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

[dglad]

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.

Good point, and something that would have to built into the communications strategy for the Canadian audience.  The spin (and I'm sure you're familiar with spin, Milnewstbay  ) would be along the lines of "brave, dogged Canadian soldiers and reconstruction workers try to bring a better life to the Afghans by building schools, wells, etc., but look at what those Taliban do in response...they wantonly destroy these constructs of civil society...etc, etc...."  This rather lets us seize the moral high ground, which is always a superior fighting position.  The alternative is pretty much interminable combat.  Both are eventually going to tire out the Canadian public.  Which will do it sooner?

And, as for the Afghan audience...well, as I said, we build it, the Taliban destroys it...from the point of view of an Afghan, who's the bad guy?

I would, finally, note that from a pragmatic military point of view, schools, wells, etc. are fixed targets, with known locations, approaches, details of intervisibility, etc.  That's a somewhat different target than a convoy one can shoot at, and then fade into the background, no?

 

[DavidAkin]

DavidAkin,

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "the tone".  (And I should point out here that I did not write the article that is quoted at the beginning of this thread. I encourage you to click on the video link to the right of the article at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061109/military_shells_061109/20061110/ -- I wrote the script for the video and the article, written by a member of our online team, is based on that script.) 

In any event,  we thought that the simple fact that a single round costs $150,000 was interesting. Period. Posters here doubted it cost that much -- evidence that there's a "gee whiz' factor to the idea that a round could cost that much. So then we started asking a pile of people what they thought of a round that cost that much.

We first asked the Defence Department, through public affairs, at approx 9 am to provide us with a spokesperson, preferably an artillery officer, who could do an on-camera interview to describe the advantages of having a munition that can do what the Excalibur can do. During my request with DND Public Affairs, I explained that we have cameras across the country and so, whether that officer was in Gagetown or Wainwright, we were prepared to travel for that interview. At approx. 4 pm, I received a call saying it was impossible for DND to fulfill my request in one day.
Dawn Black, Steve Staples, Lew MacKenzie, and the folks at Jane's -- all of whom are in my piece -- bent over backwards to accomodate our interview request -- often within a few hours. Black and other members of the Commons Defence Committee was touring CFB Edmonton all day but said we could catch up with her before she departed Edmonton for her riding. Staples was in Toronto when I reached him en route that day to Saskatoon and was gracious enough to re-arrange his schedule to do an interview. Same thing with General MacKenzie. He was in Mississauga when we called but a few hours later, we met him at Pearson before he flew out. In Alexandria, Va., Jane's PR staff took about 90 minutes to track down a suitable analyst with knowledge of the Excalibur and arrange an interview. Raytheon, DND, and others were asked; they could not do it.

Many posters here, of course, have focused on the comments of Black and Staples, as if they were the only people we spoke to. Please watch the video piece -- MacKenzie is the first clip and the last clip and it seems to me MacKenzie did a very good job of encapsulating the viewpoint of many of the posters here. The analyst from Jane's also speaks about Excalibur's efficiency. And, yes, Black and Staples, question the suitability of the Excalibur as a munition for the CF. 

All I hoped is that viewers who watched it went - "$150,000? Holy s---!" and then turned to the person they might have been watching the news with to  perhaps have a discussion sparked by the comments made by Black, Staples, Mackenzie, et al.

 

[GAP]

Thank you David.

 

[Kirkhill]

Aye, thank you for the explanation David.

 

[Cloud Cover]

There is a plan afoot to deal with Mr. Staples.    He is no expert on military affairs and he is certanly not a reliable source of information- the only thing he can be relied upon is to distort information. One has to question why the media is relying upon his point of view. There are many better qualified people for the media to consult with who would provide a thoughtful and intelligent sort of opposing view point  to meet the "balance"  requirement deemed necessary for any particular piece of journalism  without resorting to a pathological liar such as Mr. Staples.  

On the matter of DND response time, everything must be cleared by the Minister in these matters. That takes time, and folks like Staples and Black know they can get their mistruths in before the military part of DND are allowed to react.

Why the rush to go get the article out before the department can respond? The excalibur round was no secret.  

Cheers

 

[Michael OLeary]

David,

Will you be doing a followup with the manufacturers to establish why Excalibur costs so much?

Will you be confirming what the comparative costs of a traditional round are, including the required explanation and multiplication to show a real cost based on the number of rounds needed to have a simlar effect on a point target?

