The M777 Portee was developed as a private venture by BAE Systems to meet a British Army requirement for LIMAWS (G) or Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System - Gun programme. Another contender for the LIMAWS (G) programme was the Giat Industries Caesar 155-mm / L52 artillery system based on a 6x6 truck chassis.
The first prototype of the M777 Portee was completed in 2005. It is an intermediate design between towed and truck-mounted howitzers. UK requirement was for 30 - 40 artillery systems of this class. Unfortunately the LIMAWS (G) programme was canceled in 2007 due to funding problems. The British Army will continue to rely on AS90 self-propelled howitzers and light guns until these will be replaced by 2023.
The M777 Portee is based on a revolutionary M777 155-mm / L39 lightweight howitzer, adopted by the US Army and US Marine Corps. Maximum range of fire is 30 km with rocket-assisted projectile. This howitzer also fires Excalibur precision guided extended range projectiles with a maximum range of 40 km. Intense rate of fire is 5 rounds per minute, sustained - 2 rounds per minute.
The M777 Portee was extensively evaluated by the UK MoD and over 350 rounds were fired in test conditions.
The howitzer is partially unloaded from the vehicle before firing. A total of 20 rounds of ammunition are carried. The advantage of such design is that the M777 Portee is more mobile than ordinary towed howitzers. Also when the howitzer is loaded onto the vehicle it can go over terrain, that would trap other towed howitzers. Unique feature of the M777 Portee is that artillery system can be easily removed or attached to the chassis. With the howitzer removed the vehicle acts as an artillery tractor and can carry additional ammunition instead of artillery system. In the towing mode the M777 Portee can carry a total of 71 rounds.
Cab of the M777 Portee provides light armor protection and NBC protection for the crew. It accommodates the driver plus gun crew.
The M777 Portee is mounted on the chassis of the Supacat HMT 800 8x6 high mobility truck. Vehicle can be carried by the C-130 transport aircraft. Thus it can be carried underslung by two CH-47 Chinook helicopters.
looks interesting, but needs a higher degree of automation, it takes a "bit of time" to deploy and reload.
looks interesting, but needs a higher degree of automation, it takes a "bit of time" to deploy and reload.
looks interesting, but needs a higher degree of automation, it takes a "bit of time" to deploy and reload.
Why? A self propelled gun has been less survivable than a towed gun in most XX wars, despite similar intensities of action. The Supacat truck portee is a nice combination of not needing to be limbered into position and have similar survival characteristics to a towed gun.
so what you are saying is that, if you compare the G6 Rhino to the m777, the m777 is better?? sorry but i don't agree with that, if the G6 was such a bad vehicle why did it served with the South African forces for so long??Needing to exit the vehicle to man the gun is a virtue. It encourages a entrenchment mentality among the crew that increases survivability of the gun in the face of counter-fire.
The reason self propelled guns suffer higher statistical losses than towed guns despite similar combat intensities is probably because towed guns are inherently less likely to be destroyed (smaller top-down surface are and fewer systems to be damaged) and crews will generally entrench themselves in revetments when firing, which makes them harder than any amount of steel plate carried by a vehicle.
This is true for both the dreaded shoot/scoot and conventional type artillery practice where you dig a big revetment around a gun though, so it probably has to do with the cross-section of the gun/mover and the density of systems to be busted versus the amount of fire. Cet par, I guess a self propelled gun will have a track broke, or a optical device or hydraulic line severed, while a towed gun will just get a chip in a limber or a flat tire, simply because the self propelled piece is much bigger and has more actually important things to break.
The worst you can say about the LIMAWS(G)/M777 Portee is that the prime mover might get KO'ed, but it's a 6x6 Supacat, so yes it might get blown up. It's also not near the cannon when firing and in a separate revetment with the other primes so that's less likely and if it does go kaboom then any truck can tow the M777.
