M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA

[kqcke for you]

What type of seeker has it demonstrated 155 mm capability with? XM1155 is basically a precision missile with the ability to find and prosecute high value (armor, IADS etc) targets at up to 150 km range with minimal or no designation and in a very GPS and comms challenged environment. This is why the entire effort, from the basic munition, future seeker technologies, and even warhead (there is a huge pressure on WH performance given the limited volume available to it given constraints imposed by electronics, propulsion, guidance and other competing priorities) currently sits in the S&T realm because most of these are at quite low tech and mfg readiness levels.

Now Like I said the question is what the requirments are for specifics but as ( atleast to my knowledge) the 76mm and 127mm have an IR seeker round there is one that can/could be integrated into Vulcano 155. Or one just takes the 127mm round and Cuts it to the Maximum length you can use with an sabbot Adaption. And still you got the INS with it (its a question of how accurate that is (i don't have the specifics for that) with only INS but i would guess just as good as excalibur).

If you are going to claim that an in-service off the shelf system already exists that can meet that need than you need to provide specifics. If your argument is that they should continue to water down requirements until an OTS solution is eligible then someone can continue on that train of thought and propose continuing to water down requirements until existing Excalibur and Excalibur S rounds meet the need.

I said most of the requirments or to some extend. Now specifics on Vulcano are very rare but as i see it there is a value in it as a solution for now and maybe to be used in conjunction with XM1155 as a "cheaper" alternative (now Here is a question of how cheap it gets but there is a good chance for it to end in the Excalibur price range). My inner fest ist that XM1155 is gonna end like LRLAP did.

From a US Army perspective, there is a recognition that this is a legitimate and approved future need and that it needs quite a few technologies to mature, hence the entire program is sitting in the LRPF S&T books and is going to take most of this decade to mature and validate technologies and ultimately field this capability. Between now and then, they have plenty of other things out there including newer rounds, Excalibur S and even Excal HTK that they are exploring.

I also See a need for it but as far as i See its gonna be that was Vulcano is now. A munition you rarely use as it is expensive and Limited in Number.

I don't know the cost of the future XM1155 but it could come in at half the cost of the Vulcano.

Maybe just Like LRLAP could have been Just 35k per round but we will have to weight and see.

 

[bring_it_on]

Now Like I said the question is what the requirments are for specifics but as ( atleast to my knowledge) the 76mm and 127mm have an IR seeker round there is one that can/could be integrated into Vulcano 155.

So for now it has no such seeker integrated on the 155?

I said most of the requirments or to some extend.

From what it looks like, every single requirement that the Army may have for the XM1155 would need to be cut slightly --> substantially in order to make it work. So its not just a matter of a few compromises.

I also See a need for it but as far as i See its gonna be that was Vulcano is now. A munition you rarely use as it is expensive and Limited in Number.

You've shown through your comments that Vulcano fails to meet just about every single requirement the Army has invested in obtaining from this future capability. But you see it meeting a future requirement now? There seems to be a big disconnect in terms of what the Vulcano 155 actually brings to the table vs what you think it does.

If all the US Army wanted was a SC round that does what the Excalibur does now (but with reduced WH?) and goes 30 or so km's beyond its max range then yes they would buy the Vulcano. That's not what their future need is which is probably why the makers of the Vulcano are not pitching it as an alternative to that weapon.

Now if they truly had a 150 km capable round being able to locate and prosecute imprecisely located or moving or relocatable targets in a GPS, Comms and Army aviation degraded/denied environment they would be all over this program. But those requirements are far beyond any capability the Vulcano 155 has demonstrated or claimed till date. Which then goes to your point that the Army should instead of S&T'ing their way to meeting a future need, should water down the requirements and pick a foreign system that offers nowhere near the capability desired. I don't think the Army will do that just now. The LRPF CFT has a good process in place to identify future requirements and line up S&T and R&D investments. When its time to transition XM1155 to a formal program of record, I'm sure they'll look at alternatives. I highly doubt they'll water their requirements to this extent though.

Worth noting that only one competitor in the XM1155 awardees list is pursuing a SC round. Likely because they had it funded through other programs like the HVP effort funded by Navy and OSD and the Air Force and SCO investments made to add guidance to that round.

. Or one just takes the 127mm round and Cuts it to the Maximum length you can use with an sabbot Adaption. And still you got the INS with it (its a question of how accurate that is (i don't have the specifics for that) with only INS but i would guess just as good as excalibur).

Interesting if they can chop and cut their way to a requirement. Of course being as "accurate" as excalibur gives them zero performance against targets for which the Army requires a seeker.

 

[kqcke for you]

So for now it has no such seeker integrated on the 155?

No only SAL

Interesting if they can chop and cut their way to a requirement. Of course being as "accurate" as excalibur gives them zero performance against targets for which the Army requires a seeker.

