Afstan: Surely we want to avoid civilian casualties

Ain't accuracy vital? Carp, carp, carp:

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...

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

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...

At least the story didn't directly quote Steve Staples for "expert" reaction; but he is in fact the source of the "Ferrari" reference. Our reporters just cannot help themselves from regurgitating his pap. The most recent example I've seen:

...
Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, a policy organization that has been critical of Afghan mission, holds similar views.

"The additional troops will have more political than military significance. With the 1,000 troops, French President Sarkozy scores points with U.S. President Bush [Sarkozy may also be trying to trade for a top NATO command for France - MC]], President Bush claims victory at NATO next month, and [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper can keep Canada in the war for another three years," Mr. Staples said in an e-mail yesterday.

"What is most concerning is that Canada, surrounded by [!?!--emphasis added] 1,000 additional U.S. troops, will become increasingly implicated with U.S. forces and their aggressive war-fighting approach to the conflict."

Those nasty, war-mongering, US troops who will envelop our poor CF would be, it is commonly expected, transferred from eastern Afstan to the south if new French soldiers (with pacific intent Mr Staples would seem to have us infer) go to the east rather than the south.

Babbler's update: For those who may want to read some background on the Excalibur shell and the CF's use of it, The Torch has written on the subject in the following posts:

Drop ten words and fire for effect
The shell game
The shell game, part 2
Excalibur not performing as hoped