FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,624
- Points
- 1,160
There are a lot of factors but in general, a given missile costs more than a given cannon launched round. For some missions only a missile will do so cost isn't a factor. In other situations only a round, or flurry of rounds will do, - try to do an area neutralization with missiles.Going to contest the costing of the Missile as "expensive".
Is it more expensive than a Fighter Squadron or wing with replacement aircraft and long, clean runways?
Is it more expensive than all the moving parts and people associated with the gun batteries of a cannon regiment?
The cannon rounds are cheaper but how about cost of getting the round from the factory to the target?
Things are changing. As we move to more and better and more survivable surveillance systems that can bring guided munitions onto point targets, the more economical missiles will become. We're currently in an in-between state. We'll also get to a point where guided munitions will become cheaper as they are mass produced (unless we continue to treat ammunition manufacturers like the pharmaceutical industry and let them charge outrageous sums for relatively cheap commodities)
The trick is to find the right time to get off of one bandwagon and climb on to the next one. Personally, IMHO, we should have climbed onto the HIMARS system a decade ago and should now also be looking for a good, small, loitering anti-armour munition system in the very near future (preferably one where the launcher system stays stable for a decade or so but the munition can be improved year-to-year).
I don't think that the age of tube artillery is dead, but I really think that the Army really needs to sit down and figure out what it wants to be and not just go out and find some crappy antique gun out there to replace the ones we have. We need a much more rational indirect fire suite of weapons.