CDS and the Deputy Minister sitting next to him so I assume he knew whereof he spoke.

====
[Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor] Mr. Chair, I am advised that if we have the shells, and when we had the shells, they would cost about $150,000 each.

Ms. Dawn Black: 
    Mr. Chair, I think that indicates we do have the shells. The information was tabled in the House of Commons and I do have the documents here. We spent $5.5 million to get them.


    During the last round of questions, the minister gave us the incremental costs of the mission to 2009, but I would like to know what the full cost is to DND. It is something that his department does track. It is published in the report on plans and priorities. I wonder if he could give us that information now. I have a sense that the minister or the department are lowballing the figures and using rather selective accounting. How much exactly are we spending?

    Hon. Gordon O'Connor: 
    Mr. Chair, before I answer that, I am going to answer the Excalibur question. Apparently we are going to receive three rounds for trial. We have no rounds. That is correct. We have none. We are going to receive three rounds for trial in the next few weeks, and the plan is, in February 2007, to acquire 27 more rounds if these three rounds work out. It is correct at the moment that we have no rounds.

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

 

[Petard]

1st of all the main advantage of Excalibur is the accuracy it has at long range. At shorter ranges, say less than 20 Km, M777 is such a stable platform that it is doing a lot better than the stated 50M, but beyond 20 km, Excalibur would be a very useful tool in the box. Lew McKenzie I think was hitting on that in the news.

As for these examples of using GMLRS et al, there are tradeoffs to each, MLRS does not have a sustained fire capability unless you have a lot of them for example. A lot of this has been discussed in another thread
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50101.0.html

To me, what the politicians are sniffing around about is a dead end, like so many have said, what is the point of investing in reconstruction if you're not also investing in the capability to protect it? And Excalibur helps to cover that very large area reliably, quickly, and in all weather.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

David
Thanks for the note and I will retract the BS statement, sorry. Having written stuff for my various ministers though, they often repeat only that which is on the briefing note which is in their hand. How much he is involved in directly I would not know. I still find the price tag strangely high, although I understand they have not gone into full scale production.

 

[Petard]

To David

I was checking your posts during the debate (Tues Night? you must've been blackberrying it I guess), it seems to me the whole thing got started because the Minister of Defence caught the NDP without having their homework done, and they didn't like it.
Dawn Black I believe started off with a question about what the cost was for the Excalibur rounds that had been fired in Afghanistan, and O'Connor was given an "aha" by them since he knew, and so would anyone else if they researched it, that none had even been shipped to theatre.

I think the NDP got miffed at being shown up for not checking their story thoroughly, so this is somewhat of a smoke screen to cover that gaff.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

As for these examples of using GMLRS et al, there are tradeoffs to each, MLRS does not have a sustained fire capability unless you have a lot of them for example. A lot of this has been discussed in another thread
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50101.0.html

.....

Understood, accepted and agreed. 

 

[Trinity]

It saves lives.

How much does it cost to train one soldier
- pay them
- training costs (all aspects of training, staff, fuel, ammo, materials, etc)
- housing/food on course
- send them overseas


etc...

I'm sure easily each private... on a basic level has had $100,000 invested into them by their second year?

Think about how much has been invested into a Sgt, WO, Capt?  That's a lot of money spent on one person to
have them trained to be on the ground.  Spending $150,000 on one exact round to save their lives seems to
be a good investment. 

So if a section is in trouble... simply put you have a lot of money invested in those troops regardless
of rank and to use this special round seems less like a costly endeavour and more like proper risk management.

All that from a business point of view.  I won't even get into the human factor.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

We have to be very careful when discussing per round costs of a system not yet in service.  The Minister was very clear - we're buying three rounds at first, then an first batch of 27 if those three rounds work out.

Excalibur is still in low rate developmental production, so these three rounds will be much more expensive than full-rate production rounds, as we're paying some of the developmental costs.  Indeed, the entire US project (for 250000 rounds) was to cost $3 billion - including all the developmental costs.  This works out to $12,000 a round - a big difference, no?

