SIGMA Mobile Tactical Artillery System

The US Army loves a tracked vehicle, though. But I guess if they can throw it on the back of an MLTV they can probably strap it to the roof of an AMPV eventually, right?
 
The Army is actually pro wheeled for long ranged fires post ERCA cancellation as a result of experience in Ukraine. It provides superior operational mobility for corps level artillery (independent arty brigades) at the cost of tactical mobility, but if you can fling a basic bitch shell two dozen miles you really don’t need a lot of off road performance.
 
Acquisition and operation costs are increasing across the board.
Artillery is the one segment where costs are actually going down - and it's mostly because of wheels.
 
DWG said:
'that is built in America today' - that's a very precise use of wording that's completely unrelated to what might be built in the US by the time USAr decides what it wants.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I believe the Army is looking for a quick off the shelf buy post ERCA.
 
https://hanwhadefenseusa.com/news-articles/hanwha-wins-u-s-army-mobile-tactical-cannon-contract
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 18, 2026 – Hanwha Defense USA (HDUSA) announced that it has won a contract from the U.S. Army to deliver prototype K9 Mobile Howitzers (K9MH) for the Army’s new Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC) program. The agreement provides for the accelerated delivery of six prototype MTC systems, with an option for an additional 12. This award marks HDUSA’s first major contract with the U.S. Army.

HDUSA will provide a technically superior and rapidly fieldable 155mm artillery system that supports the U.S. Army’s modernization and long-range precision fires objectives. With more than 2,500 K9 Howitzers already fielded globally, Hanwha is uniquely positioned to partner with the U.S. Department of War (DoW) to establish high-volume industrial capacity centered around the company’s wartime production ethos.

Hanwha’s phased-in localization strategy with domestic production and support means America’s defense industrial base will benefit from advanced manufacturing techniques, demonstrated technology and good jobs. HDUSA is establishing a phase I site in Opelika, Alabama, that will serve as the U.S. integration and test facility for Hanwha’s family of K9 Mobile Howitzers. HDUSA signed a three-year lease as part of the company’s strategic commitment to invest in the U.S. artillery system supply chain, enhance America’s combat vehicle industrial base and serve as a long-term artillery modernization partner to the U.S. Army.
Click to expand...


https://www.army.mil/article/294726...ototype_system_to_advance_fires_modernization

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army announced today an agreement with Hanwha Defense USA, Arlington, Virginia, for the development of prototypes for the Mobile Tactical Cannon program, a critical priority in the Army’s ongoing continuous transformation and long-range fires modernization efforts.

Awarded competitively under an Other Transaction Authority (10 U.S.C. Section 4022), the firm-fixed-price agreement will provide the Army with up to 18 wheeled Self-Propelled Howitzer Systems for rapid prototyping, testing, and Soldier experimentation over an estimated four-year period of performance. The amount of this action is $100,302,961 with a total cumulative face value of $262,903,274.

This award follows an intensive period of market research and broad industry engagement, including multiple vendor demonstration events in the United States and overseas. Those events confirmed that several vendors could offer mature, mobile tactical cannon platforms, ensuring robust competition and enabling the Army to evaluate proven capabilities rapidly.

The agreement provides for the accelerated delivery of six prototype MTC systems, with an option for an additional 12. Soldiers will use these platforms in a series of operational experiments to assess performance, reliability, and supportability in realistic combat conditions. This Soldier-centric, experiment-driven approach reflects the Army’s continuous transformation initiative to rapidly deliver lethal capabilities, incorporate immediate Soldier feedback, and adapt the force to pace emerging threats in multi-domain operations.

Data and insights gained from these experiments will directly inform senior leaders’ decisions on future fielding. If approved for fielding, MTC will replace M777 towed artillery systems in select formations, significantly increasing their lethality, mobility, reliability, and survivability on the modern, highly transparent battlefield. By rapidly prototyping these systems, the Army is advancing a more mobile and adaptable fires formation aligned with the rigorous demands of large-scale combat operations.
 
Are other vendors still considered for similar prototyping activities?
 
Hypothetically, if (and it is a big IF), the Army decides to pursue adoption of a new howitzer, others will be free to bid on the contract. The current contract also covers operational prototyping and delivery of those prototypes for Army evaluation. I would still give it a 50/50 shot, the Army could simply scrap the whole thing and start over.
 
The army has a long history of just giving up and walking away from M-109 replacements (though technically this is actually a M777 replacement for the medium brigades). I think they are wary of committing to the new gun until they kick the tires; their new thing is having soldiers actually field equipment early and give feedback. But since only K9 was picked for the small batch production, I would assume this actually goes to completion, though possibly with some design changes depending on results of testing.

Bigger question for me is whether the M109s also get replaced afterwards.
 
The Army has no experience developing a modern domestic howitzer. Its basically given up that responsibility of cultivating a domestic design and iterative development capability for 155 mm guns. So if a foreign design is to be chosen then there's no reason to walk away from this Hanwha offering unless the contractor messes up under the OTA. But history and prior track record isn't on the Army's side.
 
Why do I have the feeling Army wil give it a dirty nickname like Schmegma.

