Future Armour

[a_majoor]

We all seem to be getting wrapped around the axle over what is supposed to be an extension of an existing capacity.

The world is neither flat, nor transparent, but things like Coyotes, ERSTA equipped Griffons and Infantry soldiers with (fairly) reliable radios give us the ability to "see" around corners and into areas which would have been "terra incognita" even in the 1970s (and these are Canadian capabilities). A tank, as part of a combat team, might be able to receive information about targets in these areas now, but be unable to engage them with a DF gun round, thus being out of the battle for all practical purposes.

Through tube missile technology is a potential means of putting a tank or AFV back in the fight under these conditions, although other things like "smart rounds", TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions), STAFF (Sensor Target Activated Fire and Forget) and "X-Rod" have also been proposed or even prototyped to do similar things with gun projectiles. Since through tube missiles actually exist (although to my knowledge, never fired in anger), it is easier to reffer to them than TERM rounds, which do not exist as yet.

In a battle where you may want to deal with a target right away, having the launch platform handy is bound to shorten the response loop. The counter example is during Gulf War I or Kossovo, it could take several hours to a day or more between identifying a target and dispatching an aircraft and smart bomb to attack it. Let the higher level headquarters deal with the larger issues and give the tactical commander the means of dealing with a tactical problem right away.

Collateral damage is a relative term, of course, but destroying a few rooms in an apartment building will have fewer consequences in terms of changing attitudes against us than destroying the entire building. I suppose when a tank can deliver a flu virus against enemies we will argue about controlling the spread of the infection...

I can hardly believe you of all people are arguing "for" the troika, Zipper. A "Generation Four" gun tank with extended shooting ability fights the close and long battles without three separate logistics trains (MGS, MMEV, TUA). That fact alone should make buying some form of tank into a "no brainer" (although we all see logic has little to do with military procurement).

 

[DG-41]

Where I think you are encountering resistance is that we (at least I) are not convinced that the "magic bullet" stuff actually DOES extend existing capacity in a useable manner.

Nobody fights alone, and that means there needs to be command and control and communications to deploy this system, at least as far as a BVR missile goes. A BVR missile will not be launched on the discretion of the crew commander - it can't, as he can't see the target. He needs to be in contact with the designator, or needs to have the designator's information relayed to him.

Let's look at how this might work:

1) Infantry encounters target, decides that it needs help to take it out, decides to use a laser-designated missile to take it out.

2) Whoever has the designator is located and brought forth to where they have visuals on target and comms with whoever is making the call for fire.

3) The call for fire goes out, relaying the grid reference of the target and the squawk code of the laser

4) Somebody answers the fire call. Exactly WHO this is is an interesting question. The infantry and the armour are almost certainly not on the same net, so somebody will have to relay between the nets - that means either an armour LO on the infantry net, or (probably better) the exiting arty FOO.

5) If it is the FOO, he probably relays the call for fire back to the firebase CP, who in turn relays the call to the FOO on the armoured net, who relays the call to the armoured Battle Captain

6) The BC then needs to do a quick appreciation of who isn't in the fight at the moment and so can fire the missile, if that callsign is in range of the target, and if he has a missile in stores - and if firing that missile won't give away his position. That probably means calling the troop leaders and getting them to poll their troops.

7) Assuming the BC can find a suitable callsign for the mission, he passes along the information to the firing callsign

8) The tank that is actually going to fire the missile has to enter in the information to get a firing solution (the gun tube must be pointed at the target accurately enough for the guidence to take over; the problem is not unlike that faced by a submarine with homing torpedoes), must manoevre to ensure the flight path of the missile is clear of terrain, load the missile, and report clear to fire

9) The message that the tank is ready to fire has to travel back up the chain so that the designator can be turned on

10) The message that the designator is on has to come back down the chain

11) The missile is fired

Now, consider the case where the missile is under arty control at the firebase.

1, 2, and 3 proceed as before

4) The infantry FOO, who is always on the net, answers the call and relays it to the firebase

5) The call for fire is immediately relayed to the missile system operators, who were on call and ready. The launcher is already situated to be clear of terrain, because that's what the arty does when they occupy a firebase. There's no need to chase down a suitable lancher, or even to load a missile - all those steps are done well in advance

6) When a firing solution is ready, the call goes back to the designator via the FOO (one hop!) to turn on the laser

7) The ack goes back to the kauncher, and the missile is fired.

