• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
876
Reaction score
6
M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA (Extended Range Cannon Artillery) for M109A7/M109A8. XM907 depending on source uses L52, L55 or L58 barrel, will have max range of 70 km and with new ammunition possibly extended to 100+ km

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/631880

;D
 

Attachments

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
5
Finally some glimmer of range and reason. Missiles have there place but they are also a contractors wet dream and w/ less than positive payoff mostly. The first Gulf war was proof of that. Limited utility for the price.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
jsport said:
Finally some glimmer of range and reason. Missiles have there place but they are also a contractors wet dream and w/ less than positive payoff mostly. The first Gulf war was proof of that. Limited utility for the price.
Actually "steel rain" or "grid square killers" (MLRS) was very effective.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
Guns excel at "danger close" fire missions, fire onto the reverse slope of ridges and multiple strikes on the one target (Time-on-Target) missions. They are also cheaper and more versatile than missiles. Missiles have their place in the armoury but so do guns. Missiles will not replace guns for some time IMO.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
790
Reaction score
49
Gun launched multiple strike munitions will be more cost effective for some time to come.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
5
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Finally some glimmer of range and reason. Missiles have there place but they are also a contractors wet dream and w/ less than positive payoff mostly. The first Gulf war was proof of that. Limited utility for the price.
Actually "steel rain" or "grid square killers" (MLRS) was very effective.
Said missiles not rockets there is a difference.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
817
Reaction score
34
I can see an m109 Howitzer equivalent on the picture on the low left corner :)
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
626
Reaction score
6
It's nice to see these upgrades the might occur for the M109A7 but I still wonder at all of the compromises that must be made versus a "new" design for a self-propelled howitzer.

I've got to wonder if today's M109A7 have any part that is the same as the original M109? The turret was largely redesigned for the A6 and the hull is new for the A7.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome? They have in the past adopted other artillery systems made under license from overseas designes, such as the 120mm Mortar, the 105mm Light Gun and so on. Surely they could adopt a superior artillery self-propelled gun like the PzH 2000 from Germany?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome? They have in the past adopted other artillery systems made under license from overseas designes, such as the 120mm Mortar, the 105mm Light Gun and so on. Surely they could adopt a superior artillery self-propelled gun like the PzH 2000 from Germany?
It's not as easy as looking at the latest sales brochure and going "bingo, let's buy a thousand of these to replace the M109s!" There have been two clean-sheet SPG intiatives which were both cancelled, so the Army has held tight to M109 modernization as the safe route. Getting PzH 2000 would require a new program, with an open competition, and even if victorious (not assured, people already complained about Crusader's weight) ze Germans would need to address the Panzerhaubitze's various issues to get the green light for a large buy. Facing all that, the Army would rather squeeze all they can out of the M109 platform until other priorities, like MPF and NGCV, get the front-burner treatment.
 

cador

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
What has become of the canon XM-297 of the cancelled Crusader ?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
cador said:
What has become of the canon XM-297 of the cancelled Crusader ?
NLOS-C borrowed some from it, though in a much lighter/less impreesive package.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
Moose said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome? They have in the past adopted other artillery systems made under license from overseas designes, such as the 120mm Mortar, the 105mm Light Gun and so on. Surely they could adopt a superior artillery self-propelled gun like the PzH 2000 from Germany?
It's not as easy as looking at the latest sales brochure and going "bingo, let's buy a thousand of these to replace the M109s!" There have been two clean-sheet SPG intiatives which were both cancelled, so the Army has held tight to M109 modernization as the safe route. Getting PzH 2000 would require a new program, with an open competition, and even if victorious (not assured, people already complained about Crusader's weight) ze Germans would need to address the Panzerhaubitze's various issues to get the green light for a large buy. Facing all that, the Army would rather squeeze all they can out of the M109 platform until other priorities, like MPF and NGCV, get the front-burner treatment.
There are no "issues" that I am aware of, do you have information as to what they might be?

I don't doubt that any buy of the PzH2000 would be a license production one, rather than one straight from Germany. Afterall, the US still uses the old style, outmoded Imperial units of measure, whereas the Germans have been using the Metric system for over a 150 years. All the instruments would need replacing/calibrating.