G6 is like the worst of both worlds: it's wheeled and thus lightly armored and thus highly vulnerable to counter-fire, but the crew isn't in any rush to entrench themselves for protection, and its only advantage is it had a long range for the 1980's. Nowadays it's just kinda whatever and lame.
so what you are saying is that, if you compare the G6 Rhino to the m777, the m777 is better?? sorry but i don't agree with that,
if the G6 was such a bad vehicle why did it served with the South African forces for so long??
M777 only has a 39 calibre barrel, there's no reason why a new towed gun, liberated from the air mobility requirement, shouldn't have a longer barrel (52 or even 58 calibres long), and hence a longer range.The British 105mm light gun has been a survivor because it is easy to move around (a Puma can underslung it and most British Army trucks can tow it).
Cost has prevented the UK from having the excellent M777 but it has also been argued that the Light Gun is easier to deploy and use.
Given the availability of decent trucks to tow them and well trained crews, M777 can move around pretty quickly and are much easier to replace than AS90/PZH2000.
M777 only has a 39 calibre barrel, there's no reason why a new towed gun, liberated from the air mobility requirement, shouldn't have a longer barrel (52 or even 58 calibres long), and hence a longer range.The British 105mm light gun has been a survivor because it is easy to move around (a Puma can underslung it and most British Army trucks can tow it).
Cost has prevented the UK from having the excellent M777 but it has also been argued that the Light Gun is easier to deploy and use.
Given the availability of decent trucks to tow them and well trained crews, M777 can move around pretty quickly and are much easier to replace than AS90/PZH2000.
M777 manages to be the worst of both worlds, the heavy weight of it's ammunition being problematic for mobility, whilst not having the same range as the 52 calibre self-propelled guns.
Something like a towed or porteed KH-2000 or 155 GH 52 APU would be a good idea.
The US Army literally just finished feilding the PGK for 155mm few years back.There are certain PGK kits in catalogues that can be used in both 105mm and 155mm (this means the 105mm has a 155mm sized fuse well I think) and obviously people offer these things at trade shows, but AFAIK no one has taken up the deal yet. Most people seem to have either displaced 105mm or treat it less as a howitzer, and more as a mortar, due to its generally sub-20 km range
So many long texts, so many arguments, but you forgot the basic rule of a war: mobility, if you stay static , taking your time to deploy the gun, and manually reload it, leaving your men outside unprotect, well basically you are dead, the enemy is not going to wait, till you deploy the gun and fire it, they will kill insight, so basically if you stay mobile, you have a chance to survive, if you stay inside the vehicle, fire the gun from the inside, and automatically reload it inside the vehicle, and then move to another place to fire again, you have a better chance to survive than being outside the vehicle to reload, and running around like a "fool" unprotected, the G6 Rhino has protection and mobility, that the m777 doesn't and this is stating the obvious, it might not have the Armour protection of the m109, but has mobility, why do you think Ukranian forces are making so many hard hits on Russian slow and static vehicles?? well guess what, they stay mobile, they move from place to place to fire, they don't stay static, waiting to deploy there guns and reload them, just waiting to be killed, my point is the G6 Rhino is miles way better than the m777 and this is a fact, the m777 might be cheaper, but not better than the G6 Rhino, any vehicle, that forces you to be outside unprotected to deploy the gun and reload it manually is always a bad idea in any war.They do, it's just that most modern howitzers in military inventories are too thinly armored to be survivable in the face of modern (1970's era) counter battery fire. Only the most advanced and expensive self propelled pieces, like PzH 2000 and K9 Thunder, seem to be adequately armored to move around without being disabled or destroyed under late Cold War-era counter battery fire.
That indicates "Bradley level" protection (14.5mm AP and 155mm shell bursts at 30-40 meters all around) is optimal for conventional gunfire like the D-30 or 2S1/2S3 that predominates both 1973 and 2022. Add in bomblet protection for ICM like SPz Puma and you've arrived at PzH 2000 I guess?
Perhaps the T2 armor kits actually do add this though, as they add about 2 tons of mass to the M109A7, while a BUSK ERA kit is 3 tons, so the protection is probably substantial in the kinetic realm as it seems to be a applique similar to the Stryker ballistic tiles, but it's a lot of mass on something that's already pretty overloaded. I imagine that's why the Army intends to keep them warehoused as long as it can.