That was meant for the IR Guided 127mm.
You then got INS and IR seeker. With AS accurate as excalibur i meant that in INS only Operation it is as accurate as an Excalibur with INS only which from my information (If i remember it right was some 35-45m CEP. I can't say it would be effectiv as all i can do is to guess its capabilitys.

 

[bring_it_on]

No only SAL

Can't meet the requirements (Excalibur has that as well). So a non starter. At least with Excalibur there are near term plans to add other seekers to it.

With AS accurate as excalibur i meant that in INS only Operation it is as accurate as an Excalibur with INS only

What M-Code options are available on the GPS guided version?

It looks like Vulcano won't even be suitable for near term programs of record (C-DAEM) set aside things half a decade or longer out (XM1155). To select it would mean building requirements around its capabilities because it really doesn't fit nicely into any known ones.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Probably a pretty obvious question for those of you more familiar with heavy artillery than I am but would active cooling for the barrel do anything to limit barrel wear when using these big supercharges or is it only useful for sustained rapid fire missions?

 

[Kat Tsun]

You got it backwards mate.

I don't. ERCA is meant as a Corps level asset to fire at 60-70 km, with >100 km extended range as a future capability, using the supercharge. It's why it has a M256 breech. It's why it has a simplified autoloader compared to Crusader. It's why the MACS 7 supercharge was made. The autoloader itself is to try to get around the problem that moving the supercharge in the confines of the M109's cabin is difficult for crewmen.

Using anything less than MACS 7 supercharges in the autoloader will require downloading the supercharges in the magazine, and replacing them with respective MACS bags, which needs to be done manually AIUI. That would require a daily plan of fires and make ERCA pretty unresponsive. It is also somewhat cumbersome, to say the least, because the charges are mounted at the highest point in the gun.

However, it's not a division level asset so it has little need to fire with anything less than the MACS 7 supercharge. Its CONOPS is firing at or near the maximum range in support of a Corps level effort, and its main job would be destruction of targets like air defense systems, rocket launchers, and C3I posts.

There's no real flexibility built into ERCA to rapidly switch between the MACS and the supercharge, so if it ever enters service (it very likely will not) it will be carrying majority supercharges in battle. Training will probably involve MACS charges to preserve barrel life but combat use would be supercharges, because ERCA has to shoot out to 70-100 km (or longer).

It's a cannon designed to compete with the M270 not to replace the M109.

Which means that only the rare times will you use the supercharge for spreading hate and discontent at 100km.

Which is ERCA's only job. As I've said before the cannon is weird, and its CONOPS are weird, because the generals who ordered it built are literally suffering from FOMO.

They didn't use a smoothbore to obtain backwards compatibility with the 155mm shells, but the shells fly so fast they don't get that anyway, so they're sort of stuck with that design choice throughout the MTA, which necessitates the nickel driving band, which was an unforeseen problem that ate about 4-5 months of development time of an already extremely tight schedule, which is why it will likely be canceled.

It's the Army's version of AGM-183 at this point.

Probably a pretty obvious question for those of you more familiar with heavy artillery than I am but would active cooling for the barrel do anything to limit barrel wear when using these big supercharges or is it only useful for sustained rapid fire missions?

Sustained and rapid fire are dichotomous.

ERCA is meant to provide the "pressure" of a cannon's sustainable, but slow (1-3 rounds per minute), rate of fire with the range of a rocket launcher. Rocket launchers tend to fire rapidly, relocate, and reload, which provides a "gap" of about 10-15 minutes with MLRS (or 30-60 minutes for a BM-30), while a cannon can fire, relocate, and reload in less than 5 minutes total, and maintain this all day long.

Active barrel cooling will do little to diminish the wear because it's not about heat generated by the supercharge, it's about the friction generated between the hard nickel driving bands and the barrel rifling, which is a consequence of the high muzzle energies needed.

If ERCA were a smoothbore from the start, this problem (needing new-type driving bands) would not have existed, but then neither would ERCA. The alternative is some novel driving band gets developed that reduces barrel wear, like an incredibly high performance nylon or something, but that's outside the scope of the program at the moment.

 

[isayyo2]

ERCA is meant as a Corps level asset to fire at 60-70 km, with >100 km extended range as a future capability, using the supercharge

Which is so odd since 20 years a Force XXI era Division held an organic MLRS Battalion…
3rd ID rolled into Iraq with three full batteries at its disposal.

Why are they treating ERCA like a silver bullet when they could just pull more M270 hulls into service?

 

[Kat Tsun]

Which is so odd since 20 years a Force XXI era Division held an organic MLRS Battalion…

Which, as I said, requires 15-20 minutes to reload after expending a magazine and relocating. ERCA can fire constantly until it needs to change its barrel or its blown up, but the former would probably come pretty quickly in practice.