Which sequence is easier? Which is more likely to deliver fire in a timely manner?

DG

 

 

[Zipper]

I can hardly believe you of all people are arguing "for" the troika, Zipper. A "Generation Four" gun tank with extended shooting ability fights the close and long battles without three separate logistics trains (MGS, MMEV, TUA). That fact alone should make buying some form of tank into a "no brainer" (although we all see logic has little to do with military procurement).

No no. I am all for a Tank over any other form of "armoured fire support". It is the fact that I see having so many taskings able to be done by one vehicle will make it less able to perform what it is already good at.

I'm also trying not to go to far into "dream" mode and keep my feet on the ground for once ;D. And for that to happen, we have to remember what we are most likely ever able to afford. If in the future, after the failed years of DFS units and umpteen vehicles doing everything but the cloths washing, we have a viable "tank" with reliable up tube missiles, I'll be all for it. But until then, our powers that be seem dead set on us going down the tri-failure (vehicle) route.

As for up tube missiles on their own, its a wonderful concept, but there are to many questions on my part as to how useful they would be on a regular basis (per cost) basis. I guess I see Tanks in their more traditional role and something that can launch such "magic bullets" would take the place of (or be the) MMEV and get rid of the TUA all together. Thus you have the tanks that can support the infantry (and IFV's) in close and take a hit, and the "magic bullet" vehicle back in support of both.

But then again, this goes against all the cavalry talk. Ug.

 

[ArmyRick]

Get rid of the TUA? Spoken like a true amateur. The TOW2B has 3,750m range, TOW Aero has 4,000m range. TOW also has a bunker buster round that the CF has trialed and the TUA (M113) is proven in operations. As a TOW gunner, I know what I am talking about.

Seen that many taskings that could be done by one vehicle have you?  Right.  Sure pal.

 

[Zipper]

Get rid of the TUA? Spoken like a true amateur. The TOW2B has 3,750m range, TOW Aero has 4,000m range. TOW also has a bunker buster round that the CF has trialed and the TUA (M113) is proven in operations. As a TOW gunner, I know what I am talking about.

Seen that many taskings that could be done by one vehicle have you?   Right.   Sure pal.

I never said that the vehicle at the moment is not useful. Hell, as you have so eloquently said, its probably one of the best pieces of kit we have at the moment.

As for one vehicle doing all...    ...thats my point. A tank equipped with up tube missiles as well as standard rounds may be spreading itself to thin capabilities wise.

But since we're talking about FUTURE armour here, and Majoor questioned my non-acceptance of a rather interesting concept of up tube missiles, I am stating that there just might be something better suited to launching said "magic bullet's". As well, since TOW is basically a tube launched "magic bullet" for all intents and purposes right now, we're just going to have to accept it until something better comes along, which it will I'm sure.

 

[a_majoor]

OK, we have moved away from the "what" a future tank should be like to "how" a future tank should be deployed and employed. (Modular Manoeuvre Battalion http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32165.0.html;  Combat Team of tomorrow? Mechanized Infantry Company of tomorrow?  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28401.0.html; and  Canadian Armoured Cavalry http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23505.0.html are three of many threads which look more at the organizational aspects of this question).

First off, while there are lots of ways to launch "magic bullets" against high value targets, most of them do not have the protection or tactical mobility of a tank. The HMMVW can be configured to fire TOW, HELLFIRE, LOSAT or EFOG-M, and certainly the prototypes for the last three systems have been very impressive, but in the end, it is an upgraded utility vehicle. The only place in the fight for that kind of vehicle would be in an overwatch position, and a dismounted escort should be provided as well, lest the enemy sends a hunter/killer team to attack it at close range. These support vehicles are also vulnerable on the move since they are road bound and lightly armoured, easily destroyed by IEDs or RPG ambushes. Helicopters and aircraft have weather, loiter time and vulnerability to AD systems, while artillery "Smart rounds" can have "time of flight" issues.

