Excalibur

[GUNS]

Go to:  www.putfile.com and click on "search" type " Excalibur1" , look for Excalibur1 below One File Found  and see what $80,000 buys

Crank up the volume.

 

[GAP]

on Discovery Channel the last part of  Future Weapons is on the Excaliber rounds..

 

[COBRA-6]

watched it, wow!

 

[GAP]

They shot it 15 degrees off target and it still corrected itself to within 2 meters of target

 

[COBRA-6]

just like my tee-off in golf, but reverse!  ;D

 

[GAP]

just like my tee-off in golf, but reverse!  ;D

Only you don't charge $80,000 per shot 

 

[TCBF]

Ever notice that the dumber our gunners get - the more money we have to spend buying smarter ammunition?

 

[GUNS]

Ever notice that the dumber our gunners get - the more money we have to spend buying smarter ammunition?

Dumber our gunners get - :threat:

 

[poko]

I thought the army was using artillery because the round where cheap and they could fire a lot; give them a shower of round. Now the Excalibur is just like a missile lunch from a plane. And a price tag of 80000$ you cant fire a lot on enemy position I guess that why it as to be precise. Can’t miss your shot twice it to expensive. I watch it last night on discovery channel.

 

[GUNS]

poko, the purpose of the Excalibur is, one round - one kill

Saves on ammo in the long run.

Cost of Excalibur is expected to drop to $20,000 when put into production.

civilian deaths will be greatly deduced as well

 

[GAP]

Ever notice that the dumber our gunners get - the more money we have to spend buying smarter ammunition?

You sure you don't live in Montreal with that death wish?....dunno...I can see it coming!!  ;D

 

[ammo618]

Some followup to the previously mentioned power problem. Cheers.

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - SEPTEMBER 06, 2006

Power system snags add to Excalibur deployment delay
Stephen Trimble JDW Americas Bureau Chief
Washington, DC
A US Army plan to rush a simplified version of the Raytheon/BAE Systems Bofors XM982 Excalibur projectile into the field is being delayed again to the second quarter Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07).
The new delay means that initial fielding of the first Excalibur - a precision-guided, 155 mm artillery round - will take place within three to six months of the original fielding schedule.
David Brockway, senior manager for business development at Raytheon Missile Systems, said there were significant challenges in trying to move Excalibur's deployment to the field in 2006. "Given how important it was for the guys in the field, we accepted a lot of risk and everything didn't work out perfect," he said.
The army originally planned to deploy the first Excalibur rounds in June 2007. By early 2005, however, the fighting in Iraq had created an urgent need for an artillery round with the Excalibur's precision.
The army signed a USD22 million order in June 2005 for the Boeing/BAE Systems Bofors team to deliver 140 Excalibur rounds by March, but hardware glitches with the round's GPS/Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) delayed initial fielding to October 2006.
The army completed a second series of test firings in July, but discovered a new issue. After exposure to extreme cold temperatures, the power supply to the Excalibur's guidance system failed to operate properly.
"The problem related to the power system, not the battery," Brockway explained. "There was a problem with the way other components were taking power from the battery." A solution for this issue has already been identified, but the initial fielding date of the Excalibur Block 1A-1 round is delayed again to between January and March 2007, Brockway said.
The Block 1A-1 was designed to meet the army's accelerated deployment schedule. Its maximum range is limited to about 23 km, or one-third the Excalibur's requirement of 35 km to 40 km. The initial round's shorter distance is a function of the army's certification schedule for the Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS)-5, which is the enabler technology for the longer-range Excalibur variant.
The army has plans to buy 386 more Block 1A-1 rounds through FY07. Low-rate production of the Block 1A-2 with the increased range capability should begin in FY08. However, the Raytheon/BAE Systems Bofors team may face competition for the Block 1B contract award scheduled for FY09. Alliant Techsystems has announced its intention to submit a competitive offer for the Block 1B round, which is expected to feature significantly lower unit costs.

 

[Petard]

In the not-so-long-term I am still betting that physics will win out on the PGM discussion.

For area saturation - guns and bullets.  But for precision, either ground-launched arty missiles or air force launched bombs or missiles.

