Self Propelled Artillery: M109 replacements

[DWG]

That little gun on top of the model is supposed to easily take out tanks?

Research on RLGLP possible velocities would answer your question.

And yet no one is proposing replacing 120mm guns with 25mm. Penetration is roughly related to calibre, which means a 25mm would need about five times the performance of a 120mm assuming a linear relationship and scaling the round design (25x if it's a square relationship - can't check right now). If instead you assume a non-saboted 25mm long rod penetrator, boosted to the same MV as a saboted long rod from a 120mm, then you end up with an extremely unwieldy breech and feed system to cater for the c0.8m length of the bare long rod.

 

[DWG]

A 25mm RGLP would easily been able to defeat tanks threatening the M-109 allowing it to operate much farther forward.

Uu
The 25mm being proposed for the FCS M109 replacement concepts was the low velocity OCSW in the counter-infantry/light vehicle/ATGM suppression role, not for defence vs tanks. The reference here to a 25mm LP weapon is almost certainly looking at the same role.

 

[Elan Vital]

I didn't know where best to post this since we don't have a thread related to M109 prototypes and wasn't sure if one would be useful, but here are engineering reports for respectively the Low Heat Rejection version of the 8V71T engine for the M109A6 that made it to the baseline vehicle, and a 500hp version tested in 2003 which failed due to limitations in the cooling system. There were very interesting points on how cooling could be improved eventually.

LHR engine is added as a file, other is too big so I will refer to the DTIC doc: ADA445815

 

[Forest Green]

There’s a solution to the Army’s enduring gap in its extended-range artillery fire - Breaking Defense

Less artillery range is always going to be a losing proposition against an adversary with longer-range firepower.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Bruno Anthony]

There’s a solution to the Army’s enduring gap in its extended-range artillery fire - Breaking Defense

Less artillery range is always going to be a losing proposition against an adversary with longer-range firepower.

breakingdefense.com

Links to an ad? Lots of integrity Breaking Defense.

 

[DWG]

Links to an ad? Lots of integrity Breaking Defense.

The significant line there is "presented by Rheinmetall", it's an openly sponsored piece. Like about half Breaking Defence's output, AFAICS, and half the rest is written by people from defence thinktanks, who are equally biased to a particular viewpoint, just less openly clear on who's paying the piper.

Which is not to say that L52 is better than L39 isn't obviously right.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The significant line there is "presented by Rheinmetall", it's an openly sponsored piece. Like about half Breaking Defence's output, AFAICS, and half the rest is written by people from defence thinktanks, who are equally biased to a particular viewpoint, just less openly clear on who's paying the piper.

Which is not to say that L52 is better than L39 isn't obviously right.

At this point I'd have to argue that it is the "obvious" improvement over our current 155mm L/39 guns since apparently the ERCA was trying for too much of a range increase. Which must have been the same conclusion the Army came to when the L/58 gun was tested in the past, I think back sometime in the 1980s. It feels like they're going in circles.
The US Army is certainly going to stick with the 155mm caliber for the foreseeable future, so it's better for a more modest improvement now instead of doing nothing in the hope the 3rd time is the charm.
Of course, I don't mean to say the L/52 gun has to be from Rheinmetall, though it seems they are very clearly trying to portray themselves as the obvious choice.
Technically the shorter L/39 guns do have advantages in some respects, but when it comes to a potential war against a modern conventional opponent those advantages won't matter for very much IMO.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Again according to the patents binary propellants now allow much safer propellant storage.

Yes, binaries can be shipped without issue as long as they remain separate.

I like the "Sonic Boom" branded reactive targets, though Tannerite is another similar piece of fun.

As far as how to replace the M109, well, the A6 doesn't have much of the original M109A0 left in it. A new turret happened somewhere around A2 or A3, a new hull in A4 I think, and then the engine, suspension and tracks got unified with the Bradleys in the A6.

 

[jsport]

The reason why binary propellants were discovered/designed was to assure they would become explosive when mixed in a particular chamber/ enclosed (pressure temperature, density etc. environment.
The principal operational safety issue for liquid propellant artillery was what would happen when the vehicle suffered a catastrophic impact thus mixing the two propellants. That would not occur w/ these patented propellants..My bad for not adding that key fact.

 

[Forest Green]

Did Netherlands Secretly Supply M109A2 Howitzers to Ukraine?

Did Netherlands Secretly Supply M109A2 Howitzers to Ukraine?

armyrecognition.com

 

[jsport]

US Army Initiates Development of 155mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery System

US Army Initiates Development of 155mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery System

www.armyrecognition.com

The MDAC project not only aims to bolster the U.S. Army’s defensive capabilities but also to ensure the integration of cutting-edge technology into traditional artillery platforms, thus maintaining operational superiority and flexibility across multi-domain battlefields.