Should a generation four tank be equipped with magic bullet firepower, the command and control arrangements also have to change. Infantry platoons might (for example) receive a two tank team to provide fire support, and be integral to that net. Another scenario I can imagine is the "depth" troop with the magic bullet loadout given preassigned arcs and put on net in support of a particular C/S. Even the idea of "polling" the troop or squadron to find an available shooter can be automated; I can recall reading an article in the Armour Bulletin many years ago extolling the virtues of "vetronics"; in addition to "SAS", the SQ would be able to get a readout of the fuel and ammunition state of every vehicle in the squadron. American officers have attempted to work out the implications of magic bullet "TERM" munitions;

http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ma95/2smartmunitions95.pdf
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ma97/2term97.pdf
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja97/4mccb.pdf

Do I think "magic bullets" are the answer? Not at all. They provide an extended capability for forces which employ them. An armoured launch platform (i.e. a tank) provides greater protection for the system and greater tactical flexibility for the system operator (fewer restrictions in placing, moving or protecting the firing platforms).

Combining preferential armouring and advanced automotive technology to reduce weight and increase fuel economy of the tank provides tactical and operational advantages for the users. A gun coupled to a fast acting auto loader allows the rapid engagement of close and medium range targets. A high angle gun mount allows the tank to engage targets in a "three dimensional" urban environment, and "magic bullets" allow the tank to engage high value targets which might not otherwise be neutralized.

Since we are "between" tanks at the moment, we have the luxury of examining the wider potentials out there rather than being tied up in specifics of one piece of kit. Some of these musings could be applied to other AFVs, especially if programs like the MGS or MMEV cannot field suitable vehicles for the CF.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just noticing where this thread has headed to.

I am not a believer in a single magic bullet.  Layers are the name of the game.  That said multiple platforms and multiple logistical requirements aren't helpful either.

Direct Fire Gun, Direct Fire Missile, Indirect Missile and possibly even Indirect Gun all have their role to play.

I am on record here as supporting a 60mm gun with rapid fire autoloader as a suitable LAV system, to be augmented by turret launched direct fire 5-8 km missiles.  There are some interesting ones on the market now, like the Gill-Spike, which includes a recce capability through its man-in-the-loop nose camera.  The 60mm will handle all armour at ranges less than 1500m, or close and urban terrain, and the 3 rds in 2 secs improves the probability of a kill in such a "quick-draw" environment.  The missile handles the long range engagement improving survivability in open country as at 5-8 km they outrange any cannon fire from a tank.

DG-41's concept might also be speeded up by something like the Netfires LAM/PAM  concept.

Netfires is a box of 15 vertically launched Hellfire sized missiles.  One or more have a slow speed turbojet engine and a man-in-the-loop video system as well as a explosive charge.  This round can circle a target area for up to 45 minutes at distances of over 70km.  In addition to immediate availability, it can effectively be used as combat air patrol circling overhead and being targeted when enemy force shows itself, it can also be used to confirm targets before the PAMs or perform damage assessment after the PAMs.  The PAMs are Precision Missiles (effectively Hellfire/Longbow/Brimstone) with a 70 km range and a high rate of speed.

The interesting thing about the entire concept is that they do away with the gunners entirely, with the exception of the FOO.

1) Infantry encounters target, decides that it needs help to take it out, decides to use a laser-designated missile to take it out.

2) Whoever has the designator  (lets assume the FOO or a member of the FOO party) is located and brought forth to where they have visuals on target and comms with whoever is making the call for fire.

3) The call for fire goes out (via laptop or blackberry), relaying the grid reference (GPS coordinates)  of the target and the squawk code of the laser (This is sent directly to the launch box with 15 ready missiles).  Additionally FOO/Designator decides whether LAM or PAM is appropriate.  If time allows then LAM might be sent out to confirm coordinates, seek alternate targets, determine how many PAMs are required.  If not immediately launch PAMs.  LAM remains in orbit or is launched for follow up to perform BDA then is dived onto target once mission is complete.

By circling target with LAM to confirm coordinates and take a look over the other side of the hill the possibility exists of fewer collateral casualties and greater chances of catching the opposing force unawares.

EG - Infantry sights one tank on hillcrest and calls to eliminate tank. Threat eliminated. 

However if there is a Squadron of Tanks behind the crest they are now alerted to having been sighted and may choose to do something else, making them less predictable and more of a threat. 