Why are they treating ERCA like a silver bullet when they could just pull more M270 hulls into service?

You're essentially asking why don't they just replace all cannons with rocket launchers? The last time the Army intended to fight a major ground war against a near-peer enemy, it had a mixture of M270s and M110s in the division artillery, because cannons and rocket launchers do different things.

ERCA brings the threat of constant artillery fire to the M270's modern range. It is supposed to do for GMLRS and GMLRS-ER what the L39 barrel and Excalibur did for the M26 rocket.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What type of seeker has it demonstrated 155 mm capability with?

Excalibur HTK is said to be using Stormbreaker tech. I'm not sure if that means the same sensors exactly, or what. So that's laser, IIR, MMW radar, plus inertial and GPS.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Speaking of Corps (or Army)-level Guns and Divisional Howitzers circa 150mm calibre, what was the Soviet thinking behind 2A36/2S5 and Divisional Howitzers like D-20, 2S3, 2A65 etc? Was the 2A36 ammunition compatible with them?

 

[isayyo2]

You're essentially asking why don't they just replace all cannons with rocket launchers?

All? Not necessarily. More curious on a cost-benefit comparing an ERCA and MLRS battalion for DIVARTY.
Also to your point, is ERCA worth the effort when M109A7-52 has been demonstrated.

 

[Scott Kenny]

All? Not necessarily. More curious on a cost-benefit comparing an ERCA and MLRS battalion for DIVARTY.
Also to your point, is ERCA worth the effort when M109A7-52 has been demonstrated.

If @Kat Tsun 's impression of the ERCA CONOPS is correct (constant shelling at MLRS ranges), then I would argue that ERCA is worth having in addition to the -52s. The US should go through and remanufacture all M109s in service to the M109A7-52 configuration as the general standard, as the -52s will normally be used from 33km to 67km range (assuming that the -52 has a 100km range)

Edited to add: However, if the ERCA CONOPS is just guns with lots longer range that will normally only be used at up to 2/3rds of their max range, then I don't see the point of having both ERCA and -52s.

 

[Prophet141]

It's a 58 caliber 155mm firing at tank-equivalent pressures. The operating pressure of the 39-caliber gun is about 55-60,000 psi or so. ERCA roughly compares to a hypothetical MACS 7 at around 75-80k psi being typical, as I understand. Which is why it uses the M256 breech. It's so powerful it shears copper driving bands off of shells, so new nickel-type driving bands had to be fabricated, which ruins the compatibility for firing ordinary ammunition.

It will almost certainly die now that BAE/United Defense and Rheinmetall have demonstrated the Pzh 2000's L/52 in the Paladin. Firing Excalibur the M109-52 will equivocate the ERCA in most important respects. GMLRS-ER will make up for the rest.

Had the Army made it a 203mm smoothbore cannon, like the Peony or something, it probably would have survived and worked a lot better.

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but I couldn't find anything about the Peony (I assume you mean the Russian 2S7) being smoothbore. Is this really the case? How is the projectile stabilised?

 

[aonestudio]

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but I couldn't find anything about the Peony (I assume you mean the Russian 2S7) being smoothbore. Is this really the case? How is the projectile stabilised?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1569922049040351232

View: https://twitter.com/aprajitanefes/status/1569922049040351232

 

[isayyo2]

If @Kat Tsun 's impression of the ERCA CONOPS is correct (constant shelling at MLRS ranges), then I would argue that ERCA is worth having in addition to the -52s. The US should go through and remanufacture all M109s in service to the M109A7-52 configuration as the general standard, as the -52s will normally be used from 33km to 67km range (assuming that the -52 has a 100km range)

Edited to add: However, if the ERCA CONOPS is just guns with lots longer range that will normally only be used at up to 2/3rds of their max range, then I don't see the point of having both ERCA and -52s.

We're really lucky to have @Kat Tsun commentary! Gotta dig into the Field Artillery Journal again.

The "downside" of the -52 mod is a severe "Not Invented Here" mentality with ERCA supposedly reaching IOC soon...

 

[Kat Tsun]

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but I couldn't find anything about the Peony (I assume you mean the Russian 2S7) being smoothbore. Is this really the case? How is the projectile stabilised?

I didn't say it was smoothbore, I said "like the Peony" meaning "large caliber field gun". 2S7 out shot anything when it showed up in 1975. It and Giatsint were the only guns capable of firing over the Minsk II line, for example, and this is a big reason why the U.S. Army sought a 70 km field gun in the first place.

But instead of making something like the M107 or 2S7, it made something like a Paladin, including the 155mm.

That was a fatal mistake in hindsight, but it's dubious whether it would have been approved for a 5-year MTA had it not been 155mm.

We're really lucky to have @Kat Tsun commentary! Gotta dig into the Field Artillery Journal again.