Any stance What was difficult about this it needed a foreign manufacturer.
Lockheed/General dynamics didn't have truck infrastructure to make a cannon mounted truck?
 
spikedpsycho said:
Lockheed/General dynamics didn't have truck infrastructure to make a cannon mounted truck?
Click to expand...

The second amendment does not guarantee citizens rights to buy 155mm howitzers. Thus there's no commercial market for such things in the US. It is therefore, up to the US Army and the DOW at large to maintain and cultivate an industrial base to design and manufacture these weapons. Under this MTC effort, the US Army wanted 'mature and available' systems that could deliver operational prototypes (not experimental prototypes) shortly after OTA award and complete delivery and assessments within the 4-5 year MTA window before transitioning into production and/or EMD. The Army lacked the motivation / intention, budgets, or time (they've waited long enough and might still have to wait 10+ years for these to exist in quantity) to develop something from scratch using domestic contractors. Luckily, allies, particularly South Korea, have been pouring vast resources into their industrial base to design, modernize and build 155 mm guns and artillery capability overall. These allies lead the world in this capability and technology which should help the US Army modernize as long as it gets out of its own way.
 
Last edited:
Truck wise, Elbit offering actually used an Oshkosh platform, I believe same ten axial as the USMC. So it was not the truck component that was problematic…it was probably the everything else.
 
It might not have been problematic at all. Hanwha's may have just been the best, among all good, overall offer for the program requirements.
 
bring_it_on said:
It might not have been problematic at all. Hanwha's may have just been the best, among all good, overall offer for the program requirements.
Click to expand...

Well the canon system was still foreign. I don’t think there was a completely domestic option in the competition.
 
Josh_TN said:
Well the canon system was still foreign. I don’t think there was a completely domestic option in the competition.
Click to expand...
Well yes. That was by design. If they wanted domestic guns they would have had to invest in developing a modern domestic design for this requirement. Since they wanted turnkey guns that were mature and that could roll right into delivering operational prototypes (MTA language) then they had to restrict themselves to buying from companies that had offerings their domestic armed services had supported development and or maturity of.
 
bring_it_on said:
The second amendment does not guarantee citizens rights to buy 155mm howitzers.
Click to expand...
It does, actually. Just that not a lot of people buy modern-ish cannons. $200/shell and another $200 to shoot it in taxes kinda blows chunks.

Do you know how many Founding Fathers had their own personal artillery?



bring_it_on said:
Under this MTC effort, the US Army wanted 'mature and available' systems that could deliver operational prototypes (not experimental prototypes) shortly after OTA award and complete delivery and assessments within the 4-5 year MTA window before transitioning into production and/or EMD. The Army lacked the motivation / intention, budgets, or time (they've waited long enough and might still have to wait 10+ years for these to exist in quantity) to develop something from scratch using domestic contractors. Luckily, allies, particularly South Korea, have been pouring vast resources into their industrial base to design, modernize and build 155 mm guns and artillery capability overall. These allies lead the world in this capability and technology which should help the US Army modernize as long as it gets out of its own way.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that South Korea has the best artillery on earth right now. Like how South Africa had the best artillery before 2010.
 
What is probably even more important is they have the capacity to manufacture artillery systems in quantity.
 
Is the new Army howitzer expected to be able to use GPS guidance kits? I would tho that might be complex given the size/length and that I assume this uses a different method for loading the target info. For that matter, how are fuses set in systems that fully separate the crew and ammunition? Is there a way to select proximity/superquick/delay in such a setup?
 
Josh_TN said:
Is the new Army howitzer expected to be able to use GPS guidance kits? I would tho that might be complex given the size/length and that I assume this uses a different method for loading the target info. For that matter, how are fuses set in systems that fully separate the crew and ammunition? Is there a way to select proximity/superquick/delay in such a setup?
Click to expand...
It's not a system for "fire on the move" but needs to stop and anchor itself before firing. So some crew will set the fuzes by hand according to firing solution.
 
Seragina said:
It's not a system for "fire on the move" but needs to stop and anchor itself before firing. So some crew will set the fuzes by hand according to firing solution.
Click to expand...

Is a crewman actually in the turret section during travel/firing? For the SIGMA system, which looks extremely similar, it is unmanned.
 
Seragina said:
It's not a system for "fire on the move" but needs to stop and anchor itself before firing. So some crew will set the fuzes by hand according to firing solution.
Click to expand...
In the SIGMA the crew does not enter the turret. They can, but not during a fire mission.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is the new Army howitzer expected to be able to use GPS guidance kits?
Click to expand...
It would be a pretty big scandal if the Army's next Howitzer, developed after more than a decade of start-stop, is unable to utilize precision artillery in the field today, and that in the works (upgraded LRPGK etc). At a minimum it would need to fire all rounds the M777 is capable of firing and everything else thats presently in the work.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is the new Army howitzer expected to be able to use GPS guidance kits? I would tho that might be complex given the size/length and that I assume this uses a different method for loading the target info. For that matter, how are fuses set in systems that fully separate the crew and ammunition? Is there a way to select proximity/superquick/delay in such a setup?
Click to expand...

You can integrate an inductive fuze setter into the feed tray. I believe this is already done on PzH2000.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom