Dawes Posted October 17 Share Posted October 17 Just buy a foreign system already. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/10/15/why-the-army-is-looking-abroad-to-close-a-widening-artillery-gun-gap/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted October 27 Share Posted October 27 The thing is, you really don't have to do it 'for yesterday', the most pressing issue of M109 seems to be the range, in recent decades the US has replaced evyrything in M109 except... the short howitzer. There are solutions that have been available for decades, several of them featuring the L52 gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted October 28 Share Posted October 28 I used to be highly critical of the L39 M109, but today I find it difficult to rationalize a replacement. It's compact, mobile, quite light, modern automotives and electronics. For an ally like Ukraine that settles artillery duels with raw range, something like the L52 and beyond, plus range extending rounds - are critical. But the US doesn't fight like that. Its counter-battery is handled by longer range MLRS. I do still think the US needs to introduce an MRSI capability which requires an autoloader and obviously a longer barrel massively boosts this capability, and also look into other ways to cut down the M109's crew. I also think the ERCA with its L58 cannon as an element of division fires is a good thing to have. But this can be solved by developing new turrets for the M109. The Caesar for example is light and compact enough for air transport, certainly for sea transport. But it doesn't address the need for a smaller crew and MRSI. The Sigma does, but is humongous. A domestic autoloaded L52 turret proposal is what'd be best for the US IMO. I don't think they necessarily have to rush it. If it's to create a system they could also readily export to allies, then they could simply finance a local production of a foreign system with a direct line to Ukraine and that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted October 28 Author Share Posted October 28 From what I've read, ERCA's main issue was premature barrel wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 On 10/28/2024 at 12:08 PM, Dawes said: From what I've read, ERCA's main issue was premature barrel wear. Yes I read that too. I was talking about it as a future program and a nice-to-have thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 If it is only nice-to-have you can buy an off-the-shelf system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted November 1 Share Posted November 1 (edited) On 10/28/2024 at 9:59 AM, Mighty_Zuk said: I do still think the US needs to introduce an MRSI capability which requires an autoloader and obviously a longer barrel massively boosts this capability, and also look into other ways to cut down the M109's crew. I also think the ERCA with its L58 cannon as an element of division fires is a good thing to have. But this can be solved by developing new turrets for the M109. The Caesar for example is light and compact enough for air transport, certainly for sea transport. But it doesn't address the need for a smaller crew and MRSI. The Sigma does, but is humongous. A domestic autoloaded L52 turret proposal is what'd be best for the US IMO. I don't think they necessarily have to rush it. If it's to create a system they could also readily export to allies, then they could simply finance a local production of a foreign system with a direct line to Ukraine and that's it. The XM1299 HTB-XIV vehicle already had a modified turret to accommodate the larger XM907 cannon and the autoloader carousel in the bustle: (Credit goes to Ronkainen on Twitter, but the website refuses to embed the source tweet). The XM907 had excessive barrel wear after only a few supercharged rounds fired, which was highly undesirable. They could have thickened the barrel, but that would have resulted in unwanted weight increase and more stress on the XM908 mount. The M109A7 recently took more weight too - the hull armor was thickened to answer updated protection requirements: There have been plenty of previous attempts to shoehorn a 52-caliber 155mm gun into the M109, including the M109A6+ International Howitzer from 2001, which sported a 52-caliber, JBMOU-compliant M284 gun manufactured at Watervliet Arsenal. Not only did it NOT require modifications to turret geometry, but it also endowed the base M109A6 with a semi-automatic rammer, an automatic fire control system and a modified suspension. I don't particularly remember why this proposal was passed over, though, but it could have been a mixture of budget restrictions, change in tactics and priorities (namely the pursuit of lighter and nimbler vehicles, such as the Stryker, which was introduced the following