The "downside" of the -52 mod is a severe "Not Invented Here" mentality with ERCA supposedly reaching IOC soon...

ERCA very likely won't reach IOC. It's up for review this year, because the fiscal year started two weeks ago, and the Army expects it to finish testing and operational evaluation ("IOT&E") by sometime this year, between July and September, after which it will be reviewed and most likely canceled.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106059.pdf

If it isn't, it may reach IOC in August 2025, and mass production a couple years later, assuming no other delays.

I literally know nothing outside of what is publicly available in GAO reports though. You can just read about it yourself?

Extended Range Cannon Artillery Could Miss Army's 2023 Fielding Goal, Official Says

Extended Range Cannon Artillery Could Miss Army's 2023 Fielding Goal, Official Says

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

ERCA has failed multiple tests, missed about six months of deadlines, and attempts by DA to get a waiver for the 5-year MTA were denied by USD A&S. It's a classic example of how not to run a program, how not to build requirements, and how unforeseen (but not unreasonable or unexpected) problems can result in major delays when these two things run into each other.

Had it been developed as a smoothbore 203mm or something it would probably have been on track the entire time.

If @Kat Tsun 's impression of the ERCA CONOPS is correct (constant shelling at MLRS ranges), then I would argue that ERCA is worth having in addition to the -52s. The US should go through and remanufacture all M109s in service to the M109A7-52 configuration as the general standard, as the -52s will normally be used from 33km to 67km range (assuming that the -52 has a 100km range)

Edited to add: However, if the ERCA CONOPS is just guns with lots longer range that will normally only be used at up to 2/3rds of their max range, then I don't see the point of having both ERCA and -52s.

If ERCA worked, this would be the plan, in so many words. The ERCA would be the Corps's gunfire shaping system, because it is too expensive for mass procurement for divisions, along with GMLRS-ER and PrSM. Eventually the divisions would get a longer ranged M109 probably using ERCA technology. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, but the technology developed for the shells might get reused at some point.

The very earliest idea was to develop a drop-in replacement for the 39-caliber gun but IIRC this was considered infeasible due to the extensive turret redesign needed. That is where the "M109A8" comes from, but it was renamed M1299 after they realized it needed basically new build everything.

The 70 km range requirement comes from reports of the Russian claims of the range of the Koalitsiya-SV, while the 100 km range requirement comes from reports of Chinese claims of the PLZ-52, which is why I'm saying it's Army staff suffering from FOMO: the officers in charge are literally seeing these ranges, probably quoted solely from Russian or Chinese sources in DIA reports, and writing them into the ORD as they go along.

In real life, the Koalitsiya-SV doesn't exist (and won't for at least another decade or more) while the PLZ-52 probably barely approaches 80 km on a good day with gliding rounds al a Excalibur, same as any other L/52 derived from the GC-45, and most likely scrapes 45-50 km with rocket assistance, same as any other L/52 derived from the GC-45. Maybe they fired a subcaliber munition through it once.

It would be an effective way to get America to waste resources on boondoggles if that intel-to-ORD pathway were weaponized.

 

[Prophet141]

I didn't say it was smoothbore, I said "like the Peony" meaning "large caliber field gun". 2S7 out shot anything when it showed up in 1975. It and Giatsint were the only guns capable of firing over the Minsk II line, for example, and this is a big reason why the U.S. Army sought a 70 km field gun in the first place.

But instead of making something like the M107 or 2S7, it made something like a Paladin, including the 155mm.

That was a fatal mistake in hindsight, but it's dubious whether it would have been approved for a 5-year MTA had it not been 155mm.

Ah, my mistake. Doesn't the 155mm calibre offer a degree of flexibility, though? It's powerful but it's not massive and it's easy to transport. The issue with larger ammunition is primarily handling and rate of fire, as well as logistical challenges. The 2S7 could only carry 4 shells in its original form, for example.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Ah, my mistake. Doesn't the 155mm calibre offer a degree of flexibility, though?

Not in the slightest. The point of 155mm was one explicitly obvious thing: to use legacy ammunition in the ERCA in emergencies. This is no longer the case due to the aforementioned driving band problem. Therefore there is no point to using 155mm, and there never was, so it was a bad move in hindsight. A larger caliber could potentially allow for greater shell payloads or more flexible designs, neither of which is bad.

It still wouldn't solve the driving band issue though since that's sort of immanent to the >1,000 meter/second muzzle velocity.

It's powerful but it's not massive and it's easy to transport.

No one has ever had trouble transporting 203mm rounds. Something in the 170-180mm range would probably be better because it's simply what long range guns like the S-23, M107, and Koksan use and ~7" bore seems to be a generally good "long range gun" caliber.

