Comments on: PGM Cannon Round Debuts in Afghanistan

By: Canadian Gunner

Canadian Gunner — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:59:06 +0000

Interesting Article but.…
You are wrong about this being the first firing of Excalbur in Afghanistan. The Canadian Artillery fired one in July 07.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:19:44 +0000

Reminds me of when they started to put GPS onto the MK82s back when. Then came the bright spark of attaching a laser designator/seeker package with control fins to “fly” the bomb onto or off target.
Next version of Excalibur round with deployable fins, laser/real time GPS signal package?
I remember something on here about such a round if I recall?

By: Pharsalus

Pharsalus — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:47:13 +0000

@ Brian
“The Germans lost for a lot of reasons, not just because their equipment was expensive.“
» Very true.
“WWII is a thing of the past.“
» Whooo. Very iffy prediction. This planet has four-and-a-half million years of life left in it. Chances are we’ll se another Big War in that time.

By: Pharsalus

Pharsalus — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:02:15 +0000

Addendum: …They will NEVER win against a flood of cheap, throw-away weaponry *and the (somewhat Stalinesque) will to send most of your troops to their deaths*.

By: Pharsalus

Pharsalus — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:56:18 +0000

@ Chris
Concerning the Desmosedici: you’ve got yourself a deal, mister.
Ahem, laser guidance? That’d be handy for indirect fire ^_^
Maybe, oh wait, we could fix a laser on a small UAV and keep it on station to guide the round? No, that wouldn’t work. Maybe a soldier hiding in the bushes with a great big laser designator? We could, if all else fails, equip lemmings with a little transmitter and train them to invade soon-to-be-levelled buildings. The shells could then home in on the poor critter and go *poof*.
Large, extended wars are won with cheap, low-tech weapons. German soldiers used to make jokes about “those funny American tanks with their little guns” but, being equipped with the Mighty Panther Tank, they still lost.
Small “wars” (or rather policing actions) are won with feet on the ground, hearts and minds campaigns and restrictions on using force.
Both ways, large or small, cost lives. Many lives, some might say too many. But THAT’s the cost of war, not what you pay for a gun.
Advanced weapons require a lot of maintenance, cost a lot of money and aren’t always battlefield-proof, just ask “Grossdeutschland“‘s PzAbt 51 about their PzKpfw V Panthers at Kursk. They will NEVER win against a flood of cheap, throw-away weaponry.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:38:09 +0000

@ Pharsalus: I’ll trade you two rounds for a Desmosedici, three if you take it away from Tom Cruise.
Regarding Cost: As with any technology prices will drop as more efficient methods are found to produce these shells. A year from now I may have to come up with four shells to trade Pharsalus.
Regarding Accuracy: This is the first generation of precision (GPS) artillery. There’s nothing to say the Army’s not working on a laser guided round or that the round can’t make position adjustments anytime in flight.
Why does it seems people on this blog are so resistant to new military tech?

By: Pharsalus

Pharsalus — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:25:51 +0000

Deus Ex,
with an aircraft bomb you have to factor in fuel costs etc. The plane can drop the bomb, but it still has to get there. Dragging around an artillery piece is a lot cheaper. Still, phew, I could buy *two* new motorbikes for a single shell. DAMN!
I’d like a Triumph Street Triple and a Honda CBR1100XX, please.

By: Pharsalus

Pharsalus — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:19:51 +0000

“For Raytheon

By: Deus Ex

Deus Ex — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:59:21 +0000

Freefallingbomb, you bring up points that, if true, astound and anger me (just like the @%@#%@ F22 program).
Can you link your sources? If the internet taught me anything, it’s never take anything said at face value. Always look a bit deeper.
And 39,000 for a SINGLE ROUND OF 155 is outright stupidity. Sounds like you could get a guided GPS bomb for the same price.

By: foobar

foobar — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:41:44 +0000

Are you saying it’s not true Jimbo Jones?