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

SP M777

Towed artillery has a role. However it is not suited to every application in every mission.

I have nothing bad to say about the Gunners. They are doing one hell of a job on the triple sevens. The gun crews are busting their humps and it is saving lives. I will (and do)bitch about what they are using but if I wasn't bitching people who know me would think I was plotting something. 

Next time you talk to the Gunners ask them which they would choose for their next tour; the M777s or the Dutch PzH 2000s?






 
Actually I talk to them everyday
As to the question of what would they want to be riding around in their next tour? that depends on where the next AO is going to be , who knows? But if its Afghanistan, many have already asked that question, and the answer is not the PzH 2000, its a LAV III, or something like it for a number of reasons.

Foremost of these is that there are a lot of other non-traditional artillery tasks the gun Bty might have to do in theatre that being all Mech might not help with, especially if a large area has to be covered. For example you can't do convoy escort very well in a self-propelled gun can you? And who is keeping those big bad boys fed their fuel, ammo and everything else needed? How is it getting delivered? Yeah the Big armoured PzH 2000 keeps the det well protected, but what good is that if your Ech, or your FSG, NSE, or whatever resupply methodology that is being used cannot count on the gunners to help with protecting the soft-skin vehicles that are needed to sustain that Bty.
Plus there's the matter of just getting the guns to a theatre of operation in the 1st place. There's the weight and deck space issues to consider. It also depends on who you're up against. If the enemy has a significant counter battery capability than armoured self propelled guns are a lot better than towed, right now that is not the case, they have some but it is far from accurate.

Like you said, each has a role to play, but you shouldn't so readily dismiss the utility of gun Bty equipped with "just" towed guns
 
CP is reporting today that the CF is looking to buy more M777's - up to 21 additional guns in total: http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=978c491e-1825-4374-bb29-df0a5f85db2c&k=88910

I'm not particularly familiar with artillery, so bear with me if I ask some stupid questions here.

Given the recent kerfuffle in the House of Commons and over at CTV about the Excalibur shells, I found it interesting that buried in the body of that article was a $30,000 price tag for each Excalibur round.  What is it?  $150K or $30K?  I know we're not buying large quantities, and I don't believe production is in full swing yet - both of which will bring the cost per unit down, hopefully - but this is a pretty large range.

Also, reading up on the triple-sevens, I came across the Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS), and discovered this charge can be used with conventional shells, not just Excalibur.  It can apparently push the range of the gun out to around 30kms from 24kms - is this correct?  Are we using it or thinking of using it for conventional shells?

If we are, it follows that this would jack the price per shot, and that the cost delta between a 'normal' round and an Excalibur round would shrink accordingly.


(Edited by Moderator to clarify title.)
 
You are correct to assume that the $30,000 is for the basic round which is up considerable from when I was in. The higher price seems a bit much considering that the US Marine web site is using $80,000 per round. There must be more to the $150,000 than we are aware of.

There was a delay in production because the Excalibur was having problems with cold weather. The cold was affecting the on board battery which caused the guidance system to not operate properly. News release from the manufacture states that early next year should have problem corrected.

Interim solution is to keep the shells warm before useage.

 
Info on the American contract for Excalibur

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050629-raytheon-ammo.htm

The $22.1 million contract will pay for the Excalibur rounds along with testing, manufacturing tooling, test equipment, training, and shipping and storage containers.

The Army expects about 150 to 200 Excalibur rounds to be provided under the initial contract, Cawood said.

When Excalibur production is scaled up by 2010, the munitions are expected to cost $30,000 each, compared with about $1,000 for an unguided artillery shell, Cawood said.

But that doesn't mean the Excalibur can't be cost-effective. One Army study showed it would take 147 shots with unguided shells to take out a target that could be dispatched with three Excalibur rounds, Cawood said.

While some critics have questioned the cost of guided projectiles, an analyst who is a frequent critic of military programs said the Excalibur's accuracy would make it worth the cost.

"It's an outstanding bullet," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based think tank.

"The cost of the munition may be comparable to a satellite-guided bomb, but the cost of manning a firebase is a lot less than the cost of an air base," Pike said.

However, I believe this was costed out before the cold weather problems arose, and design changes could have upped the cost.
 
MACS can be used with conventional ammuntion, and is already being used in theatre
 
Thanks Petard.  That's what I figured, but I didn't know for sure.

Now I just need to find out how much MACS costs so I can run a comparison between the cost of firing a conventional round with MACS and an Excalibur round.  It's the incremental cost that counts, not the absolute number that Dawn Black and CTV are using to shock the general public.
 
Good luck with that. The ammunition that can be fired from the M777 might come from any number of NATO countries, I dunno, trying to do a cost comparison without access to actual industry costs sounds like Don Quixote time to me.
Might I ask what is your motivation? Discredit the NDP? I don't think they need any help.
 
Babbling Brooks said:
Thanks Petard.  That's what I figured, but I didn't know for sure.

Now I just need to find out how much MACS costs so I can run a comparison between the cost of firing a conventional round with MACS and an Excalibur round.  It's the incremental cost that counts, not the absolute number that Dawn Black and CTV are using to shock the general public.

I just rememberd, Steven Staples came to one of my classes last week and gave his whole Excalibur, "It's like shooting a Ferrari!" speech. Where was all this math then...and a baseball bat...a handy spot to hide the body...
 
Might I ask what is your motivation? Discredit the NDP? I don't think they need any help.

Heh.  Around here, maybe not.  But among the general populace who couldn't tell a turtle shell from an artillery shell, I think a bit of rebuttal is in order.

Besides, someone needs to show CF Public Affairs how it's done.  ;D
 
MACS is a far better system. No more white, green or red bag just MACS. Water proof insensitive, easy to handle and store MACS.
 
Back
Top