Posted on 03/26/2008 7:04:41 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
OTTAWA — Canadian army gunners in Afghanistan are now cleared to fire GPS-guided artillery shells at Taliban militants - at the cost of $150,000 a round.
The Excalibur shell could very well be the most expensive conventional ammunition ever fired by the military.
Supporters argue that the weapon, which has the ability to correct itself in flight, has pinpoint accuracy. They predict that will cut down on the mounting civilian death toll from air strikes in a war-torn region, where insurgents often hide among the population.
"It lands exactly where you want it to land," said Lt.-Col. Jim Willis, a senior officer in charge of acquiring the munitions.
"It provides more safety."
About 18 months ago, the army announced its intention to buy a handful of the experimental shells to go along with its brand new 155-millimetre M-777 howitzers.
Introducing the weapon to the army's arsenal has been slower than expected because of concerns related to the shell's performance in cold weather and precautions to make sure the GPS signals can't be jammed or scrambled by insurgents.
Willis said battery guns supporting Canada's battle group in Kandahar recently test fired the shell in the desert and the new weapon performed flawlessly. He wouldn't say how many shells were fired.
A U.S. army unit in eastern Afghanistan conducted its own tests late last month and has also cleared the Excalibur for action.
The price tag has provided fodder for critics of the war, who've described the shell as overkill and noted that the cost is like firing a Ferrari.
U.S. defence contractor Raytheon began promoting the shells in the fall of 2006 as the "next generation" of artillery munitions.................."
(Excerpt) Read more at canadianpress.google.com ...
So much for “fire for effect”.
Ironic for a munition meant to reduce collateral damage.
Replaced with:
Knock Knock!
I think I saw this on FutureWeapons.
It was unbelievable accurate.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm
Not even close. The 155MM Copperhead was supposedly upwards of a million each. C-Btry 1 Bn 11th Marines participated in some DOD test in 29 Palms way back around 1994-95 time frame where our battery fired several dozen as I remember it. That's where my rendition of the "Yucca Monster" was born.
Wasn’t this on the Future weapons show or some such on the History channel? I might be mistaken.
That’s it.
I saw a test on TV also. I am wondering how it works in rough field conditions.
Either way, the package gets delivered to the right address.
LOL, yea. listen up terrorists, we have a safer bomb for you and your friends.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing ... damn expensive sniper rifle.
The shells may get cheaper too as they make more and develop the system.
“It lands exactly where you want it to land,”
That’s sweet, but give me 6 or 7 CLOSE rounds, for effect.
The electronics have to be pretty sturdy just to survive being shot out of such a big gun.
Only instead of a dynamite stick, they're 155mm HE shells that can fly 20 miles.
We already have small, relatively cheap unmanned aerial vehicles. They could carry a kilo of warhead and a cheap GPS. You could build one from Radio Shack.
Is there a guarantee?
Win the war.....and go broke.
“I wonder how it will work in combat as time goes by.”
If it can handle the acceleration forces being shot down a cannon barrel...
it’s probably rugged enough.
But I am always skeptical about “miracle weapons” until they deliver
the goods in the field.
I like those anti-personnel canisters that go off all sparkily.
Me too.
Sure.
If first one misses you they'll send you another right away.
You mean the Chinese are going to make these for us too?
ROTFLMAO
30 seconds or less, or the next one's free.
The whole idea is less shells will be required and the cost per kill will be cheaper. Plus, with the extended range, the good guys don't have to get close to the bad guys, thus we will lose fewer personnel and equipment.
arent these the one hillary ducked in bosnia ?
This is an expensive feature - and the high cost is because of the need to harden the electronics to survive the impulse transient.
But a GPS guidance package that attaches to a “dumb” Iron bomb costs about $20K - however, to use it, you need a airplane flying overhead. But - if you have a combat air patrol flying at 30,000 ft, loitering at slow speed, with about 12 100 lb bombs, each GPS guided, and able to glide to a target over 20 miles away - what a tremendous advantage.
The artillery shell may be expensive - but it can eliminate the cost of keeping a plane overhead.
Close only counts in horseshoes and nukes.
Cheers!
I thought of that too, but the article does say “conventional”.
You may know what you want to hit, but knowing exactly where you want it to land is going to be the problem.
On the other hand, the new Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), the GBU-39 (and GBU-40) is a 250 pounder that has a wing kit and has a “standoff” range of more than 60 nm.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htm
During the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, I am still in awe of the new Special Forces warmaking skillset: riding a donkey, dressed in native garb, relaying targeting info via a sat-phone to a B-52 orbiting high above with a wide variety of ordinance just waiting to deliver death from above in support of our efforts.
I guess nobody in government really wants the public to know how much it really costs in total to deliver one bomb on target. Given how much jet fuel must cost by the time it is hauled aloft in a tanker, I would guess that a $150k artillery shell would be a bargain.
Yes I saw it too; a one shot kill weapon.
I need to load up on some RTN pronto!
“The shells may get cheaper too as they make more and develop the system.”
Wait until the Chinese start cranking them out ...
this is the government wasting taxpayer money at its finest
Yes, I'm glad someone brought that up. These kinds of shells will be tremendous money savers when compared with the total assets that must be used to do the same job now. Right now we need air bases, aircraft carriers, aircraft and precision munitions, and a long supply chain between these and the targets. These munitions won't eliminate the need for the air assets, but they can take a substantial load off them.
From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm
“The $30 million contract was for the design, development, and manufacture of a guided artillery round over four (4) years. The XM982 round combines the capabilities of a missile with the durability of artillery, and is the newest generation of extended range “smart” rounds.
“Raytheon estimated that the total value of the program including planned production of approximately 250,000 rounds could exceed $3 billion.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
That works out to 12K$/round in production. This 150K is research program and test firing. The true cost is much more sensible.
However, as has been pointed out, putting a similar bomb on target with a plane is far more costly, and dangerous for the pilot, too.
Weather should not ground this either.
Just remember that there are a lot of hot-shot pilots who don't consider loitering at 30 thousand in an environment we own to be dangerous. It may be a bit boring, waiting for coordinates to be inputted to a bomb, and a few seconds of excitement when the bomb is released, followed by hours of boredom waiting for the next target ...but those guys (and gals) love flying, and even that job beats anything else that they can do.
Now - as a taxpayer, I want things to be cost effective. But as a retired Navy - we need a broad mix of weapons, and we need to practice using them all. So we should never consider getting rid of the pilot/GPS bomb option. Use the $150K GPS round extensively when the air environment might be dangerous, or no planes are flying nearby ...but keep the mix available.
I agree with both your sentiments in the last paragraph. I just want to let you know that waiting for the call to drop often isn’t all that boring, and that there are many other missions considerably less so.
The same problem has been noted with using the TOW 2B wire-guided missile launcher of the Bradley as a countersniper weapon against urban insurgents holed up inside buildings and homes, as when two of the 6-inch diameter missiles were fired into the building where Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed.
That's approximately analogous to the WWII use by Patton's Third army of using direct fire from 155-mm *Long Tom* artillery pieces into buildings in German towns that couldn't be bypassed, but the cost of the guided missile systems is a bit higher at around $180,000 each. It would certainly seem to be worth the effort to design and build a *dumb* unguided round for use at much closer ranges than the nearly 4KM range of the TOW-2...and leaving out the 2.5 miles of control wire and guidance gizmos would allow an even larger explosive warhead, a feature usually appreciated by the troops what use 'em.
You just made the case for blowing the dust bunnies off of the recoiless rifles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