Will we see these points given the same degree of media play?

And if Excalibur does prove itself, will you ever be writing an article critical of collateral damage caused by conventional rounds in the event an Excalibur isn't available?

What, in your opinion, is an acceptable price for the capability?

 

[Rodahn]

quote author=DavidAkin link=topic=53151/post-478587#msg478587 date=1163217893]
I'm not sure what you mean by "the tone".  (And I should point out here that I did not write the article that is quoted at the beginning of this thread. I encourage you to click on the video link to the right of the article at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061109/military_shells_061109/20061110/ -- I wrote the script for the video and the article, written by a member of our online team, is based on that script.) 

In any event,  we thought that the simple fact that a single round costs $150,000 was interesting. Period. Posters here doubted it cost that much -- evidence that there's a "gee whiz' factor to the idea that a round could cost that much. So then we started asking a pile of people what they thought of a round that cost that much.

We first asked the Defence Department, through public affairs, at approx 9 am to provide us with a spokesperson, preferably an artillery officer, who could do an on-camera interview to describe the advantages of having a munition that can do what the Excalibur can do. During my request with DND Public Affairs, I explained that we have cameras across the country and so, whether that officer was in Gagetown or Wainwright, we were prepared to travel for that interview. At approx. 4 pm, I received a call saying it was impossible for DND to fulfill my request in one day.
Dawn Black, Steve Staples, Lew MacKenzie, and the folks at Jane's -- all of whom are in my piece -- bent over backwards to accomodate our interview request -- often within a few hours. Black and other members of the Commons Defence Committee was touring CFB Edmonton all day but said we could catch up with her before she departed Edmonton for her riding. Staples was in Toronto when I reached him en route that day to Saskatoon and was gracious enough to re-arrange his schedule to do an interview. Same thing with General MacKenzie. He was in Mississauga when we called but a few hours later, we met him at Pearson before he flew out. In Alexandria, Va., Jane's PR staff took about 90 minutes to track down a suitable analyst with knowledge of the Excalibur and arrange an interview. Raytheon, DND, and others were asked; they could not do it.

Many posters here, of course, have focused on the comments of Black and Staples, as if they were the only people we spoke to. Please watch the video piece -- MacKenzie is the first clip and the last clip and it seems to me MacKenzie did a very good job of encapsulating the viewpoint of many of the posters here. The analyst from Jane's also speaks about Excalibur's efficiency. And, yes, Black and Staples, question the suitability of the Excalibur as a munition for the CF. 

All I hoped is that viewers who watched it went - "$150,000? Holy s---!" and then turned to the person they might have been watching the news with to  perhaps have a discussion sparked by the comments made by Black, Staples, Mackenzie, et al.[/quote]

David:

From my point of view it is wonderful that a member of the fifth estate will actually log into a forum such as this and glean feedback regarding the  the items you report on from the members that it will directly affect. In my opinion the members of the military have been "slagged" both politically and through the news services that the people here have developed an extremely cynical attitude. I for one am glad to see that you do in fact keep an eye on what the military members feel, and hope that this will also be reflected in some of your news bytes.

End of hijack...

Regards

 

[DavidAkin]

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.

In fact, it was precisely the reverse. The Defence Minister was caught without his homework. Black and her staff have done a tremendous amount of homework and had indeed checked their story thoroughly. How do I know that? Pardon me for the long post, but here's the answer (All the quotes here are taken from Parliamentary documents, online at http:www.parl.gc.ca):

On Sept. 19, Black put the following question on the Commons Order Paper
========
Q-1082 — September 19, 2006 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan: (a) what is the allotment of money set aside in the fiscal framework for the remainder of the mission; (b) how does the mission effect the fiscal framework; (c) what new weapons systems have been purchased, or will be purchased for the remainder of the mission; (d) was there a M777 howitzer purchased for the mission in Kandahar and, if so, what was the cost of the system; (e) does the Canadian Forces use the Excalibur ordinance system developed by Raytheon and, if so, what is the unit cost per shell of the Excalibur ordinance system; (f) what is the added cost associated with the deployment of a leopard tank squadron; and (g) what are the project names and budgets, itemized by project, for each foreign aid project that Canada is financing in Afghanistan?
========

Under the procedural rules in the House of Commons, the government must answer these kinds of questions within 45 days or they are automatically referred to a Commons committee. (Committees have the legal power to subpoena witnesses and, so, can compel answers).

