Fire! Artillery shells go into service at $150,000 a shot

[Praxius]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/25/costly-shells.html

Canadian army gunners in Afghanistan are now cleared to fire new GPS-guided artillery shells at Taliban militants at a cost of $150,000 a round.

The Excalibur shell could 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 new 155-millimetre M777 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. (The manufacturer's suggested retail price of a two-passenger 2008 Ferrari F430 starts at about $187,000.)

U.S. defence contractor Raytheon began promoting the shells in the fall of 2006 as the "next generation" of artillery munitions.

Willis, an officer with 32 years experience with big guns, said he believes the Excalibur represents a quantum leap forward because instead of firing a dozen shells at one target, only one round is needed.

The Defence Department spent $150,000 a round in the fall of 2006 on the first batch of shells off the production line. Willis says the cost is expected to drop to $86,000 a shell as time goes on.

Ordinary high-explosive rounds cost up to $2,000 apiece.

The Excalibur shell uses satellite signals and software to guide it to within 10 metres of its intended target, even when fired from up to 40 kilometres away. Regular shells are said to be accurate to within 50 metres.

Willis conceded that army planners have noticed a difference in performance during freezing temperatures, but added that the shell is being used in hot weather in Afghanistan.

The question of whether the Excalibur has been led astray by sophisticated interference technology was something both the army and defence industry officials were reluctant to address.

Safeguards are in place to make sure a round doesn't land among friendly troops or in the midst of civilians, Willis said.

The system "has counter-measures built in, but obviously I can't get into the details here," he said.

"Aside from the counter-measures, it flies to so quickly to a target that the chance of it being jammed is remote."

Chances are remote.... yet possible of course.

 

[MikeyDB]

You've got to love it when the process of killing people becomes a video game.

 

[lone wolf]

Let's see.... Do I have the arithmetic right? A hundred and fifty grand for smart cannonballs accurate to within 10 metres versus a less than twenty dollar combination of crushed match heads, a good handful of nails a coffee can and a pressure switch - accurate to the millimetre (but not quite smart enough to know for whom it goes BOOM)

War is good for someone's economy - but Hell on the bottom line.

Woof!

 

[Praxius]

You've got to love it when the process of killing people becomes a video game.

That's what America's Army was all about.... made by and for the US Army.

"America's Army (also known as AA or Army Game Project) is a tacticalmultiplayerfirst-person shooter owned by the United States Government and released as a global public relations initiative to help with U.S. Armyrecruitment.

The PC version 1.0, subtitled Recon, was first released on July 4, 2002. Since then, there have been over 20 updated versions released, the most recent being AA:SF (Overmatch) v2.8.3. It is financed by the U.S. Government and distributed for free. It was originally developed by the MOVES Institute at the Naval Postgraduate School and continues to use the Unreal Engine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army

Get the public to enjoy killing from a computer desk, then get the weapons to operate from a computer desk and before you know it.... you're destroying another country in the comfort/safety of your own home.

Or more realistic.... desensitize young kids with a free video game promoted by your military and government and when they get to hit the age where they can join, they're already conditioned to see death robotically.

But this article isn't really related to being a video game..... they sorta referred it to launching Ferraris at the enemy, oh with GPS's in them..... maybe throw a guy with a cell phone and a cup of coffee in the Ferrari while were at it.... "Oh Sh*t Larry, I'll Call you back!!"

 

[#juan]

A hundred and fifty thousand for a 6" howitzer shell? What's that, about a fifty or sixty pounds of high explosive? For the cost of two or three of these shells I could mail a couple hundred pounds of plastic explosive to just about anyone. Sounds more efficient.....:smile:

 

[DurkaDurka]

Praxius, have you ever played Americas Army?

This is not a game that is regularly played children due to the tactics involved and it not being like Halo. It certainly does not desensitize a child to violence anymore then watching the news or a Hollywood film does.

 

[Avro]

So?

Dead Taliban are good Taliban.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius, have you ever played Americas Army?

Yes, once to see what the big deal was all about. Pretty crappy if you ask me.

This is not a game that is regularly played by children due to the tactics involved and it not being like Halo. It certainly does not desensitize a child to violence anymore then watching the news or a Hollywood film does.

I've heard of plenty who do play it, teenager, kid in elementary, someone my age, someone older.... plenty of people play it (Not just people in the US) But just because it isn't like Counter-Strike/Source or Halo as you mentioned, doesn't mean there are not younger kids who actually enjoy the realism.... heck that's what got me into Red Orchestra in the first place a few years back. Aim with the iron sights, one shot... bam, the guy is dead... no more unloading two clips in some fool bunny hopping across the screen grabbing med kits.

But besides trying to pick apart which demographic plays AA the most, how about thinking logically why the US Army would help create a video game in regards to the US Army?

As stated above:

"....released as a global public relations initiative to help with U.S. Army recruitment."

If it was directed towards adults, teenagers or just kids still crapping their pants, the intent was still the same..... to glorify their aspect of war and to get people to join the Army to do the real thing. Direct Propaganda using a New and Popular Medium by the Younger Generation.

Added:

While most kids can and will learn violence desensitization from movies, tv, the internet, other games, family.... it to me is a different ball game when you have your government actually contributing to it with their own agenda and packaging it as a video game.... something a tad sick and twisted about it.

 

[Colpy]

A hundred and fifty thousand for a 6" howitzer shell? What's that, about a fifty or sixty pounds of high explosive? For the cost of two or three of these shells I could mail a couple hundred pounds of plastic explosive to just about anyone. Sounds more efficient.....:smile:

You got a Postal Code for Mullah Omar?

 

[#juan]

You got a Postal Code for Mullah Omar?

Hey, for a hundred and fifty Gees we could find him....:smile::lol:

 

[Lester]

Yes, lets hurl houses at them while our homeless sleep in the streets. It's unbeleiveable what they will squander money on- Iv'e got a better idea - let's just get the f**k outta there.

 

[zoofer]

Yup
Cut and run.

 

[Walter]

Good to see the military is getting some support from the government.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Good to see the military is getting some support from the government.

Considering the military already has conventional artillery ordnances....

 

[Tonington]

They showed this thing on Discovery Channel. Pretty impressive. It's like throwing a curve ball. Can curve it around friendly forward units, no problem. But then again a laser guided bomb from an aircraft is equally impressive. I wonder how those costs stack up...

 

[zoofer]

Yes, lets hurl houses at them while our homeless sleep in the streets. It's unbeleiveable what they will squander money on- Iv'e got a better idea - let's just get the f**k outta there.

Two good places to save tens of billions a year for the homeless and health care is Bilingualism , carbon credits and the gun registry.

The savings would probably take care of Mexico's homeless as well.

 

[Tonington]

Two good places to save tens of billions a year for the homeless and health care is Bilingualism , carbon credits and the gun registry.

The savings would probably take care of Mexico's homeless as well.

Tens of Billions a year? Have any figures for that? Out of curiosity, how much is Ottawa spending just on carbon credits this year?

 

[Lester]

time

Two good places to save tens of billions a year for the homeless and health care is Bilingualism , carbon credits and the gun registry.

The savings would probably take care of Mexico's homeless as well.

150k a pop for a consumable is too much for something that may or may not produce the desired results. Civilians will still get killed no matter how beneovent the weapon system is.

 

[Walter]

Out of curiosity, how much is Ottawa spending just on carbon credits this year?

None, hopefully.