Further to this:

Raytheon Delivers First Excalibur Production Rounds to the U.S. Army

(Source: Raytheon Co.; issued Oct. 9, 2006  Raytheon press releases at http://www.prnewswire.com/micro/RTNB)

TUCSON, Ariz. --- The Raytheon Missile Systems and BAE Systems Bofors' Excalibur team delivered the first production Excalibur global positioning system-guided 155 mm artillery rounds to the U.S. Army Sept. 19, paving the way for the next series of testing required to field the weapon in theater early next year.

Final assembly of the projectiles occurred at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Okla.

"These production rounds put us closer to providing our soldiers with a cannon-launched, precision projectile to meet the needs of the rapidly evolving operational environment," said Raymond Sicignano, U.S. Army deputy product manager for Excalibur. "Excalibur's accuracy and lethality will bring the howitzer into the 21st century to provide the precision and responsiveness required for operations in heavily populated areas."

The delivery of these Excalibur rounds marks the transition of development testing to production testing and user verification. Most remaining tests are in the hands of soldiers who will fire the projectiles in simulated tactical environments with their assigned equipment. Following the successful completion of acceptance testing and limited user testing, the Army will determine if the rounds are ready for deployment in ongoing operations worldwide.

"Delivery of production Excalibur rounds to the U.S. Army is a significant step forward in the fielding of Excalibur," said Jim Riley, vice president of the Raytheon Land Combat product line. "The world's first GPS-guided artillery round is now in the hands of our soldiers for the kind of testing that only they can do. They will tell us if it is ready for combat."

These projectiles are the initial deliveries from the fiscal year 2005 contract. Deliveries from the fiscal year 2006 contract will begin in March 2007.

The Excalibur program currently is responding to an urgent request from the warfighter to accelerate fielding because of the projectile's better than 10-meter (33 feet) accuracy not available from any other artillery projectile. 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. Excalibur capability provides an essential tool for our warfighters operating in urban and complex terrain.

Excalibur produces a wide range of effects in all terrains at extended ranges and in all weather conditions. With 155 mm howitzers as part of the standard organization in current operations, Excalibur's precision effects are readily available to small-unit maneuver elements.

My emphasis added.  Sounds a lot like what our plans are, doesn't it?

TR

Edited to add link to Raytheon press release archive.

 

[George Wallace]

Fighting a war is expensive.......Hell!  Electing a Member of Parliament is even more expensive.  What expenses should we examine next?

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

Fighting a war is expensive.......Hell!  Electing a Member of Parliament is even more expensive.  What expenses should we examine next?

You want to put a cost on democracy ?

 

[couchcommander]

DavidAkin,

I'm curious, and I don't mean this in a cynical kind of way, but what prompted the tone of the article?

To me the entire things reads of "Army to spend whackload on new gizmo, Steve Staples says something".

Would it have not been possible to write the article along the lines of "Army invests in new technology to save Afghan and Canadian lives"?

Now this is not a detailed breakdown of the article, nor do I intend to do a line by line theme analysis, but I am just curious as to why a negative rather than supporting tone was adopted in terms of the overall composition?

 

[The Bread Guy]

....holding back on reconstruction while waiting for that happen could actually undermine the strategic objective of winning over the Afghan people.  Frankly, if we build a school and the Taliban blow it up, who's the bad guy?  If we put in wells for fresh water and the Taliban destroy them, to whom is the sympathy likely to accrue? ....

On the ground, the residents' sympathy would accrue to us, but.....

Maybe I'm a bit more cynical after the kind of week I've had, but my guess is that if we did this, the story line would be something like:  "If we're building schools, and they get blown up, why are we continuing to build schools?"

And if we continue building schools that the Taliban destroy?  "How many schools will it take to show the policy isn't working?  Are we pouring good money after bad?"

Once a "government can't get it right" story line takes hold, it's hard to shake.