year, in 2002) ...and possibly the fact that the US was already developing another, very outrageous beast called the XM2001 Crusader (which, ironically, was also Rumsfeld'ed for being too heavy). And the US Army already tested a surprisingly high number of long-barreled artillery guns, some of which can be seen in this picture from Benét Labs: The barrel at the very top behind the orange scissor lift is either the 58-caliber XM282 or the 39-caliber XM283 (based on the M198's M199) that were trialed in 1985 for the Howitzer Improvement Program (HIP); there were three guns proposed as part of the Advanced Armament System (AAS): the XM282, the XM283 (both 282 and 283 were fitted onto five M109A3E3 testbeds) and the XM284 (fitted onto four M109A3E2 testbeds). They eventually selected the XM284 for what ultimately became the M109A5. The howitzer gun seen here at the top looks like the XM283, but with the barrel length, it's more like a L58 XM282 (which had a chamber volume of 27.8L/1,700 cubic inches and could lob M549A1 HERA projectiles up to 45km with the XM224 propellant charge). Also note that, at one point, they did cut a XM282's barrel down to 52 calibers in order to test liquid propellants; that particular L52 unit could also be the one seen here. Right below it is the watercooled L56 XM297 (with a chamber volume of 1,400 cubic inches) that was installed on the Crusader (which also, at one point, courted liquid propellants before switching back to solid MACS propellant charges). Easily recognizable by its pepperpot muzzle brake. Edited November 1 by Renegade334 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucklucky Posted Sunday at 02:58 AM Share Posted Sunday at 02:58 AM Quote But the US doesn't fight like that. Its counter-battery is handled by longer range MLRS. It is never a good idea to have that kind of inflexibility and rules that enemy can profit from. The problem with M109 is also that it is tracked. Yes i know i am committing an heresy here but for large system numbers, increasing range and to be easier "dronable" it make sense to go wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted Sunday at 08:02 AM Share Posted Sunday at 08:02 AM Why not buy RCH155 off the peg. They already build a viable chassis in Piranha IV. If NIH, then they need to do a better job of innovating there and actually developing something viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted Sunday at 08:46 AM Share Posted Sunday at 08:46 AM 5 hours ago, lucklucky said: It is never a good idea to have that kind of inflexibility and rules that enemy can profit from. The problem with M109 is also that it is tracked. Yes i know i am committing an heresy here but for large system numbers, increasing range and to be easier "dronable" it make sense to go wheels. On the other hand Ukraine shows us that tracked system are at an advantage, as they are not road bound and therefore easier to hide from drones. Imho the correct answer is a mix of wheeled and tracked systems. Armoured formation with tracked MBTs and IFVs need tracked SPHs. Medium formations with wheeled IFVs need wheeled SPHs. Motorized infantry and other infantry formation benefit from the wheeled or truck mounted guns over the towed variants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted Sunday at 10:20 AM Share Posted Sunday at 10:20 AM 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Why not buy RCH155 off the peg. They already build a viable chassis in Piranha IV. If NIH, then they need to do a better job of innovating there and actually developing something viable. IMO the implementation of the RCH155 leaves a lot to be desired. Lots of compromises. Someone like the US Army definitely has the luxury of getting a more refined, tailored product. 7 hours ago, lucklucky said: It is never a good idea to have that kind of inflexibility and rules that enemy can profit from. In the field you're dividing fire units to specific tasks anyway. An MLRS is already far superior to cannon artillery in counter-battery. Making cannon artillery more effective in that job but less effective in others, makes little sense. The US needs to assess required barrel length according to its typical engagement ranges and make provisions for extension later down the line. 1 hour ago, seahawk said: On the other hand Ukraine shows us that tracked system are at an advantage, as they are not road bound and therefore easier to hide from drones. Imho the correct answer is a mix of wheeled and tracked systems. Armoured formation with tracked MBTs and IFVs need tracked SPHs. Medium formations with wheeled IFVs need wheeled SPHs. Motorized infantry and other infantry formation benefit from the wheeled or truck mounted guns over the towed variants. Tracked platforms have definitely not