http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr060113_1_n.shtml TARGET=_blank>Guided artillery projectiles turn the corner By Rupert Pengelley, IDR Group Technical Editor Guided artillery ammunition is a technology area that has promised much but so far delivered comparatively little. Nonetheless, possession of a precision engagement capability is seen, now more than ever, to be key to maintaining tube artillery's relevance to the modern battlefield. Over recent years, the focus has been on the development of a new generation of longer-ranging 'fire and forget' precision-guided artillery projectiles that do not rely solely on third-party guidance. In France the initial concept studies undertaken by Giat Industries into such long-range (LR - 60 km-plus) and very-long-range (85 km-plus) guided artillery projectiles under the Pelican programme have been folded into a multinational effort. Set up in 2004, the new European Impaqt consortium comprises BAE Systems Bofors, Giat, MBDA France, MBDA UK and QinetiQ. The latter's Low-Cost Guided Munition (LCGM) demonstration programme has also been subsumed by Impaqt, which currently holds two contracts. Impaqt Mk 1 and Mk 2 are both expected to use a common combined inertial navigation system/Global Positioning System (INS/GPS) receiver system, giving an accuracy of 10 m or less at all ranges. Another such development is the Italian Vulcano programme. The anticipated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Italian and Spanish governments on joint development and production of the Vulcano 155 mm artillery projectile, in both its ER and guided LR versions, was still awaiting signature at the end of 2005. Excalibur The first of the GPS-guided artillery projectiles to enter operational service will be the XM982 Excalibur, due to take to the field with US artillery units in March 2006 under a schedule that has been accelerated to meet urgent operational requirements. Spiral 1a-1 rounds are first due to be fielded operationally with Paladin batteries serving in Iraq, but Excalibur will in addition be compatible with the BAE Systems Land Systems Joint Lightweight 155 mm howitzer, which the USMC began fielding in 2005 in its baseline M777 version. The US Army's other intended firing platform for Excalibur is the Future Combat System NLOS-C. This has a lightweight 38-calibre tube with a reduced chamber volume, which restricts firings to MACS Zone 4. Its higher chamber pressure is nonetheless expected to yield a range of better than 36 km with Excalibur.

Cool video clip, also from Janes. http://www.janes.com/video/XM982%20HE%20Demo%2060%20sec.wmv TARGET=_blank>Original Hi-res wmv format | http://www.janes.com/video/XM982%20HE%20Demo%2060%20Sec.mpg TARGET=_blank> Low-res mpg format

Had that clip for a few months, wondered when it would be released to public, to me the only dissapointing thing about the XM982 is that the terminal effects arnt as spectacular as I would like, but thats life, HE is sacrificed for all the guidance stuff.

THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KEWL!!!!! Cato

You can put a GPS chip and uProc chip that can generate corrective signals for the airframe on somthing the size of a US quarter (I'm working on a civilian project similar to this right now). The key is taking the corrective signals and putting them to actuators that can redirect the shell to target. This is outside the scope of my current project ;) But I've seen tiny things at the tip that change the aerodynamic characteristics a great deal with little motion (due to speed). My guess is that if you have a 5" or a 155MM the warhead weight loss should be nothing compared to the improved accuracy. Against a fixed target this should be a no brainer. And it should not really cost that much extra. The real complex issue is if it's a moving target.

You working on a "Magic" Golf Ball ;) I cant believe they havent stick a gps reciever and transmitter inside a GOlf Ball yet, as yes I do know how small they can be made. Problem with Arty shells is making the electronics robust enough to take the G loads on firing, in this case small and delicate dont cut it.

For anyone who is interested here are some pics of Excalibur, hte cutaways showing the paylods arnt current regarding the design of the base of the projectile, but the bottom picture is, you can see how much of the nose section is taked up by hte guidance and control package. Cutaway XM982 http://www.gizmag.com/watermark.php?p=4903_51205111427.jpg"> Current XM982 http://www.gizmag.com/watermark.php?p=4903_51205111221.jpg"> Actual Links to pics in case embedding dont work Cutaway: http://www.gizmag.com/watermark.php?p=4903_51205111427.jpg Current design: http://www.gizmag.com/watermark.php?p=4903_51205111221.jpg

For those sort of payloads its almost certainly not cost effective under 20 km range given the accuracy you can get with modern met systems and MV prediction firing 3 - 5 rds of dumb shells.

How did you get the pics. pasted or "embeded" in the text? (& what pgms did you use. I'm on a Mac OSX)

How about a little backlash against the article regarding Excalibur proclaiming that "One shot, one kill, not worth it"? Or did I miss it on some other thread? Comparing a Small Diameter Bomb against the Excalibur on a unit cost-basis and showing that the Excalibur is more expensive seems... ridiculus, to an extreme. Correct me if I'm wrong, but both weapons need delivery systems, and any Air Force delivery system is vastly more expensive than an Army cannon system. Perhaps, literally, 100 times more expensive, depending on how you do the accounting. (Sure, amortize the delivery platform's cost over the number of munitions that it delivers, but it would still take a totally unrealistic amount of combat use to drive the cost below the Excalibur.) Then also consider the annual personnel, maintenance, support and training expenses of an Air Force fighter-bomber and ground-crew compared to an Army howitzer and crew. I'd like to know if I'm wrong.

Something else to consider, Sabre: Costs aside, There are a lot more Army personnel with the authority to call in artillery support from Army artillery. Army personnel can only request USAF support, but USAF personnel have to actually authorize it. And that can suck up critical time that the troops in trouble may not have. Plus, artillery shells will most likely get to a target faster than a subsonic gliding bomb. (now someone please tell me a gun-launched Excalibur isn't limited to subsonic-only speeds!)