Black had not yet received her answer when, on October 18, O'Connor and Hillier appeared at the  the Commons Committee on National Defence.  The transcript of that meeting is at http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=178814#Int-1702785 .  During that meeting, this exchange took place:

=========
Ms. Dawn Black:  The previous government bought the M777 howitzers and the Excalibur munitions for use in Kandahar. I'd like to know what the precise cost of each shell is, if you could get that to me. Do you know that?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  No, I wouldn't, off the top of my head. We'll get that number for you.
Ms. Dawn Black: It has been denied to me when I've asked for it.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  It has, has it? The price of a shell?
Gen R.J. Hillier: Actually, you're asking the price of the Excalibur round.
Ms. Dawn Black: Yes.
Gen R.J. Hillier:   It's an expensive round.
Ms. Dawn Black: Yes, I know that.
Gen R.J. Hillier:   I don't have the precise dollar figure at hand, but as the minister has said, we'll provide the minister the information on it.
Ms. Dawn Black: Thank you. I'll look forward to getting it.
Gen R.J. Hillier:  Could I just say that it's an expensive round because it's a precision round. Going back to the question you asked about making sure we're not driving people away from the government, etc., because of things like collateral damage, this is one of the things we want to precisely use against those who are bringing violence against us or against Afghans only, and therefore it's a very expensive round. I'll provide the minister the cost information.

=========
So that was on October 18. Some time between that point and the debate last Tuesday night, Black received the answer to her Order Paper question. But she wanted that answer on the record, in the House of Commons, from the Defence Minister. So, during last Tuesday's debate, she said, at about 7:40 in the evening:
=========
Ms. Dawn Black:  ...    I also asked through a written question to the minister, and I asked him in committee, and my office has even used the access to information system to try to find out the cost of a particular item of departmental spending. How much did Canada pay last November for each Excalibur round to be used with the M777?  The government spent $5.5 million for these shells. That is about the same amount of money that was spent on the court challenges program, in fact a little bit more than that, before it was cut.
The minister promised me at the defence committee that he would find out this information, so I am wondering if he could share that with us now. What is the exact cost of each one of those shells?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:   Mr. Chair, the hon. member had a number of questions. I hope I can keep track of them. The total cost to send the tanks, the cannon mortar and the engineers to Afghanistan was $189 million and that was the transportation plus what was necessary to get all the equipment up to standard for operations. With respect to Excalibur, we do not own nor do we have any Excaliburs in the armed forces. I think someone is still trying to find out what the theoretical price is from a company but we do not have any rounds in the armed forces.
========

But, in fact, Black had done her homework and actually received the information she was seeking. Indeed O'Connor's own department had tabled the information in response to her Order Paper question. She was simply asking the Minister in the House of Commons so that the Minister could put it on the record. She was surprised, needless to say, that -- even though General Hillier and Defence Department Deputy Minister Ward Elcock were sitting right in front of O'Connor for this entire debate -- O'Connor could not provide the figures. So Black left the Commons -- I was there and watching the whole thing -- and went back to her office, got the information provided to her by O'Connor's department, photocopied it, and went back to the House of Commons. She didn't get another chance to speak until a couple of  hours later but, before she did, she crossed the floor of the House and I saw her give O'Connor some documents -- documents which I later found out contained the information about the Excaliburs that Black had been given by O'Connor's own department -- and I saw O'Connor thank her.
Then Black stood up and asked this:
========
Ms. Dawn Black:  ..so now I am asking the minister, is he saying that we do not have these shells, or is he not about to reveal the cost of the shells? Did the government table this information in the House of Commons in error? Is the minister not informed by his own department? What is the cost of each of these shells, please?
Hon. 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?
======

At this point, I saw O'Connor quickly confer with Hillier. Black sat down and there was a moment of silence while O'Connor appeared to be talking to Hillier and Elcock. Then, he replied:

======
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.

======

 

[old medic]

Ms. Dawn Black:  ...    I also asked through a written question to the minister, and I asked him in committee, and my office has even used the access to information system to try to find out the cost of a particular item of departmental spending. How much did Canada pay last November for each Excalibur round to be used with the M777?  The government spent $5.5 million for these shells. That is about the same amount of money that was spent on the court challenges program, in fact a little bit more than that, before it was cut.