This is utterly wrong boss.DOD/Sandia/whoever has not done any "new studies" since 1973, partly because it doesn't care, and partly because there are no new data to lean on to actually study. What data we have are similar to what is being photographed in Ukraine right now
Again 10 years of experience says different boss. General from detection to shots out in my experience is 2 minutes max unless we are shooting into a heavily built up area, which causes everyone who cares bout optics to increase that to where it useless cause shelling a hospital is bad.There is simply not that much of a difference in displacement times. An M109 and a M777 have comparable levels of agility for displacement, both being "less than 3-4 minutes" to displace ~300 meters. Because 3-4 minutes is how long it takes to plot a WLR counterfire mission from initial detection to FFE shells impacting
In fact the paper drill says 3 minutes seconds for a M777 battery to be displaced 300 meters, and M109's displacement time is long enough that it's being destroyed by standard WLR assumptions of ~3 minutes. Well, that's if you believe a crazy man's Twitter rants. M109 is actually closer to 45 seconds to a minute from last shell firing to travel lock engaged and spades up, but depending on how lazy the crew is it might be longer if they have to get out to engage the travel lock or something
Spoken like someone who hasnt have the pleasure of working a gun for over 3 days straight with 5 hours of sleep in total. Trust me after that, even the simplest 60mm mortar takes forever and a day to Emplacement due to fatigue.I suppose if it takes a generic team 5 minutes to limber an M777, one of the lightest, best balanced, and handiest field pieces ever designed, they might actually suffer from being told to entrench and possibly run wires back to battalion. Not because of the shell fire, but from the simple exertion of digging and moving, though. M777s are about as easy to handle as a field gun can be made to handle. Anyone gun crew that struggles to meet the 3 minute displacement with it M777 is more likely just warrant officers having a lark
funny thing bout that.That's another reason to stop moving, cover up, and remain protected. Spotting is much easier when the thing you're looking for is kicking up dust by moving around
Yup, Ukraine has Fabbercobbled up a a few SPGs doing that as well., wait out a barrage, recover the guns, and kludge together new replacement bits. Truly, the old ways live on in Eastern Europe
Berms were nice when the Guns were averaging 50 40 meters.Displacement gets you killed in the face of precision guided weapons, because moving targets are easier to spot (thus, hit) than stationary ones. Especially if you don't know exactly where they are. No, 40-50 meters is not that exact, as a berm will still protect you from barrages and you can probably fire back at the observer (with your rifle, not your howitzer) and scare him off. Maybe artillery batteries need MANPADS teams or something in addition to infantry platoons. Once you get rid of the observer you can start moving, of course by then you've been shot at for a bit. Berms are nice?
I have one question on this that is not answer bu the Source.In the face of non-precision weapons, it doesn't seem to help much either, as self-propelled guns aren't any more survivable than towed ones, and often less survivable. Otherwise they wouldn't be lost at twice the rate of towed guns in medium- to high-intensity combat, would they? It suggests, as I've repeatedly stated, they need more armor or something to displace under fire. Otherwise you're better off hiding behind a berm.
Very well writen text "firefinder", you made my point, thank you, best regards.This is utterly wrong boss.DOD/Sandia/whoever has not done any "new studies" since 1973, partly because it doesn't care, and partly because there are no new data to lean on to actually study. What data we have are similar to what is being photographed in Ukraine right now
The US DOD, Army, Marines, and a few others have done studies, many of them recently cause not only the Army is looking to redo it Arty doctrine, but alot of things that was classified when the study you mention were done been unclassified. Basically new information came out, new tech changing stuff up, snd all that.
Even got those studies on my harddrive, perks of been in the military in a small multirole MOS that deals with this shit. End up seeing all type of things.
Will post them when Im next on my laptop if i remember.