shown an advantage in Ukraine. Both tracked and wheeled platforms are road-bound nearly to the same extent, especially when logistics are wheeled. Terrain that would block wheeled vehicles, would not be permissible for effective shoot and scoot procedures for a tracked vehicle either. Current available sensory removes a lot of the shoot and scoot gains made in the past several decades. The biggest survivability gains that can be made today are separating the crew from the firing platform, or at least reducing said crew. If it turns out the minimized crew of a tracked platform is inherently larger than that of a wheeled one, then even the added armor won't compensate. In a war of attrition, the lower complexity, acquisition cost, and operation cost, far outweigh any disadvantages vs tracks. Separate logistics for multiple cannon artillery types are a bigger issue than you portray it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted Sunday at 12:09 PM Share Posted Sunday at 12:09 PM You are thinking wrong. In theory you can have the same gun and turret on 3 different (existing plattforms). For example you can have a tracked version using tracked Boxer, a wheeled version using standard Boxer and a truck version using Iveco or MAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted Sunday at 01:04 PM Share Posted Sunday at 01:04 PM 2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: IMO the implementation of the RCH155 leaves a lot to be desired. Lots of compromises. Someone like the US Army definitely has the luxury of getting a more refined, tailored product. In the field you're dividing fire units to specific tasks anyway. An MLRS is already far superior to cannon artillery in counter-battery. Making cannon artillery more effective in that job but less effective in others, makes little sense. The US needs to assess required barrel length according to its typical engagement ranges and make provisions for extension later down the line. Tracked platforms have definitely not shown an advantage in Ukraine. Both tracked and wheeled platforms are road-bound nearly to the same extent, especially when logistics are wheeled. Terrain that would block wheeled vehicles, would not be permissible for effective shoot and scoot procedures for a tracked vehicle either. Current available sensory removes a lot of the shoot and scoot gains made in the past several decades. The biggest survivability gains that can be made today are separating the crew from the firing platform, or at least reducing said crew. If it turns out the minimized crew of a tracked platform is inherently larger than that of a wheeled one, then even the added armor won't compensate. In a war of attrition, the lower complexity, acquisition cost, and operation cost, far outweigh any disadvantages vs tracks. Separate logistics for multiple cannon artillery types are a bigger issue than you portray it. In fact from my understanding, the US Army was looking over the RCH155 in Germany and making distinctly coo coo noises over it, and conceded it was more modern than their latest M109 incarnation. The problem is they have continually retruned to getting a refined, tailored product, and keep falling on their bum. Its probably time they just bought off the peg. Its not unknown for the US Army, they used to be incredibly pragamatic about such things. Look at their adoption of the 6pdr and the French 75. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted Sunday at 01:23 PM Share Posted Sunday at 01:23 PM 56 minutes ago, seahawk said: You are thinking wrong. In theory you can have the same gun and turret on 3 different (existing plattforms). For example you can have a tracked version using tracked Boxer, a wheeled version using standard Boxer and a truck version using Iveco or MAN. Exactly. Hell they could probably stick an RC155 turret on an M109. Im not sure why you would want to, but horses for courses and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted Sunday at 01:25 PM Author Share Posted Sunday at 01:25 PM How much more mileage can they drag out of the M109 series? I think that thing proved fire support for Caesar's legions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted Sunday at 01:46 PM Share Posted Sunday at 01:46 PM 38 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: The problem is they have continually retruned to getting a refined, tailored product, and keep falling on their bum. Its probably time they just bought off the peg. Its not unknown for the US Army, they used to be incredibly pragamatic about such things. Look at their adoption of the 6pdr and the French 75. It's not about the technical difficulty involved in any project, but rather how they manage it. They also tried buying fully mature Iron Domes once. Whined a bit about it, decided to go for the about x8 times more expensive AIM-9X missile, proprietary launcher and all, and failed. Then came the USMC, bought an Iron Dome, and it worked and they're happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted Sunday at 02:01 PM Author Share Posted Sunday at 02:01 PM Well, the US Army brought us things like Future Combat Systems, RAH-66 Comanche, OICW, M247 Sgt York, etc. so they have a history (although they're certainly not unique). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted Sunday at 03:09 PM Share Posted Sunday at 03:09 PM 1 hour ago, Dawes said: How much more mileage can they drag out of the M109 series? I think that thing proved fire support for Caesar's legions. Literal decades, you have new chassis, new turret, new systems, just put a new, longer gun and you're set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted Sunday at 04:02 PM Share Posted Sunday at 04:02 PM (edited) ...and the only thing shared with the original M-109A1 would be the M-109 designation... Edited Sunday at 04:03 PM by sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted Sunday at 04:15 PM Share Posted Sunday at 04:15 PM It's already like that, even the gun is different than in A1. M109A6 received a new, larger turret. Since M109A7 the chassis is also a new one, based on the one from Bradley, with the same tracks, engine and transmission. The gun from A5 onwards has a different designation than in earlier versions, although it has the same caliber length. In practice the current M109A7 is a new vehicle with somewhat inadequate main armament, which could absolutely be improved - it has already been demonstrated both in the US and abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted Sunday at 05:41 PM Share Posted Sunday at 05:41 PM 7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Tracked platforms have definitely not shown an advantage in Ukraine. Wrong. Ukrainians definitely complained about the nonexistent offroad ability and weak chassis of Caesar. Truck mounted artillery is simply idiotic in my opinion. If you go for wheeled chassis, then choose something like the Boxer or even better, an articulated hauler like the original Archer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted Sunday at 06:36 PM Share Posted Sunday at 06:36 PM Truck mounted is a good replacement for towed systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted Sunday at 07:15 PM Share Posted Sunday at 07:15 PM 26 minutes ago, seahawk said: Truck mounted is a good replacement for towed systems. Im not sure about that. Truck mounted systems are extremely vulnerable. As far as I know, towed guns proved to be surprisingly survivable in ukraine, sometimes even exceeding tracked SPGs. In my opinion, the ideal solution is tracked chassis, but for lighter guns, towed is still an option, especially, if they are light enough to be airlifted by helicopters. Truck mounted is idiotic as I said previously, but Im not really a fan of wheeled IFV/APC chassis either, because they still have worse offroad capability than tracked, and they are also expensive. But at least these are less vulnerable than trucks. As for the americans, I think the latest M109 is adequate currently, but with a better gun it would be a quite good SPG. Not as good as the PzH-2000 or the 2S35, but definitely more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted Sunday at 07:16 PM Share Posted Sunday at 07:16 PM Just now, old_goat said: Im not sure about that. Truck mounted systems are extremely vulnerable. As far as I know, towed guns proved to be surprisingly survivable in ukraine, sometimes even exceeding tracked SPGs. In my opinion, the ideal solution is tracked chassis, but for lighter guns, towed is still an option, especially, if they are light enough to be airlifted by helicopters. Truck mounted is idiotic as I said previously, but Im not really a fan of wheeled IFV/APC chassis either, because they still have worse offroad capability than tracked, and they are also expensive. But at least these are less vulnerable than trucks. As for the americans, I think the latest M109 is adequate currently, but with a better gun it would be a quite good SPG. Not as good as the PzH-2000 or the 2S35, but definitely more than enough. IIRC the loss rate for M777s was much, much higher than for CAESARs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_goat Posted Sunday at 07:19 PM Share Posted Sunday at 07:19 PM Just now, urbanoid said: IIRC the loss rate for M777s was much, much higher than for CAESARs. According to ukrainians, M777 is a rather fragile gun. Old soviet era guns are far more resistant to battle damage, and tolerate inadequate mainteance significantly better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now