US Army - 155mm Next Generation Howitzer (NGH)

A

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
11 March 2018
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
5,970
Next Generation Howitzer (NGH)

The Army Contracting Command – New Jersey (ACC-NJ), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 is conducting a Market Survey on behalf of the Office of Program Manager Towed Artillery Systems (PM-TAS) to explore Next Generation Howitzer technologies in support of a multiyear capability assessment.

This Request for Information is for planning purposes only and shall not be construed as a solicitation or an obligation on behalf of the Unite States Government.

The government is interested in conducting a multiyear capability assessment of Next Generation Howitzer technologies by establishing an Other Transaction Agreement(s) (OTA) under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b for the
  1. Characterization of existing 155mm Next Generation Howitzer systems versus baseline Next Gen Howitzer requirements via analysis and testing.
  2. Integration of an Offeror’s armament onto a US truck system.
  3. Integration of a US Next Generation Cannon into an Offeror’s armament.
  4. Modification of Offeror’s armament to increase Volume of Fire.
  5. Integration of US Digital Fire Control onto an Offeror’s 155mm Next Generation Howitzer System.
All interested vendors are requested to provide a summary of your firm’s capability and experience in:
  1. Designing and manufacturing 155mm truck based artillery platforms.
  2. Qualifying and fielding 155mm truck based artillery platforms.
  3. Collaborating with the U.S Government via OTA or Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
  4. Modeling and simulation at system, subsystem, and component level of a 155mm truck based artillery platform.
  5. Integration of digital fire control systems.
  6. Onboard storing, resupplying, and firing of 155mm U.S munitions.
  7. Integrating a 155mm Armament onto different truck based systems.
  8. Integrating different cannon assemblies onto a 155mm Armament.
  9. Different technologies (e.g. automation, cannon cooling, etc.) that can increase the volume of fire of a 155mm artillery system.
Firms/companies are invited to indicate their capabilities by providing specifications, brochures, manuals, reports, demonstration videos and/or other technical data, as well as identification of current customers. This Market Survey is a Request for Information (RFI) ONLY and should NOT be construed as a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a commitment by the United States Government. The Government recognizes that proprietary and/or classified data may be a part of this effort. If so, clearly mark such restricted/proprietary and classified data and present them as an addendum to the nonrestricted/non-proprietary and unclassified information. As a result of this Request for Information (RFI), a Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) may be issued. Participation in this Request for Information (RFI) is completely voluntary by the vendor and as such all costs to develop the vendor’s response are to be borne by the participating vendor. All interested sources are encouraged to submit their abilities/capabilities no later than 30 days from date of this publication, by FRIDAY, 04 FEBRUARY 2022 17:00 EST to: Klaudia Grabias, ACC-NJ-IC Bldg. 10, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000; email: klaudia.a.grabias.civ@army.mil. Please include company name, address, telephone number, point of contact, brochures/literature, etc., and any prior performance relating to this effort.

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov

155mm Next Generation Howitzer

premium.globalsecurity.org premium.globalsecurity.org
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5sFRgMMr5o

SIGMA is Elbit America's Towed Howitzer Replacement - Bringing Tomorrow's Capability to the Field Artillery Today.
ANY DISTANCE | ANY ENVIRONMENT | ANY MISSION
« 155mm 52 cal. JBMOU compliant armament with inductive fuze setting
« Fully automated turret with 40 round magazine (largest in class)
« 40 vs 21 rounds« 6-8 round per minute rate of fire« 360° firing capability
« 3 Soldier crew inside an armored crew compartment
« Digital Design« modular and upgradeable
« Made in Charleston, SC With a proven US supply chain
MADE WITH AMERICAN GRIT
Click to expand...
 
Um, seems to be lacking an estimated 'Halt, Salvo, Scoot' time...
 
So is the idea that the towed 155s will be replaced by one of these wheeled self-propelled designs that have become increasingly common? I know that over the years many have questioned the survivability of the towed guns in a high intensity conflict.

The idea isn't inherently bad, but considering how the Army keeps starting new howitzer programs and cancelling them I can't say I'm very optimistic about this one.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
So is the idea that the towed 155s will be replaced by one of these wheeled self-propelled designs that have become increasingly common? I know that over the years many have questioned the survivability of the towed guns in a high intensity conflict.