Again 10 years of experience says different boss. General from detection to shots out in my experience is 2 minutes max unless we are shooting into a heavily built up area, which causes everyone who cares bout optics to increase that to where it useless cause shelling a hospital is bad.There is simply not that much of a difference in displacement times. An M109 and a M777 have comparable levels of agility for displacement, both being "less than 3-4 minutes" to displace ~300 meters. Because 3-4 minutes is how long it takes to plot a WLR counterfire mission from initial detection to FFE shells impacting
This was my day job 10 years and that was the Standard we trained too. Had teams average one minute with a record of 18 seconds between detect and rounds out. Fun times.
In fact the paper drill says 3 minutes seconds for a M777 battery to be displaced 300 meters, and M109's displacement time is long enough that it's being destroyed by standard WLR assumptions of ~3 minutes. Well, that's if you believe a crazy man's Twitter rants. M109 is actually closer to 45 seconds to a minute from last shell firing to travel lock engaged and spades up, but depending on how lazy the crew is it might be longer if they have to get out to engage the travel lock or something
Here let me show you a proper source.
According to the US Army, and support by the M109 TM9--2350--311--10 and the M777 TM 9-1025-215-23.
Gives the Emplacement to fire time of 30 seconds for tge M109A5 up to charge 6 with an added minute for digging in for larger charges, with movement possible within 30 seconds after firing is complete. Compare to the M777s 3 minutes for any charges and a displacement of similar amount. That is the Standard that we train to by TC 3-09.81.
Said TC also states that you should do no more then 10 shot per position to ensure that the enemy cant zero in on you. So in an actual conflict you be jumping alot. Which is were SPGs shine.
Spoken like someone who hasnt have the pleasure of working a gun for over 3 days straight with 5 hours of sleep in total. Trust me after that, even the simplest 60mm mortar takes forever and a day to Emplacement due to fatigue.I suppose if it takes a generic team 5 minutes to limber an M777, one of the lightest, best balanced, and handiest field pieces ever designed, they might actually suffer from being told to entrench and possibly run wires back to battalion. Not because of the shell fire, but from the simple exertion of digging and moving, though. M777s are about as easy to handle as a field gun can be made to handle. Anyone gun crew that struggles to meet the 3 minute displacement with it M777 is more likely just warrant officers having a lark
Like for as light and easy to handle the M777 is...
Its still a 9000 plus pound chunk of metal that doesn't want to move and still MANUALLY operares. And takes all 8 crew to manually move the thing on concrete, M777 and tow guns crew live in fear of the deep mud, since it still heavy enough to get stuck fairly easily. With it requiring alot of effort to move around since it still 4 tons of metal. No amount of balance work will help you there.
Basically after 3 days of in the field every tow gun be breaking time after wards cause the crews be too tired to make 100 percent. After a few weeks of combats in the field a tow crew will be hating life and be lucky to make 10 minutes. Know that from experience from NTC.
Compare that to the power operated SPGs, which makes the same time day 1 as they do day 31. Since the SPG does everything but load itself, and some do that, the SPG crew stay fresher and more combat ready longer.
Thats before you get into the elements.
A SPG doesn't care if its sunny, night, hot, cold, dry, wet. So long as the vehicle and the gear works they are just happy to run missions in a blizzard as they are on a sunny day.
A tow crew, who at best has a canves cover on their truck... cares ALOT about the elements.
Which is something many people forget.
SPG are far easier on their crews then Tow pieces are since they do most the work.
Hell M777s almost too lightly built, M777s are not allowed to go about charge 7 unless they get the Colonel approval. To much risk of tge gun breaking, either by explosion or by the barrel ripping out of the recoil mounts. The M109 only needed a breech upgrade to allow regular use of Charge 8 and 9. Which is why the M109 has a longer range.
funny thing bout that.That's another reason to stop moving, cover up, and remain protected. Spotting is much easier when the thing you're looking for is kicking up dust by moving around
An SPG is actaully easier and faster to cover up then a Tow gun due to the fact you can prestage the camo netting far easier. And need to cover up less.