On the other hand if the individual tank is scouted first by the LAM and the rest of the Squadron is sighted and targeted then the whole Squadron may be bagged with a single launch from a single box.

Likewise a LAV-60mm/ATGM could sit back 5 to 10 km from the fight.  Target the Netfires using GPS and the Autonomous seekers of the LAM/PAM missiles, review the LAM images to confirm target and results and never disclose itself except perhaps from using its Laser Range Finder. 

Follow up action could be with its own ATGM or by Laser Designation if the target has not been successfully eliminated.

I am becoming less convinced of the viability of the tank in open country and in the utility of tank to tank conflict.

On the other hand I am becoming more convinced of the need for a very heavily armoured system, with short range weapons, extreme angles of elevation and depression, troop carrying capacity (not cessarily on the same platform as the guns, and possibly tracks, for urban operations.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/net-fires.htm

Cheers.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

These kinds of precision weapons sure look interesting, but as usual I will reserve judgement!  My read of Iraq reports seems to be that PGMs from fast air are a weapon of choice in the urban fight, although the AC130 Spectre also seems to be a favourite.  How does all of this relate to the Future Tank?  Future "tanks" could of course have some sort of long range magic bullet on board.  Today's APFSDS would look fairly magic sixty years ago!

Firepower is, of course, only one part of the tank.  As always, I will go back to protection.  I was reading a first account from a USMC tanker (he was our equivalent of a Tp WO) who had fought in Fallujah.  For a time he and his wingman were the most forward combat systems in the force.  They took multiple RPG hits and killed huge numbers of insurgents.  They actually came close to running out of machinegun and main gun ammo.  No other vehicles could get up to them so Marines humped in ammo by foot.  One particularly nasty enemy position was resolved by calling in an AC130 on a target roughly 100m away.  The Marine infantry follow the tanks and protect them overnight (the infantry kill some insurgents trying to get a rear-shot on the tank at night).  In the end (after a couple of days) they are finally brought to a halt by an RPG that comes in through the top hatch.  The tank is able to extract but the commander (the author) is seriously wounded (he looses an eye).  Semper Fi! 

I have put this account here to give some more persepctive to what the tank brings to the team.  The firepower and mobility parts can be replicated by lighter systems. The protection piece, in my opinion, cannot.  It is true that the tank in question was eventually brought to a halt (nothing is invincible).  The tank did, however, absorb a tremendous amount of punishment, kiilled large numbers of bad guys and while the crew was wounded they lived.  Of note is the use of machineguns and main gun to engage the enemy in the close range urban fight, and that they called on air support to deal with very close range threats.  Another interesting point is the high ammunition usage.  In open plains battles we may find that ammo consumption is quite low (due to the accuracy of our weapons).  In the urban fight we will go through lots more bullets.  Future designs need to have lots of protected on board stowage for ammo (I think that AMajoor has been preaching this as well).

I guess I am flexible (not that it matters) in the armament of the future tank.  It could end up looking like the tanks of WWI with multiple weapons stations.  I worry about the urban assault tank's (many smaller weapons) ability to transition to fighting in more open areas.  A future MBT with lots of MGs and a main gun that fires a variety of ammo (with something like HESH in the loadout) would fit the bill for me.

As an aside, a resupply vehicle with MBT protection may need to be in the cards if we to prepare for the Grozny's and Fallujah's of the future.

Cheers,

Iain

 

[Kirkhill]

2B:

Agree entirely on the protection issue and on the ammunition.  No doubt the tank was and is useful possibly even indispensible in close terrain of any sort.  That means, as you stipulated, that protection is critical, requiring a heavy vehicle.

My reason for suggesting a shorter range, high angle weapon, was to deal with tight environments where a long barreled weapon might be difficult to traverse.  Similarly the long recoil of such a weapon I believe limits elevation which means that when working amongst high-rises the vehicle is less able to engage close-range threats in the upper storeys of the buildings.

Cheers, 

 

[DG-41]

I'm also on board with large internal ammo storage - kinda precludes MGS, don't it?