 

[Prophet141]

It's the same reason then (or one of the reasons) why we ignored intermediate ammunition in the post-war era; the US had a lot of 7.62 ammunition and didn't fancy creating a new standard, even to the detriment of weapon development.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's the same reason then (or one of the reasons) why we ignored intermediate ammunition in the post-war era; the US had a lot of 7.62 ammunition and didn't fancy creating a new standard, even to the detriment of weapon development.

USSR/Russia as well, they're not only still using 7.62, but they're still using a rimmed brass case designed in the 1880s(!).

@Kat Tsun I suspect that the reason that the US didn't try to make a new 175mm is because of the troubles with the M107 back in the day. 155mm is about the human limit for ammunition weight, so going bigger means you cannot manually load the rounds.

Oddly enough, stepping down to something like 5" or so might have been better than 155mm. Same idea behind 6.5 Creedmore versus 7.62NATO, same weight projectile in a smaller diameter has a much better ballistic coefficient. Still a ~100lb shell, just longer.

Or just saying Fuck It, and breaking out the BAE LRLAP rocket boosted round that could reach 160km.

 

[Kat Tsun]

It's the same reason

There was no trouble transporting 8", 6.1", or 175mm ammunition. Ever. They used the same transporter (M548) and the only difference was fewer rounds, but a larger caliber gun is more effective than a smaller one so it balances out. Doubly true if it delivers nuclear ammunition or cassette shells because those two types of ammunition really like increased volume.

The U.S. also introduced a 175mm in the "immediate post-war era". M107 was partly an attempt to address the D-30 problem and partly to address the lack of artillery modernization during the Korean War. You might consider it the ERCA of its time, except it actually worked.

155mm and 152mm are good "general purpose" calibers in that they can be readily handled by men and easily used in "good enough" rates of fire. 120-127mm is another one of these "good" calibers. Anything larger than 155mm typically is something that requires more range or more internal volume. ERCA requires both because it fires ramjet ammunition.

I suspect that the reason

And I gave you the actual one: ERCA was going to use M864 and other shells with copper driving bands. That's all there is to it.

US Army awaits acquisition strategy approval for extended-range cannon

The Army is still deciding on the acquisition strategy for its Extended Range Cannon Artillery, or ERCA, system, even as the service seeks initial fielding in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2023, according to Brig. Gen. John Rafferty.

www.defensenews.com

The program previously experienced problems with a copper rotating band, which is on traditional artillery projectiles. The band works well in a 20-foot gun tube, Rafferty said, but 10 feet added to the tube caused excessive wear and resulted in some engraving on the side of the projectiles.

Either Armaments Center just didn't realize that copper driving bands don't like going faster than 1,000 meters/second out the 30 foot bore, or if it did, it didn't properly inform the guys writing the ORD at DA.

Alternatively, the 155mm decision was the lynch pin that got ERCA its funding, and Armaments Center just kind of crossed their fingers it would work to sell the gun, and are now stuck between a rock and a hard place after that fell through.

Neither is a good look.

General Atomics Unveils Long-Range Projectile for 155mm Howitzers

General Atomics has reportedly designed a projectile for 155-mm cannons that can strike targets as far as 150 kilometers (93.2 miles) away.

www.thedefensepost.com

A GA LRMP fired from a smoothbore gun would have been a better solution for the ERCA/XM1155 requirement, assuming that requirement has any military or practical necessity to begin with, as I suspect the "we can use old stock ammo" was the clincher for DA's business case.

Perhaps that will be what replaces it, though.

 

[isayyo2]

Or just saying Fuck It, and breaking out the BAE LRLAP rocket boosted round that could reach 160km.

At this point they should slap on an AGS barrel to a 10x10 and call it a day!

 

[Kat Tsun]

At this point they should slap on an AGS barrel to a 10x10 and call it a day!

The Typhon MRC is cheaper per shot and a much higher performance system. XM1155 will eventually, as bring_it_on notes, offer 150 km range, which is functionally no different, and perhaps actually affordable.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Oddly enough, stepping down to something like 5" or so might have been better than 155mm. Same idea behind 6.5 Creedmore versus 7.62NATO, same weight projectile in a smaller diameter has a much better ballistic coefficient. Still a ~100lb shell, just longer.

Circa 5" (or less) field guns tended to be the longer range counterparts (and tended to use the same carriage as) to the 150-155mm divisional howitzers of most Second World War belligerents. They all seem to have been relatively unsuccessful, which is why nobody seems to have persisted in using them postwar, with the exception of the Soviet Union with their 122mm D-74 and 130mm M-46 guns (using the same carriages as the 152mm D-20 and M-47 Howitzers respectively).

Certainly towards the end of the Second World War Britain seems to have stopped producing it's 4.5" gun, instead exclusively producing the 5.5" gun-howitzer, and producing a lighter 80lb shell for it to use a longer ranges.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was no trouble transporting 8", 6.1", or 175mm ammunition.