Yup, Ukraine has Fabbercobbled up a a few SPGs doing that as well., wait out a barrage, recover the guns, and kludge together new replacement bits. Truly, the old ways live on in Eastern Europe
Berms were nice when the Guns were averaging 50 40 meters.Displacement gets you killed in the face of precision guided weapons, because moving targets are easier to spot (thus, hit) than stationary ones. Especially if you don't know exactly where they are. No, 40-50 meters is not that exact, as a berm will still protect you from barrages and you can probably fire back at the observer (with your rifle, not your howitzer) and scare him off. Maybe artillery batteries need MANPADS teams or something in addition to infantry platoons. Once you get rid of the observer you can start moving, of course by then you've been shot at for a bit. Berms are nice?
They are now averaging 30-20 meters with DUMB shells. Sub 10 with smart shells. Thats before you get into the fun of airbursts which murder inflantry with out top cover. This is another reason why Ukriane Artillery been doing better then Russia.
Russia Arty needs say 20 shots to kill a target, while Ukraine only needs 5.
This is due to several reasons. Guns more Accurate, better fire control computers but most importantly is that the observers can give a more accurate first time read.
Most modern Army observers now have basically a combo of binocular/laser rangefinder/GPS* that not only are hand held, but can give you a target location with in a few meters of it from a few thousand meters away.
Throw in the fact that most observers ride around in basically ifv level armor vehicles with even bigger version of tge Target Designator for more range.
Using the howitzer might be a better idea then you rifle.
*Honestly the minimization and cheapening of GPS been a lmqjor game changer for Artillery. Tge biggest issue historically with accurate fires was figuring out where you are in relation to the target. Before GPS, you needed survey people to make a point, which you then had to get within like 15cms of, and for every centimeter you were off meant about a meter downrange in additiont to inaccuracies of survey and the observers. Thus why 50 meters accuracy was the goal for so long. It was consider the easiest and most likely for a soldier to do.
Now every gun from 60mm to 155mm has a GPS able to get with a meteaccurately.y anywhere.
And every observer has those Target Designators able to get accurate location of the target themselves from a good ways away.
Its far easier to do the calculations as well, you can get an app for you phone to do it. Allowing you to accurately tell the weapon exactly where to point to get the best accuracy.
All this allows for an averaging of 20 meters error for a shell.
Considering the YOU DEAD zone is a raduis of 10 meters around a shells impact? As in unless you are in a tank or a bunker, and a 155mm land within 10 meters of you you are dieing even in a berm or trench cause of over pressure.
Eyeah... You can see how people feeling the old shot and scoot is the better option then bunkering down.
I have one question on this that is not answer bu the Source.In the face of non-precision weapons, it doesn't seem to help much either, as self-propelled guns aren't any more survivable than towed ones, and often less survivable. Otherwise they wouldn't be lost at twice the rate of towed guns in medium- to high-intensity combat, would they? It suggests, as I've repeatedly stated, they need more armor or something to displace under fire. Otherwise you're better off hiding behind a berm.
Define Destroyed.
Cause well which would you call destroyed.
The tow gun that took a hit, got its crew spluttered againsted i, but was able to be put back into service the next day since the only thing damaged was the tires and all 8 crew. Two hours with monkey who knows how to turn a wrench and a pressure washing to clean off the guts.
Or is the SPG that took a hit, but crew manage to get out before its powder cookk off. Its a write off but the crew got out.
Basically you should not look at Number of vehicles destroyed.
But Numbers of CREW lost.
So what if the SPG is lost at triple the rate of s tow. If the SPGs loses half the personal compare to the tow systems at the end of the conflict?
The the SPG is better.
Cause you can replace the gun far easier then the experience crew.
And none of the source I have found including the ones listed here, go into that.