 

[Forest Green]

Army seeks to award self-propelled howitzer contract by July, prototype request coming soon​

Army seeks to award self-propelled howitzer contract by July, prototype request coming soon - Breaking Defense

The race to get the new combat vehicle was originally planned to kick off about a year ago, but was pushed off due to the Army Transformation Initiative.

breakingdefense.com

A list of competitors has yet to be publicized but among the companies known to be bidding for the award are South Korea’s Hanwha, Germany’s Rheinmetall, US-based Elbit America and a team-up of US-based Leonardo DRS and European land defense specialist KNDS.

US prime contractor General Dynamics is also a likely contender, as is British BAE Systems through its American subsidiary that currently produces the Army’s M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program.

 

[aonestudio]

Army asks lawmakers to back production halt to Paladin line - Breaking Defense

“If you look at the [fight] in Ukraine on either side, it's really hard to move out and get fires ready to go…. The Paladin is just incapable of it at speed," Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said today.

breakingdefense.com

“We are looking at a mobile tactical cannon, which can in place … [in] 40 seconds versus 15 minutes [with the PIM] which matters a lot with the drone threat,” Driscoll told members of a House Appropriations subcommittee today.

“If you look at the [fight] in Ukraine on either side, it’s really hard to move out and get fires ready to go. … The Paladin is just incapable of it at speed,” he added. “And so while we think the Paladin will be in our lives for a while, because we want to be good custodians of the assets the American taxpayer has given us, we think that new purchases to balance that platform out should be something different.”

“We’re looking forward to our pacing threat,” Army Acting Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve told lawmakers today. “We need to move to systems that weigh a lot less, so we can get it where it needs to be in a time.”

 

[jsport]

Thought: 109s should part of new "area denial" batteries. These batteries would be tasked w "maneuver superiority via remote fires". ie maneuver & hold ground exclusively
w artillery. The Russians & the West have often titled this 'recon by fire'. This concept goes beyond recon to maneuver dominance (virtual dom. via fires) and finally to area consolidation via tasked battery fire. A set of LOCs & likely key nodes would suppressed/denied w/o burdening other artillery batteries.
New fast mobile high rate fires artillery would fulfill traditional GS & DS artillery roles minus recon by fire or virtual area consolidation/denial.

 

[yeetmahboi]

What stops the Army from building new toob tractors from the AMPV chassis? Not like it's new, the Germans made one based on the M270 carrier which is a converted Bradley with a forward cab which is slightly more complicated than AMPV. Only thing I think would be lacking is power generation, not a ton of space to fit a big engine in there, not really an energy deficit yet definitely a step down from the LV100.

Tie together a forward cab AMPV chassi, a B-kit, AFATDS, CROWS + Iron Fist and all the sensors you'd need, and a cool fully automated turret that could be OTS if you buy the RCH 155 turret. IIRC Elbit also has one in their portfolio. Loot the rest of the budget and get parties and hot chicks.

 

[jsport]

What stops the Army from building new toob tractors from the AMPV chassis? Not like it's new, the Germans made one based on the M270 carrier which is a converted Bradley with a forward cab which is slightly more complicated than AMPV. Only thing I think would be lacking is power generation, not a ton of space to fit a big engine in there, not really an energy deficit yet definitely a step down from the LV100.

Tie together a forward cab AMPV chassi, a B-kit, AFATDS, CROWS + Iron Fist and all the sensors you'd need, and a cool fully automated turret that could be OTS if you buy the RCH 155 turret. IIRC Elbit also has one in their portfolio. Loot the rest of the budget and get parties and hot chicks.

A new SPH w an old gun would be more expensive than a new SPH. New SPHs will be wheeled it appears.

..have posted on Piranha RCH & it's ability to fire on the move. That capability characteristizes the RCH 155mm.as a new AFV type. Is the west agile enough to figure this out?

Stand corrected only Boxer based RCH can fire on the move & cant see the US buying those. Thar should be an issue quickly remedied.

As mentioned before in another thread , the USARMY should have replaced strykers w the latest Piranha some time ago as even
US officials have recommended. The current 30mm turret Stryker even looks like many roll over accidents waiting to happen.

Extreme ranges might still demand truck based SPHs.

 

[jsport]

Uu
The 25mm being proposed for the FCS M109 replacement concepts was the low velocity OCSW in the counter-infantry/light vehicle/ATGM suppression role, not for defence vs tanks. The reference here to a 25mm LP weapon is almost certainly looking at the same role.

The whole reason to develop & deal w the complexities of an LP is to possess high enough velocities to deal w armor.

 

[DWG]

The whole reason to develop & deal w the complexities of an LP is to possess high enough velocities to deal w armor.

That doesn't change the fact that the 25mm proposed for the FCS vehicles was the low velocity 25mm OCSW.