The ole guns versus rocket debate eh?
The problem is what is the best compromise. Going to a system that delivers the capability via missiles, or aircraft, has the problem of not much sustained fire capability when you want it. A rocket also has to spend a good portion of it's weight on fuel/propellant and possibly guidance system as well. The gun launched method of delivering precision, currently, has technology hurdles to overcome right now but they're closing fast, and in due course the potential to hit moving targets as well. Guns have the ability to provide sustained fire more so than rockets. The M777 is incredibly accurate, even near the end of the range for any particular charge, the guns in theatre certainly are earning their keep.
Some of this capability being pursued for "tube" Artillery is not so new, check out the 120mm Stryx mortar bomb.
I do see a potential for low cost precision rockets similar to what the Norwegians are doing with our old CRV7 rockets by fitting them with a GPS guidance package, or IR seeker, or laser homing. It won't give you a sustained fire capability, but for missions where the ground forces are very limited, and there's no room for much of a support train, such as in a Special Ops or semi-isolated PRT situation for example, it does give them the potential of organic fire support.
Personally I think Canada made the right call of sticking with "the guns", but of course I do have a bias (although I do try to be objective).

 

[GUNS]

New technology has made the 155mm shell into smart shell, at very low cost. There is a fuse called the CCF which stands for Course Corrective Fuse being or is developed now that can utilize standard 155mm shells. This technology may apply to all arty shell.

To see company promo go to www.strategypage.com and click on CCF thread.

 

[Petard]

This might help in the navigation to the strategypage info

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/4-2485.aspx

Just beware the glossy!
If it's so good, why are we not pushing it right now? Because as it stands right now that fuse corrects more for range and not so much for bearing (direction), the aim point actually has to be plus of the Tgt in order for it to work right, and if it doesn't, guess where its going?
CCF does improve the accuracy of some weapons though, a bit. I would argue that given the improvement in propellant manufacture (it is getting a lot more consistent) that in most conditions, with accurate calibration, current met, and good fixation and orientation, the majority of the error is in the target location, which isn't going to be helped by a more accurate fused round; you'll just miss more accurately what you want to hit
This then is the other important part of PGM discussion, Target Location Error, and a very important part of decidng whether or not to use the PGM or the ole fashion "dumb" stuff

 

[Popurhedoff]

I watched the Discovery Channel article on the Excaliber round as well.  It was tested at twice the pressure (16,000 G's) that would incur during normal use and the electronic circuits still worked and the moveable fins worked great (accurate to within 7m's from 30km's).  The 15 degree off shoot equated to 4miles left at a range of 22 miles.  The Excaliber corrected to within 2m's.

I like the HAFO (High Angle Fall Out) trajectory... instead of dropping at approx 45 degrees, it can come down at angles up to 75 degrees thereby dropping almost on top of insurgents and targets hugging behind Mosques and schools etc.

It was a very intresting program and another tool for theCommanders to utilize on the battlefield.

Cheers
Pop

 

[Old Sweat]

The two posts by Petard and Popurhedoff are very interesting. In particular there has to be a reason that the round, as far as I know, has not been deployed. The glossy may be what is desired, or the dread manufacturer's concept states, but Petard's concept set me to thinking.

Petard, my picture is in the rogue gallery of CIsG that is/was on the wall in H16, so I also tend to take unsubstantiated claims with a bag of salt. Your observation about aiming plus of the target leads me to speculate that the range correction is by increasing drag as opposed to steering the trajectory, but I am prepared to be proven wrong. Popurhedoff, you are perfectly justified to be enthusiastic over what you say on the Discovery Channel, and I am not picking on you, but this type of program is not known for its strict adherence to accuracy.

 

[Gunnerlove]

$80 000 seems like a ton of cash till you start adding up the cost of getting a CF-18 to do the same job. Start with $20K per hour so if the target is two hours away you have now reached the break even point without even adding the cost of the PGM the plane is going to drop. Now ask what the troops who are being supported are going to do for the next few hours while waiting for the zoomies to show up? Now what about the target? still engaging our troops moving into a town or city and denying us a clean strike? When minutes count, having support hours away doesn't. 

IMHO it will be a good addition to our currently available ammo not a replacement (when the bugs are worked out).