That was NOT a comment on the ease of transportation. It was a comment on the lingering logistics of not wanting to introduce a new caliber.

And I gave you the actual one: ERCA was going to use M864 and other shells with copper driving bands. That's all there is to it.

That's a really frakking pathetic reason.

General Atomics Unveils Long-Range Projectile for 155mm Howitzers

General Atomics has reportedly designed a projectile for 155-mm cannons that can strike targets as far as 150 kilometers (93.2 miles) away.

www.thedefensepost.com

A GA LRMP fired from a smoothbore gun would have been a better solution for the ERCA/XM1155 requirement, assuming that requirement has any military or practical necessity to begin with, as I suspect the "we can use old stock ammo" was the clincher for DA's business case.

Perhaps that will be what replaces it, though.

Holy crap, if they're getting 150km out of a 39cal barrel, how far do you think they'll get out of a 50something caliber barrel?!?

 

[Kat Tsun]

That was NOT a comment on the ease of transportation. It was a comment on the lingering logistics of not wanting to introduce a new caliber.

It wasn't a problem in Vietnam. Why would it be a problem in the modern age, when shells are produced in far fewer numbers, and moved in far bigger ships and planes, at far lower costs? There's no logistical problems outside of actually producing the thing, which is a problem for literally everything these days, so it's not unique.

The real problem with ERCA is there isn't any feasible military need for it besides "the Russians might have a howitzer that shoots 70km and the Chinese told us at the hookah bar they had a howitzer that could fire 'twice that' apparently," tbh.

ERCA's real military reasons are sparse and fleeting at best.

That's a really frakking pathetic reason.

It's not, at least given the U.S.'s dismal rate of shell production and stockpiles, and limited ability to expand its production capacities.

Holy crap, if they're getting 150km out of a 39cal barrel, how far do you think they'll get out of a 50something caliber barrel?!?

The same if they're smart, since it would reduce the complexities of the projectile, and make it producible. It's not very practical for actual large scale use, but out of a specialist smoothbore gun, it would be fine for a couple battalions to have several hundred or thousands of shells.

Give it a low yield nuclear warhead and it would be worth every penny and also do ERCA's job better than ERCA (and cheaper).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or just saying Fuck It, and breaking out the BAE LRLAP rocket boosted round that could reach 160km.

Combined responses:

At this point they should slap on an AGS barrel to a 10x10 and call it a day!

AGS is a very heavy barrel, probably too heavy for a ground vehicle, the system is said to be some 90 tonnes. And a 10x10 still has worse off-road capabilities than tracks. It'll need a dedicated Army barrel, lighter profile and almost certainly without the liquid cooling.

The Typhon MRC is cheaper per shot and a much higher performance system. XM1155 will eventually, as bring_it_on notes, offer 150 km range, which is functionally no different, and perhaps actually affordable.

If the USN was making some 100k+ shells worth of LRLAP it would have been affordable. 1200rds per ship times 32 ships, plus reloads. When Congress chops the hulls down to 3 there's no point in setting up a production line for ~6000 shells.

The GA LRMP isn't bad, might actually be what the Navy uses once they rebarrel the AGS. 52-62 caliber barrel should give a range of over 100nmi/190km if they're getting 150km out of a 39cal barrel.

It wasn't a problem in Vietnam. Why would it be a problem in the modern age, when shells are produced in far fewer numbers, and moved in far bigger ships and planes, at far lower costs? There's no logistical problems outside of actually producing the thing, which is a problem for literally everything these days, so it's not unique.

Smaller production runs make things more expensive.

Plus you need to make all the transportation hardware. 6.8x51mm still uses the same links as 7.62NATO, and the same ammo cans. 175mm or 203mm would need new crates made, and I'm positive that the idiots in charge when the US got rid of 175mm and 203mm got rid of all the old shipping materials and the tooling to make them.

The same if they're smart, since it would reduce the complexities of the projectile, and make it producible. It's not very practical for actual large scale use, but out of a specialist smoothbore gun, it would be fine for a couple battalions to have several hundred or thousands of shells.

It apparently spins at 1200rpm, so it needs a rifled gun and not a smoothbore.

Give it a low yield nuclear warhead and it would be worth every penny and also do ERCA's job better than ERCA (and cheaper).

No. Fuck no. No tactical nukes.

 

[Kat Tsun]

If the USN was making some 100k+ shells worth of LRLAP it would have been affordable. 1200rds per ship times 32 ships, plus reloads. When Congress chops the hulls down to 3 there's no point in setting up a production line for ~6000 shells.

If only the USN could afford 100k worth of shells in the first place.

The GA LRMP isn't bad, might actually be what the Navy uses once they rebarrel the AGS. 52-62 caliber barrel should give a range of over 100nmi/190km if they're getting 150km out of a 39cal barrel.