Excuse my ignorance, but where does the U.S. source its Titanium from? I can't help reflecting the building of the Lockheed SR-71 and how the U.S. had to source it's quantity of Titanium from the Soviet Union, without the Soviet's knowing that the material was going to used against them militaraly....BAE Systems to build new M777 howitzer structures for US Army
The new agreement between the U.S. Army and BAE Systems to build titanium gun structures for M777 howitzers could lead to a production line restart.www.defensenews.com
Excuse my ignorance, but where does the U.S. source its Titanium from? I can't help reflecting the building of the Lockheed SR-71 and how the U.S. had to source it's quantity of Titanium from the Soviet Union, without the Soviet's knowing that the material was going to used against them militaraly....
Regards
Pioneer
Ah, you read my mind Kat Tsun, for I was just thinking that Russia and PRC might be inclined to play the U.S. at it's own game of sanctioning such exports of Titanium....I know I would.The PRC doesn't really restrict trade like that, at least not yet, but I suspect BAE is getting scrutinized to source from Japan and the ore is likely coming from Australia. These are the runners-up over PRC in both refining and mining, respectively, and important U.S. regional allies secondly.
Ah, you read my mind Kat Tsun, for I was just thinking that Russia and PRC might be inclined to play the U.S. at it's own game of sanctioning such exports of Titanium....I know I would.
Regards
Pioneer
Lots of options in allied countries:Excuse my ignorance, but where does the U.S. source its Titanium from? I can't help reflecting the building of the Lockheed SR-71 and how the U.S. had to source it's quantity of Titanium from the Soviet Union, without the Soviet's knowing that the material was going to used against them militaraly....
Regards
Pioneer
Still looks like there's plenty of production outside of China for the purposes being considered. Production generally conforms to the market, at least it does in free market economies anyway.Ore "reserves" aren't important since they require many years to develop, are slow to dig out of the ground, and still need to be refined.
View attachment 716041
View attachment 716042
The PRC has about a third or so of the global share of production of titanium. This will not appreciably diminish in terms of mine output and might actually grow. Refining capacities might recede, only in select sectors, although Japan has a pretty sizeable titanium refining capacity and they can produce very good titanium. Unlike the Chinese firms, Nippon Steel does this without managers needing to breathe down their necks about it, and since they already own U.S. Steel now it's a domestic American firm at this point. It should be pretty trivial to establish refinement and sponge production in the U.S.
America will still rely on majority imports of titanium obviously (Boeing), but it may be enough to save select defense programs, such as the B-21 or F-35 or M777, from requiring sourcing of foreign titanium in the future. Prior to the Ukraine War, the United States imported about $100 mn worth of titanium sponge from Russia and $50 mn worth from PRC.
I suppose it imports almost exclusively from Japan, who will likely import almost exclusively from Australia, given Mozambique and South Africa are firmly wedded to the Chinese future, and Senegal is leaning there. That's not really good enough considering they're also both within submarine and bomber base range of the PRC, though.
A Nippon Steel-owned titanium sponge plant in Tennessee or Mississippi is a possibility in the defense industrial base's near future. Since Ti is produced from either powdered/shredded scrap or raw ores run through either the Hunter Process or Kroll Process (the main difference is the use of magnesium or sodium to react with the TiCl4 gas AIUI), they can substitute one another, too.
Most raw Ti produced in America is done by recycling imported scrap right now. The only Kroll Process sponge plant left is in Henderson, Nevada, run by Titanium Metals Corporation, and using Japanese machinery. Honeywell uses the Hunter Process to make certain types of integrated circuits at a plant they own, but they aren't really important for artillery pieces, since they don't make the cheap kind of Ti that goes into F-22s and M777s.
Getting back to the 777, seems to me that it belongs to a prior era, where you could out-range and better target your hapless opponent.
Astute analysis....
A thought: perhaps mobile howitzers are taking more harm because, being mobile, they are going further into 'harm's way ?
Where-as towed, open ordnance deployment requires much more caution as more exposed ??
Argument resembles the armouring of bomber tails due to the number returning, riddled to sieves. Flaw was that tail-riddled got home, but cockpit-riddled did not...
IIRC, the argument over machine gun barrel replacement invoked need for an armourer to align any new barrel, adjust the sights. Forgetting that a machine gun may be 'walked' onto target...