XM982z-s.jpgCanadian forces in Afghanistan have a new weapon: a GPS guided artillery shell called Excalibur. The shell is made by defense mega-contractor Raytheon and costs $150,000CA per shell. Ordinary high explosive shells cost $2,000CA.

Why use shells costing many times more than an average infantryman’s salary? Accuracy, argues Lt.-Col. Jim Willis, “It lands exactly where you want it to land”. The shells are accurate within 10 meters, current shells are only accurate to within 50 meters. The increased accuracy means one “smart-shell” can do the job of whole barrages with current shells.

The new shells might counter a trend civilian casualties in the Afghan campaign for three reasons. First, the GPS guided shells turn artillery batteries into low (relatively) cost precision airstrikes, capable of collapsing a single structure on demand rather than carpeting the area with impacts. Second, less rounds fired reduces the risk of introducing exploded unexploded ordinances into an area. Third, the shells reduce the need to use massive airborne ordinances. In instances when precision strikes are required the primary option currently available to Coalition forces is an airstrike. However, precision airstrikes typically use ordinances with hundreds of pounds of high explosives, much more than is often needed to eliminate the threat. The “overkill” of these large bombs increases the risk of civilian casualties. The Excalibur shells are smaller and carry less high explosives, reducing the risk of civilian deaths.

However, counterintuitively, there is a risk the new shells will increase danger to civilians. Currently using artillery against insurgents in dense population centers is not an option, since the barrage would likely flatten the entire population center. Commanders with access to the new shells might have more confidence in striking the target and thus be more willing to fire into population centers.

Hypotheticals aside, I (and I think everyone) prefer more accurate to less, fewer required to more, and smaller boom to larger. If those are our guidelines the Excalibur seems well worth the price to our pocketbooks.

Christopher is a Ph.D. student at the University of California, Davis. His research focuses explores the relationship between armed conflict and public health. He lives in San Francisco with his wife Jen. Read more about him at his website.

Did you like this post? Then subscribe to War & Health for regular delivery of future posts.

You Might Also Be Interested In Reading...

7 Responses to “Excalibur and Civilian Casualties”

  1. Dave Says:

    I think you mean “introducing _un_exploded ordinance into an area”, aka “UXO”.

    One of the problems of saturation barrage artillery is that you’ll inevitably get a few duds. Those then lie dormant for some poor soul (generally not the intended recipient of said barrage) to find later when they finally get around to going off. This significantly increases both collateral civilian as well as “friendly” casualties.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance

    This is an interesting technology you write about, however. I still think it’s too expensive - $150k a shell? Too much money, in my opinion.

  2. Chris Albon Says:

    Good catch Dave!

    Regarding the cost. It would be interesting to see what someone more knowledgeable about artillery than myself (I don’t know anything) thinks about the Excalibur. Specifically, how many “normal” rounds would it take on average to hit a target compared to the Excalibur.

  3. James Hardy Says:

    I don’t care about civilian casualties but I like that this shell is more accurate and able to take out the target quicker.

  4. Anticitizen Says:

    James Hardy, you suck. “I don’t care about civilian casualties”? My, what a great manly man you are.

  5. David Says:

    I agree with anticitizen, James Hardy is pathetic

  6. Born2kill Says:

    Higher accuracy means more efficient killing. Civilian casualties are a liberal fantasy. The more people we can kill in one given moment, the more people we can potentially kill in the future. That’s why I joined the Marines.

  7. Byron Says:

    Basically this more accurate shell will provide commanders in the field with greater flexibility in choosing how to attack targets. The targets will be hit no matter what. Civilian casualties are something to avoid and any munition that gives the military a better chance to do that is a good thing.

Leave a Response