AGS is going away forever, eventually. It will be torn out of the DDXs and replaced by hypersonic missile VLS similar to the VPM.

Smaller production runs make things more expensive.

You still have to be able to afford the large production run in the first place. One of the main reasons defense contractors have consolidated over the past 40 years is due to increasingly expansive contracts and increasingly limited production runs. That contractors haven't easily adapted to this is mostly a testament to their inflexibility and lack of good management.

Plus you need to make all the transportation hardware. 6.8x51mm still uses the same links as 7.62NATO, and the same ammo cans. 175mm or 203mm would need new crates made, and I'm positive that the idiots in charge when the US got rid of 175mm and 203mm got rid of all the old shipping materials and the tooling to make them.

...then make new tooling? This isn't a problem unless you're a lazy, decrepit society.

Pretty sure they didn't considering Firefinder has mentioned Watervliet has machinery to produce large caliber ordnances up to 210mm.

No. Fuck no. No tactical nukes.

Name any other ordnance that fits tiny production runs and doesn't require buying massive stockpiles of ammunition?

 

[Prophet141]

Name any other ordnance that fits tiny production runs and doesn't require buying massive stockpiles of ammunition?

Going out on a limb but I'd guess that Scott Kenny's objection isn't the manufacturing concern here. It's more a case of once you start to utilise nukes of any sort, even tactical, you open a can of worms that is exceptionally hard to close. Yes, certain militaries have fielded nuclear capable guns in the past, but those were a specialist ammunition or a gun more comparable to a tactical nuclear missile than a typical field gun. On a more practical note, good luck finding a country that's going to be happy with you showing up and firing nukes of any size at any target, given the fallout concerns (even if said concerns are very localised to the blast).

 

[Kat Tsun]

Going out on a limb but I'd guess that Scott Kenny's objection isn't the manufacturing concern here. It's more a case of once you start to utilise nukes of any sort, even tactical, you open a can of worms that is exceptionally hard to close.

Yet nukes are probably the only real "deterrent" effect. If you plan to fight a war, you buy lots of conventional ammunition. If you plan to never fight one, you buy lots of nukes. Sometimes, if you're not sure, you do both.

Right now America seems intent on doing neither.

Conventional rounds of ammunition are unaffordable on a flat basis. There isn't enough money to buy all the rounds you need and wars don't seem to last long enough to shift the tiny, dilapidated ateliers of modern military-industrial concerns into the assembly lines needed. Even if they did, where would you find the labor, given it's a fairly manpower intensive thing.

Nuclear weapons are suitable for small batch production, and are never used in training, so they can be kept in stockpiles indefinitely.

If we're going to talk about "large" quantities of shells, you need to speak in terms of singleton or double digit thousands. Not tens of millions. Not millions. Not even hundreds of thousands. ERCA is a specialized weapon for a Corps, not a general purpose artillery piece, so it is genuinely comparable to tactical nuclear missiles al a the Honest John or Lance.

ERCA won't be able to make use of the vast majority of ammunition, which is probably the biggest part of what makes it useless.

Yes, certain militaries have fielded nuclear capable guns in the past, but those were a specialist ammunition or a gun more comparable to a tactical nuclear missile than a typical field gun. On a more practical note, good luck finding a country that's going to be happy with you showing up and firing nukes of any size at any target, given the fallout concerns (even if said concerns are very localised to the blast).

Yes, the idea that Germany would rather capitulate than accept nuclear weapons release on its territory was assumed by the Red Army.

The real practical note is that ERCA is a bit expensive for what it is, its ammunition is silly, and attempts to fix ERCA would involve spending almost as much money on something not terribly useful. Guided missiles are simply superior beyond about 50-70 kilometers. But if you had to have a long range gun then making it as big as possible, to fire cassette shells, is the only reasonable alternative to tactical nuclear artillery.

 

[shin_getter]

Is there a cost estimate for ERCA ammo? Is it really the return of LRLAP all over again?

 

[Scott Kenny]

If only the USN could afford 100k worth of shells in the first place.

100k shells at $100k each (there never was a chance that LRLAP would have been as cheap as Excalibur) is a $10bn contract, and production in any given year probably would be about 3000 shells (2x ships produced plus some extra) for an annual cost of $300mil. $300mil is a rounding error in most Defense budgets!

When one TacTom is $1.5mil, just arming the ships is a half billion dollars.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is there a cost estimate for ERCA ammo? Is it really the return of LRLAP all over again?

No, LRLAP was a much bigger round overall, as it was basically one of Gerald Bull's ERFB super low drag projectile designs with a full 155mm explosive filler weight plus a huge rocket in back. Thing was 7 feet long!