The performance of the PzH2000 is approximately the same as the M109a7. The Pzh2000 already exists. The previous programmes, in typical US military style pushed the envelope until it broke. The PzH2000 is more an evolutionary than a revolutionary approach to the problems of developing an SPG. I do not doubt that the systems of the PzH2000 could be adapted to suit the US Army, if the US Army wanted it. They have adopted other foreign weapons in the past, why not again?
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
626
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Well the cancellation of past programs doesn't inspire much confidence. It's almost as cursed as a new scout helicopter. Though I think the problem is a lack of clear direction rather than any sort of technological inability.

The XM2001 went from the full-sized 60 ton vehicle designed to fight off the Soviet hordes to the revised 45 ton model, then we switched course to the expeditionary 25 ton XM1203 since we supposedly were never going to fight a fully modern and well-equipped opponent like the Russians. Now here we are looking at what's best suited to fighting the Russians again.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Colonial-Marine said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Well the cancellation of past programs doesn't inspire much confidence. It's almost as cursed as a new scout helicopter. Though I think the problem is a lack of clear direction rather than any sort of technological inability.

The XM2001 went from the full-sized 60 ton vehicle designed to fight off the Soviet hordes to the revised 45 ton model, then we switched course to the expeditionary 25 ton XM1203 since we supposedly were never going to fight a fully modern and well-equipped opponent like the Russians. Now here we are looking at what's best suited to fighting the Russians again.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying the US Army is stupid for not just buying one from someone else. They were stupid for cancelling Crusader. (And terminating the production of the F-22.) I think the biggest problems are inconsistent direction from the politicians (that's not the DoD's fault) and always putting off what could be had now, that would do the job, in favor of the next great thing, but then not having the stomach to push through the failures that chasing the bleeding edge comes with. That seems to be changing but we could easily be right back in this situation if the politics change.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
There is nothing wrong with buying a foreign design and license producing it. Particularly when it's obvious that you cannot produce a viable system as cheaply as the foreign design. The US Army has adopted the British Light Gun, the M777 155mm Howitzer, the 120mm Mortar. You're acting as if it would mean the end of American industry or something. It didn't in the past and it more than likely won't in the future.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
There is nothing wrong with buying a foreign design and license producing it. Particularly when it's obvious that you cannot produce a viable system as cheaply as the foreign design.
For some things sure. But sometimes you want the best, not the cheapest.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
There is nothing wrong with buying a foreign design and license producing it. Particularly when it's obvious that you cannot produce a viable system as cheaply as the foreign design.
For some things sure. But sometimes you want the best, not the cheapest.
As Lord Beaverbrook remarked in WWII - sometimes the best is the enemy of the adequate. Pursuit of excellence invariably works out as expensive. The US Army might need something that does the job, now, rather than does the job in 10 years time once all the bugs are worked out and the bills have been presented. The G6 is an excellent SPG however I suspect it might find adding extra length to the barrel a little problematic and it lacks the autoloading and other features the PzH2000 carries as standard.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
31
Kadija_Man said:
The G6 is an excellent SPG however I suspect it might find adding extra length to the barrel a little problematic and it lacks the autoloading and other features the PzH2000 carries as standard.
???
The G-6 52 was brought out 15 years ago already.
Auto loading, rate of fire and simultaneous multiple round impact roughly the same as PzH2000...etc..but has always shot further than the PzH2000 (which incidentally only acheived its highest range figure using ammunition from the company that makes the G-6 :) )
It has shot at over 67km , and over 75km with the L version all the way back in 2006, so to all intents and purposes met the range requirement all that time ago.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
There is nothing wrong with buying a foreign design and license producing it. Particularly when it's obvious that you cannot produce a viable system as cheaply as the foreign design.
For some things sure. But sometimes you want the best, not the cheapest.
As Lord Beaverbrook remarked in WWII - sometimes the best is the enemy of the adequate.
Tell that to the Iraqi soldiers who went up against F-15s and Abrams.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?
Because they're smart?
Possibly. However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
What evidence? Do tell.
Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans. The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems. Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on? There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.
Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
There is nothing wrong with buying a foreign design and license producing it. Particularly when it's obvious that you cannot produce a viable system as cheaply as the foreign design.
For some things sure. But sometimes you want the best, not the cheapest.
As Lord Beaverbrook remarked in WWII - sometimes the best is the enemy of the adequate.
Tell that to the Iraqi soldiers who went up against F-15s and Abrams.
Tell that to the people who cannot afford either. The Abrams is an adequate tank at best. It was only faced by "monkey-model" T-72s, T-55s. It's lack of range, it's choice of engine, it's (now) apparent lack of protection...