There is the answer.
An absurd question, trying to link it to her cut social program and imply that it should be safety net before security.
She doesn't care one bit about those shells.


 

 

[couchcommander]

At approx. 4 pm, I received a call saying it was impossible for DND to fulfill my request in one day.

Ah, and there it is.

Thank you very much for your time.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tell Dawn Black I'll trade her one Firearm Registry for a Court Challenges Program if she wants to play Barter Town.  And maybe she can lean on the provincial wing of her party in BC not to ever, ever waste half a billion dollars on a public infrastructure system we're not going to use.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

David Akin-

Thanks very much for the background info.  I cannot speak for anyone else, but I respect the fact that you come to Army.ca and answer questions about your stories. Well done.

As for the content of the story- it is becoming increasingly clear that everyone with an anti-military or anti-Afghanistan agenda is having a real easy time getting inside DND's OODA loop.  We are getting beat on the most important front of all (information warfare), and have no one to blame but ourselves.  By trying to overcontrol the message from the centre, none of the minions with the detailed subject knowledge can respond to half-truths and mistruths in any kind of timely fashion.  DND and the CF end up looking monolithic, plodding, and inept.  The NDP Defence critic and her fellow travellers get to look smart.  Only a few thousand people in Canada with detailed subject knowledge know the diffference and we are not being heard.

Sigh.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Having known DavidAkin in a previous life, I'm not surprised at his thoroughness and diligence - better than most, and not afraid to share his process in a pretty transparent way. 

I am disappointed in how the military was not able to provide a spokesperson in any sort of a timely fashion.  As SeaKingTacco & couchcommander suggest, one of the truisms is that whoever is the easiest to reach will have the greatest chance of getting their message out there.

dglad - You continue to be BANG ON about the "spin" or construction of the outgoing story line.  Another truism I've learned through stressful experience, though, is that we can only control what we say, not what the media writes (in many cases, even if it is grossly incorrect).  Looking forward to discussing this further when our paths cross later today at some point!

 

[Petard]

In fact, it was precisely the reverse. The Defence Minister was caught without his homework. Black and her staff have done a tremendous amount of homework and had indeed checked their story thoroughly. How do I know that? Pardon me for the long post, but here's the answer (All the quotes here are taken from Parliamentary documents, online at http:www.parl.gc.ca):

Intersting, yes it tells a lot that wasn't necessarily coming across when reading the blog's Tues Night

David, once again thank you for the detail you put into your work, you set a standard that I think many on this site wish your colleagues could try and reach.

 

[ammo618]

Just catching up on the unread posts and providing my 2 cents. As other posters here have mentioned, $150k per Excalibur is not an unreasonable price given that it is in it's developmental phase of production. It has also undergone many revisions/improvements as well which drive up costs. On a related note, I'm sure the MND's staff now have all the pricing info they need as we had an emergency request yesterday to provide all the current prices for our in-service 155mm ammo. : Cheers.

Jim

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now, as long as they READ it..... 

 

[Brad Sallows]

To the NDP, $150,000 should be worth it (even x30 shells) if it saves one life.  If they want to quibble about whether it's an Afghan life or a Canadian life, let them.

 

[ArmyRick]

If the NDP had it there way, we would take the money and build more wells and schools. Then the taliban could blow those unwelcomed foreign projects up and continue to hit NATO troops and locals....

OR we could spen the money on kick #ss weapons systems, eliminate the threat FIRST (read fine print here Mr Layton), or motivate the threat to give up, then we can build all the neat-o do-good infrastructure.....

 

[McG]

... we would take the money and build more wells and schools. ....

OR we could spend the money on kick #ss weapons systems, eliminate the threat FIRST, or motivate the threat to give up, then we can build all the neat-o do-good infrastructure.....

Realistically, we need to do both concurrently.

 

[ambex]

Considering what people have mentioned regarding the improved accuracy of the Excaliber shells I would say that the cost is well worth it. And I would think that the NDP, who consistently talk about civilian and Canadian casualties in Afghanistan would realize that improved accuracy means less chances of "collaterall damage" and an increased ability to help Canadian soldiers under fire. Or in other words less dead good guys and gals.


As a side note I would just like to say that its really good seeing a member of the media here reading about what the military and those who support it find important.