As far as protection, I also agree, but specifically, protection from hollow/shaped charge weapons rather than kinetic energy penetrators. My understanding is that there are ways to defeat shaped-charge weapons with properly constructed, LIGHTWEIGHT armour (well, light for armour at least) but the only way to defeat a kinetic energy penetrator is with a large thickness of high-density metal betwixt he and thee.

So it should be possible to build a vehicle that is (nearly) completely proof against man-portable weapons, but still lightweight enough to be easily transportable, not chew up roads (or its own tracks) etc - at the tradeoff of vulnerability to direct-fire penetrators on all except (maybe) the forward arc.

DG

 

[Kirkhill]

DG-41:

Does the Stryker with its cage seem to you to be a reasonable option?  From reports it seems to have had a fair amount of success defeating RPGs?

 

[DG-41]

I've heard good things about the "slatted" armour on Stryker, but I haven't seen it in person so can't really comment.

But the idea seems solid.

I don't think, however, that the LAV platform (no matter how stretched and tweaked) is really up to this task. I think we're looking at a real tracked tank, perhaps with Stryker style armour on all arcs save the front, with a real gun on it capable of firing HE, canister, and sabot.

A light tank compared to M1 and Leo2 (although not when compared to, say, Stewart) but still a tank.

DG

 

[a_majoor]

I've heard good things about the "slatted" armour on Stryker, but I haven't seen it in person so can't really comment.

But the idea seems solid.

I don't think, however, that the LAV platform (no matter how stretched and tweaked) is really up to this task. I think we're looking at a real tracked tank, perhaps with Stryker style armour on all arcs save the front, with a real gun on it capable of firing HE, canister, and sabot.

A light tank compared to M1 and Leo2 (although not when compared to, say, Stewart) but still a tank.

DG

Hence the evolved CV 90120 platform

 

[Brygun]

There was some mention in the thread about the need for a machince gun. Earlier tankers once tried out one without it and they quickly went back to it.

There where tanks/SPG created in the WW2 that lacked a machince gun. German Elefant IIRC. The result of them going into combat was that this factor become known. Then they where swarmed with infantry.

One of the stop gap defences for the vehicle was a zanny "bent barrel" for a fire arm carried inside the vehicle. A crewman would fire the weapon (SMG IIRC) out an open hatch* with the 90 degree bend sending the bullets along the sides.

*: Yes, that meant opening a hatch during an infantry close assault.

The presence of the machince gun was quickly corrected for not offensive but defensive purposes in later versions.

There where times in WW2 where tanks protected each other by firing their machince guns at a friendly tank that was being assaulted. The machince gun would not penetrate the armor(hopefully not going in a vision slit or other opening). The bullets would ricochet off the target tank creating defensive fire.

This need for an anti-infantry weapon would still be present for a future armour vehicle. It may not be planned for offense but it is the defensive aspect that others lost their lives forgetting about.

The most common form of an anti-infantry weapon is the classic machince gun. There are other possible systems such as grenade launchers or claymore style charges.

The machince gun being almost always a mounting of the same gun in the rest of the army. This makes parts and ammunitions logistically eaiser. It also does have a range suitable for offensive work should it be wanted or prove necessary.

Grenade launchers are not very common as a secondary anti-infantry weapon. Dont recall a vehicle which actual choses one as a secondary rather than primary weapon.

Claymore type blast packages have a major drawback in the inability to reload the charge while under fire. It could appear as a backup to another weapon, such as a machince gun. I have uncertain feelings on whether it would impact a reactive armor system, perhaps the anti-personnel charge would be sized to not detonate the RA or perhaps just not placed on the RA.

Based on the experience of tankers who died when not given a machince gun some form of anti-infantry is needed, of which the machince gun is decent choice.

As to the size of the machince gun, number of machince guns, location and type of mounting that is a more detailed matter.

 

[Infanteer]

Tanks need machine guns, thanks tips.  Are you just trying to demonstrate that you read a picture book on Kursk or something?

Keep clogging up the airwaves, and I'll simply start removing your posts - last warning.

 

[a_majoor]

Getting back to the subject at hand;

The CV 90120 is a medium tank, and several posters from the Armoured Corps have objected to the overall lack of protection, especially if in some future conflict it does have to engage enemy tanks (remember, Former Yugoslavia had thousands of tanks squirreled away), or drive into urban terrain to provide close support for the dismounted infantry. Even preferential armouring of the "crew pod", slat armour cages and advanced situational awareness will never fully solve the protection problem.

