[Goose]

How do you see weapons like the M982 Excalibur developing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1MqWYwRE2M

If weapons like that add range and significant accuracy it could make a difference.

Excalibur, like many other "precision" weapons, has become a failure in Ukraine. It is subject to GPS jamming and therefore becomes much less accurate. https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/04/13...e_vignette The linked article contains some blatant errors in tangential areas but in the main is IMO accurate.

IMO Excalibur is a very flawed concept even if it worked reliably. The three major advantages of gun artillery are 1) They can deliver lots of explosive power rapidly on an area target, and 2) they can do this repeatedly on demand, and 3) they can do this at reasonable cost. Excalibur is an attempt to add a "precision strike" capability to artillery. The cost of these shells is at least 23 times as much as a "regular" HE 155 mm shell. "Fire for Effect" with these shells is therefore prohibitively expensive and not possible.
 
The explosive power of a single Excalibur is 22 kg, the same as a "regular" 155 mm shell. One round may not destroy the target. There are quite a few articles on the internet about the "Fallacy of Precision". The trend in the US (and NATO) is to greatly improve accuracy. That by itself is a good thing. The problem is that the cost of that accuracy is often a reduction in the number of rounds available and/or the destructive effort of those rounds. One can often hit the target but not disable it or destroy it. The example of the Russian Lancet drones that hit the targets but did little damage is pertinent.
 
Excalibur was originally directed at "corner cases". It was developed to allow artillery to fire at targets where collateral civilian damage was an issue and/or targets that could not be engaged by a "conventional" barrage. This "justified" developing the Excalibur. There was a clandestine political objective whose influence cannot be underestimated. Quoting the above link

With a range of approximately 25 miles when fired from standard howitzers like the M777, and up to 43 miles in tests with advanced systems, the Excalibur offers commanders the ability to hit distant targets without relying on air support.

Not relying on air support is a big deal politically. The US Army "likes" that. The ATACMS missile is better suited to most of the targets the Excalibur would engage. The problem is that the USAF looks askance at any tactical missiles the US Army wants to develop, past, present, and likely future. Missiles are a USAF function in their mind. The political clout of the Air Force forced the Army to limit their budget for tactical missiles. This resulted in having too few ATACMS missiles and slowed down the PrSM. The USAF couldn't complain about a 155 mm artillery round. Thus Excalibur.
 
Precision guided artillery rounds are always going to be vastly more expensive than a precision guided tactical missile. Their size (thus explosive weight, electronics, and antennas) are constrained by the size of the launch tube. The firing shock of a gun-launched projectile (even one with RAP) is always going to be much larger than the launch shock of a missile (which is far from negligible). Excalibur is going to need modifications to operate in the presence of GPS jamming. That means more channels and more antennas. Much easier to do on a missile than a shell. The Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb does everything Excalibur can do. It already has a 93 km range and a explosive weight of 16 kg. IMO you put your money there, not in Excalibur. Both weapons need investment to drive down their costs. Neither is affordable in the quantity required. It is clear that the SDB will continue to be purchased. The "adapter" to convert the SDB into a guided missile is the cost driver. Find an alternative to Saab and Boeing and I bet the cost can drop by a factor of at least 5.

[Goose]

How do you see weapons like the M982 Excalibur developing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1MqWYwRE2M

If weapons like that add range and significant accuracy it could make a difference.

Excalibur, like many other "precision" weapons, has become a failure in Ukraine. It is subject to GPS jamming and therefore becomes much less accurate. https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/04/13...e_vignette The linked article contains some blatant errors in tangential areas but in the main is IMO accurate.

IMO Excalibur is a very flawed concept even if it worked reliably. The three major advantages of gun artillery are 1) They can deliver lots of explosive power rapidly on an area target, and 2) they can do this repeatedly on demand, and 3) they can do this at reasonable cost. Excalibur is an attempt to add a "precision strike" capability to artillery. The cost of these shells is at least 23 times as much as a "regular" HE 155 mm shell. "Fire for Effect" with these shells is therefore prohibitively expensive and not possible.
 
The explosive power of a single Excalibur is 22 kg, the same as a "regular" 155 mm shell. One round may not destroy the target. There are quite a few articles on the internet about the "Fallacy of Precision". The trend in the US (and NATO) is to greatly improve accuracy. That by itself is a good thing. The problem is that the cost of that accuracy is often a reduction in the number of rounds available and/or the destructive effort of those rounds. One can often hit the target but not disable it or destroy it. The example of the Russian Lancet drones that hit the targets but did little damage is pertinent.
 
Excalibur was originally directed at "corner cases". It was developed to allow artillery to fire at targets where collateral civilian damage was an issue and/or targets that could not be engaged by a "conventional" barrage. This "justified" developing the Excalibur. There was a clandestine political objective whose influence cannot be underestimated. Quoting the above link

With a range of approximately 25 miles when fired from standard howitzers like the M777, and up to 43 miles in tests with advanced systems, the Excalibur offers commanders the ability to hit distant targets without relying on air support.

Not relying on air support is a big deal politically. The US Army "likes" that. The ATACMS missile is better suited to most of the targets the Excalibur would engage. The problem is that the USAF looks askance at any tactical missiles the US Army wants to develop, past, present, and likely future. Missiles are a USAF function in their mind. The political clout of the Air Force forced the Army to limit their budget for tactical missiles. This resulted in having too few ATACMS missiles and slowed down the PrSM. The USAF couldn't complain about a 155 mm artillery round. Thus Excalibur.
 
Precision guided artillery rounds are always going to be vastly more expensive than a precision guided tactical missile. Their size (thus explosive weight, electronics, and antennas) are constrained by the size of the launch tube. The firing shock of a gun-launched projectile (even one with RAP) is always going to be much larger than the launch shock of a missile (which is far from negligible). Excalibur is going to need modifications to operate in the presence of GPS jamming. That means more channels and more antennas. Much easier to do on a missile than a shell. The Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb does everything Excalibur can do. It already has a 93 km range and a explosive weight of 16 kg. IMO you put your money there, not in Excalibur. Both weapons need investment to drive down their costs. Neither is affordable in the quantity required. It is clear that the SDB will continue to be purchased. The "adapter" to convert the SDB into a guided missile is the cost driver. Find an alternative to Saab and Boeing and I bet the cost can drop by a factor of at least 5.