The F-15 is good but far from what I would describe as "perfect". It is expensive and beyond what many countries can afford in an aircraft.

The US can afford a lot of good gear. However, as I said, the "best is often the enemy of the adequate".

However, we are drifting. You have failed thus far to marshal a cogent argument against the adoption of a license produced design. There are plenty of overseas designs which are superior to the M109. Why not license produce them?
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
626
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
Tell that to the people who cannot afford either. The Abrams is an adequate tank at best. It was only faced by "monkey-model" T-72s, T-55s. It's lack of range, it's choice of engine, it's (now) apparent lack of protection...

The F-15 is good but far from what I would describe as "perfect". It is expensive and beyond what many countries can afford in an aircraft.

The US can afford a lot of good gear. However, as I said, the "best is often the enemy of the adequate".

However, we are drifting. You have failed thus far to marshal a cogent argument against the adoption of a license produced design. There are plenty of overseas designs which are superior to the M109. Why not license produce them?
Adequate tank? It really should have been fitted with the 120mm gun from the start of series production but it was a huge leap forward from the old M60 and has seen a lot of improvements with time. If you had a crystal ball in the late 1970s the diesel engine may have been a better choice but the AGT-1500 has still performed very well. What is this apparent lack of protection you speak of? The same Achilles heel of every modern main battle tank which is that sides and rear are a lot more vulnerable than the front? The best T-72s the Iraqis had seem to have been the T-72M1 which were about equivalent to the Soviet T-72A. Many Warsaw Pact countries operated the same export T-72 variants the Iraqis did so they weren't exactly being given trash. With the T-55 there were fewer differences between Soviet and export models.

No fighter is perfect but the F-15 has the record to prove it was an outstanding one. Yes it's expensive but so is any other first-rate air-superiority fighter, these days multi-role fighters with less demanding performance characteristics aren't much cheaper either.

There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
Colonial-Marine said:
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.
OK, trying to keep the thread on track. So, you agree there is nothing wrong (in theory at least) with license production.

Yes, requirements change - that happens to every military force the world over. What do they do? They adapt their force structure and their equipment to their new requirement - they don't spend squillions on developing and building something and then junking it when things change. That is what the US Army has done and more than likely continue to do for some inexplicable reason.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
Tell that to the people who cannot afford either. The Abrams is an adequate tank at best. It was only faced by "monkey-model" T-72s, T-55s. It's lack of range, it's choice of engine, it's (now) apparent lack of protection...

The F-15 is good but far from what I would describe as "perfect". It is expensive and beyond what many countries can afford in an aircraft.

The US can afford a lot of good gear. However, as I said, the "best is often the enemy of the adequate".

However, we are drifting. You have failed thus far to marshal a cogent argument against the adoption of a license produced design. There are plenty of overseas designs which are superior to the M109. Why not license produce them?
Wow.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Colonial-Marine said:
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.
Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability. Crusader is exactly what we need today. And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun. Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.
Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability. Crusader is exactly what we need today. And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun. Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?
How does License Production result in your industrial base rotting?

You do understand that licensed production of an item is, don't you? You go to who has the design and ask them for the rights to produce their item in your factories, using your personnel and your money. So, how does that result in your industrial base "rotting"?