If we relax the requirements for strategic and operational mobility a bit more in favor of protection, then a highly modified Leopard II might fit the bill. This design concept can be found in the January February 2001 edition of Armor magazine. In the article "Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000", there is a concept based on a modified Leopard 2 chassis. A low volume "Wegmann" turret is installed, which is about 30% lower than the issue turret, and a "Euro-Power Pack" is installed, allowing the hull to be shortened by almost a metre. http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/jf01/1bundeswehr01.pdf

Reducing the armour volume by this amount also allows some cascade effects as well, for example the drive train and suspension can also be somewhat smaller and lighter. Without knowing the various specifics, I will make a guess and say the "Leopard II A7" would weigh in at @ 45-50,000 kg, but still have the mobility and hitting power as its 70,000 kg bigger brothers.

The two flaws to this plan are: a the Leopard 2A7 does not exist, and; b it does not lend itself to a family of vehicles and their attendant logistical advantages like the CV 90 family

 

[Zipper]

The CV 90120 is a medium tank, and several posters from the Armoured Corps have objected to the overall lack of protection...

I'm confused by this statement. Why would anyone complain on those grounds and then turn around and OK a LAV and especially the MGS?

The two flaws to this plan are: a the Leopard 2A7 does not exist, and; b it does not lend itself to a family of vehicles and their attendant logistical advantages like the CV 90 family.

Now this concept sounds great. One, I've been vocal in my admiration for the Leo II in all forms. And two, does it not exist because no one has decided as of yet to drive the Germans (with money) to develop it further? It sounds like a great alternative to the Leo I, although the CV90 family could fill all our bills with one chassis.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm confused by this statement. Why would anyone complain on those grounds and then turn around and OK a LAV and especially the MGS?

If you read posts by 2Bravo, for example, he is quite adament about the need for heavy armour protection, and is only marginally in favor of the CV 90120. The LAV is OK for specific roles (Armoured Cavalry), and I don't really recall ANYONE posting in favor of the MGS, although I may have missed it. No one posting is, to my knowledge, involved in procuring AFVs for the CF, but then again, you never know...

Now this concept sounds great. One, I've been vocal in my admiration for the Leo II in all forms. And two, does it not exist because no one has decided as of yet to drive the Germans (with money) to develop it further? It sounds like a great alternative to the Leo I, although the CV90 family could fill all our bills with one chassis.

I don't think Krauss-Mafi is interested in the time and effort to make just 66 Leopard II A7 versions for us. Even if we asked very nicely for 114, plus a few engineer and bridgelayer varients, they would still say "Blow" (or whatever Germans say). I think a firm order of at least 250 and ideally 500 units might make them see things our way. In the end, even a heavily modified CV 90120 could be had more quickly and cheaply than a Leopard II A7. This is mostly a thought experiment changing the protection parameters of the Generation Four tank, and hopefully the 2Lt who is reading this today will remember in 2020 when he is the LCol in charge of defining the next CF AFV project.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

In the same Armor article is a brief mnention of the "EGS" concept tank.  I saw a prototype of the tank at the Wegmann facility in Kassel.  A very intriguing concept, and one that we should be monitoring.  (By "we", I mean Canada)  Although I had my doubts about the workload involved in fighting a tank with a two man crew, the concept is very good, the size is better, and it has far more armour than any variant of the Leo 2.

I also like the idea of a Leo 2 A7, but by the time it has finished development and is ready for delivery, the next generation of tanks should be about ready.

The CV90 family of vehicles is the model for other countries to follow.  The modular design of a family of vehicles was supposedly what we were going to get with the LAV family of vehicles, but we find ourselves with the Bison, the Coyote, the Lav III, and maybe the MGS, all with little parts commonality.  We blew it, the Swedes didn't.

 

[DG-41]

Just looked up the specs for the CV90-120

4 man crew? Check

Decent gun / FCS? Check.

Independant viewer for CC? Check. (don't see if that viewer has a separate TIS, but that could always be added on)

At first blush, this doesn't seem horrible at all.....

What's the unit cost?

DG