I expect that the ERCA specific shells (XM1113, M1128, and XM1155) will be backwards compatible with M109s and M777s.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Is there a cost estimate for ERCA ammo? Is it really the return of LRLAP all over again?

No, there isn't even a cost estimate for ERCA.

XM1155 is probably affordable. It's a ramjet powered 155mm shell similar to the one Nammo made a while ago. It will probably be fielded like Copperheads: in relatively limited quantity for brigade commanders to allocate as they see fit. It's not explicitly to do with ERCA, but rather an outgrowth of ERCA's need for a long range projectile.

At most it may require changing the driving band material and a few shoot tests.

 

[MihoshiK]

Going out on a limb but I'd guess that Scott Kenny's objection isn't the manufacturing concern here. It's more a case of once you start to utilise nukes of any sort, even tactical, you open a can of worms that is exceptionally hard to close. Yes, certain militaries have fielded nuclear capable guns in the past, but those were a specialist ammunition or a gun more comparable to a tactical nuclear missile than a typical field gun. On a more practical note, good luck finding a country that's going to be happy with you showing up and firing nukes of any size at any target, given the fallout concerns (even if said concerns are very localised to the blast).

Never mind the fallout, unless I'm seriously mistaken just about every wargame the US ever did with tactical nukes ended up with strategic nukes flying. IOW, tactical nukes aren't.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Going out on a limb but I'd guess that Scott Kenny's objection isn't the manufacturing concern here. It's more a case of once you start to utilise nukes of any sort, even tactical, you open a can of worms that is exceptionally hard to close. Yes, certain militaries have fielded nuclear capable guns in the past, but those were a specialist ammunition or a gun more comparable to a tactical nuclear missile than a typical field gun. On a more practical note, good luck finding a country that's going to be happy with you showing up and firing nukes of any size at any target, given the fallout concerns (even if said concerns are very localised to the blast).

Combined response

Never mind the fallout, unless I'm seriously mistaken just about every wargame the US ever did with tactical nukes ended up with strategic nukes flying. IOW, tactical nukes aren't.

Exactly.

Tac nukes have led to full strategic exchange in every single wargame the US ever did. Which scared the hell out of the fUSSR as various warplans were declassified in the 1990s and early 2000s, where the Red Army used tac nukes as "really big bombs".

 

[jsport]

Army’s upcoming artillery strategy has ‘a big menu’ to choose from

The Army is looking at a variety of auto-loading technologies.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Kat Tsun]

Combined response

Exactly.

Tac nukes have led to full strategic exchange in every single wargame the US ever did. Which scared the hell out of the fUSSR as various warplans were declassified in the 1990s and early 2000s, where the Red Army used tac nukes as "really big bombs".

A tangent but the Red Army fully expected this, especially back in the 1960's, which was the peak of the "big bombs" era for both sides.

Planning considerations in the 1980's were ideally localized to regional nuclear war between European NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but if it came down to it, the Red Army planned to fight and win a continental nuclear exchange against the U.S. Any army worth its shoulder boards is going to be planning to fight, and win, a general nuclear war. What's the point otherwise?

That said, the modern Russian Army is almost back to the 1960's in terms of its thinking about nuclear weapons, so the pendulum doesn't really seem to be expressed in any historic terms. It's just a simple power disparity: nuclear weapons are effective at making weak armies strong and strong armies weak.

A nuclear ERCA battalion stationed in Taiwan would make an effective PLA deterrent in that same vein, too. It's not like the USN has enough carriers, nor are they well equipped enough, to just waltz one through the Strait willy-nilly like it did almost 30 years ago.

There was probably some manner of this kind of thinking going on with the SLRC but it was too stupid to continue existing.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was probably some manner of this kind of thinking going on with the SLRC but it was too stupid to continue existing.

The SLRC was someone in the Army finding Gerald Bull's drug stash.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A tangent but the Red Army fully expected this, especially back in the 1960's, which was the peak of the "big bombs" era for both sides.

Planning considerations in the 1980's were ideally localized to regional nuclear war between European NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but if it came down to it, the Red Army planned to fight and win a continental nuclear exchange against the U.S. Any army worth its shoulder boards is going to be planning to fight, and win, a general nuclear war. What's the point otherwise?

That said, the modern Russian Army is almost back to the 1960's in terms of its thinking about nuclear weapons, so the pendulum doesn't really seem to be expressed in any historic terms. It's just a simple power disparity: nuclear weapons are effective at making weak armies strong and strong armies weak.

A nuclear ERCA battalion stationed in Taiwan would make an effective PLA deterrent in that same vein, too. It's not like the USN has enough carriers, nor are they well equipped enough, to just waltz one through the Strait willy-nilly like it did almost 30 years ago.

You seem to be misunderstanding something. I'm saying that tactical nukes used by the Red Army would result in nukes dropping on Moscow 100% of the time. That was the cause of the freakout in the Red Army.