The Crusader was simply biting off more than the US economy could afford at the time, at the time. Now, as has been noted, what the US Army wants has changed. The PzH2000, for example, provides an adequate response to the US Army's needs...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.
Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability. Crusader is exactly what we need today. And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun. Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?
How does License Production result in your industrial base rotting?
Contrary to popular belief, designs don't grow on trees.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
626
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability. Crusader is exactly what we need today. And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun. Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?
I'd agree that the second iteration of the Crusader does look an awful lot like the vehicle we need today. One thing I did not understand however was the desire to use a gas turbine engine in it. I suppose it might have made some sense when the concern was a rain of Soviet counter-battery fire hitting the position you just fired from but by the early 2000s it seems like a multi-fuel diesel engine would have been the more economical choice.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.
Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability. Crusader is exactly what we need today. And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun. Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?
How does License Production result in your industrial base rotting?
Contrary to popular belief, designs don't grow on trees.
Contrary to popular belief, your designers aren't necessarily part of your industrial base...
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"The Army Wants Longer Barreled Howitzers To Fire Ramjet-Powered And Other Special Shells"
by Joseph Trevithick June 18, 2018

Source:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21598/the-army-wants-longer-barreled-howitzers-to-fire-ramjet-powered-and-other-special-shells
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
Raytheon discloses Excalibur capability enhancements


Raytheon, in collaboration with the US Army, has now finalised development and testing of a new Excalibur Shaped Trajectory (EST) variant of the 1b.
“EST is a software upgrade for improved performance and manoeuvrability,” Paul R Daniels, senior manager, International and Growth Programs, Precision Indirect Fires at Raytheon, told Jane’s . “A reprogramming port on the side of the projectile enables legacy 1b rounds with the EST capability,” he said.
The conventional Excalibur mode of engagement is vertical attack; the EST upgrade enables field commanders to engage targets in hard-to-reach locations by selecting the projectile’s terminal or final phase angle of attack and angle of fall. With the EST upgrade, the 1b projectile can now perform off-axis shots, or reverse slope engagements over tall terrain features for hidden or obscured targets, including performing vertical u-turn manoeuvres to engage the target from behind. According to Daniels, the Excalibur EST allows the commander to engage a particular side of a targeted building, or defeat a target hidden under bridges or motorway overpasses.

The EST software build from start to demonstration (in October) was concluded in six months, and all software development is now finalised. As part of its contract with the army, the service’s 1b inventory will be reprogrammed with the new EST software. EST will also be cut into new production projectiles in 2019.
Raytheon, using internal research and development (IRAD) funding, is progressing further Excalibur technology enhancements to address challenging US Army capability gaps. A new variant – designated Excalibur Hit-to-Kill – will enable autonomous detection and defeat of moving- or high-interest static targets by integrating a terminal seeker and a new payload.
Raytheon has already integrated a digital semi-active laser terminal guidance capability with Excalibur. In 2014 the company tested what is designated as an ‘Excalibur S’ variant at the US Army Yuma Proving Ground. Excalibur S supplements the GPS guidance of the Excalibur 1b with a nose-mounted semi-active laser that is activated about 30 seconds before impact to provide terminal guidance. The Excalibur S reduces the risk associated with operating in contested – i.e., GPS-denied – environments.

However, Daniels said Raytheon is leveraging seeker technologies developed within the company to give Excalibur an autonomous capability to engage targets at long ranges without a forward-positioned land- or air-based laser designator. In parallel, the company has now matured a multi-effects warhead design to defeat armoured platforms.
Daniels said the Excalibur HTK development is geared towards the US Army’s future 155 mm Cannon-Delivered Area Effects Munition (C-DAEM) Anti-Armor Projectile requirement.


In a separate development, the US Army recently conducted a test of the Excalibur 1b with the developmental 58-calibre Extended Range Cannon – a modified Paladin howitzer – as part of its Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) programme. During the trials, two Excalibur 1b projectiles engaged two targets at a range of 62 km, with a precision of less than 2 m. The US Army wants an effective range of 70 km with the ERCA cannon. “Raytheon sees a viable path to deliver on that goal and to do so with the precision the world now expects from Excalibur,” said Daniels
 

Attachments

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
5
Great stuff a data link and radar beckon a new Crusader though.

Additional SPH tech like onboard Fire Direction Ctr and counterbattery detection also would demand a returned Crusader.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
5
Great stuff a data link and radar beckon a new Crusader though.

Additional SPH tech like on board Fire Direction Ctr and counter-battery detection also would demand a returned Crusader.
 
Top