The idea isn't inherently bad, but considering how the Army keeps starting new howitzer programs and cancelling them I can't say I'm very optimistic about this one.
Click to expand...
Amazing that many other countries have developed 155mm L52 wheeled or tracked howitzers some with automation and apparently this is something just beyond the capabilities of the USArmy to do. So glad we cancelled Crusader.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Amazing that many other countries have developed 155mm L52 wheeled or tracked howitzers some with automation and apparently this is something just beyond the capabilities of the USArmy to do. So glad we cancelled Crusader.
Click to expand...
Crusader had to be canceled, given the context etc. However, the lessens and concepts behind it absolutely need reconsideration. Liquid propellants, advances in safety & effectiveness have improved and turns out they fine even back in day. Yes it is risky & expensive & long term. It may be a couple iterations out. Burning liquid almost the entire length of the barrel + a rocket can yield ranges unheard of. Boost glide etc.
 
jsport said:
Crusader had to be canceled, given the context etc. However, the lessens and concepts behind it absolutely need reconsideration. Liquid propellants, advances in safety & effectiveness have improved and turns out they fine even back in day. Yes it is risky & expensive & long term. It may be a couple iterations out. Burning liquid almost the entire length of the barrel + a rocket can yield ranges unheard of. Boost glide etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean when you say it had to be cancelled given the context. The context was the desire to refocus on the massive Future Combat Systems plan that included a new self-propelled howitzer, I think the goal was to fit either 2 or 3 of them inside a C-17. Of course, the cost of that was the new howitzer only having a L39 caliber gun and other reductions. But the whole FCS plan was cancelled anyway so it seems that was just all a waste.

I'm sure there is potential in liquid propellants which is a thing considered as far back as the early days of what would become the Crusader. But I'm not really sure how much real progress has occurred in that area since then. Many argued the Crusader was too costly but developing and fielding guns using liquid propellant or other "radical" concepts would have and likely still will require an even bigger investment.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that the recently cancelled ERCA was either trying to achieve too much, or too little. The sort of barrel wear and other difficulties you face with artillery with such hot charges and high velocities has been well learned in the past. I'm not sure what kind of improvements ERCA featured where they expected to lessen this, but it must not have worked out all well. From what others here have described it sounds like the current methods of rifling, driving bands, etc. that these guns use isn't suitable for the level of performance they wanted.

I'm not suggesting going back and putting the Crusader in production but when just considering the design there are a few things that wouldn't seem to be needed based on what we've seen in the following decades. It's good to be able to achieve a high burst rate of fire but the sort of very impressive rate the Crusader could achieve is now something of overkill due to how much better and more common PGMs like Excaliber have become. Unless there are some other advantages to it, I don't think the active barrel cooling it had would really be worthwhile now. The gas turbine probably isn't the right choice of engine either. It was selected for the Crusader because the desire was to upgrade the M1 Abrams with the same engine too, but as of now the Army hasn't really laid out their plans for the future of the Abrams beyond the latest SEP v3 upgrade. There was probably some thinking left over from how it was imagined a war with the USSR would go. Those self-propelled guns would have to relocate very often and when they did faster was better. So, the increased fuel usage probably wasn't all that bad given the improved turbine design and how they are actually pretty efficient when running at a high rpm.
 
jsport said:
Crusader had to be canceled, given the context etc. However, the lessens and concepts behind it absolutely need reconsideration. Liquid propellants, advances in safety & effectiveness have improved and turns out they fine even back in day. Yes it is risky & expensive & long term. It may be a couple iterations out. Burning liquid almost the entire length of the barrel + a rocket can yield ranges unheard of. Boost glide etc.
Click to expand...
Crusader was not going to use liquid propellant. At least not in the prototypes that were tested.
 
IIRC Crusader would have needed HUGE upgrades, because it's autoloader had no capability for handling guided shells at all. You'd have to completely redesign it to be able to handle things like Excalibur, specifically, the ability to program it during loading.

Crusader was meant for high volumes of fire (hence the water-cooled barrel) because it was designed before super-accurate guided munitions became available.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say it had to be cancelled given the context. The context was the desire to refocus on the massive Future Combat Systems plan that included a new self-propelled howitzer, I think the goal was to fit either 2 or 3 of them inside a C-17. Of course, the cost of that was the new howitzer only having a L39 caliber gun and other reductions. But the whole FCS plan was cancelled anyway so it seems that was just all a waste.

I'm sure there is potential in liquid propellants which is a thing considered as far back as the early days of what would become the Crusader. But I'm not really sure how much real progress has occurred in that area since then. Many argued the Crusader was too costly but developing and fielding guns using liquid propellant or other "radical" concepts would have and likely still will require an even bigger investment.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that the recently cancelled ERCA was either trying to achieve too much, or too little. The sort of barrel wear and other difficulties you face with artillery with such hot charges and high velocities has been well learned in the past. I'm not sure what kind of improvements ERCA featured where they expected to lessen this, but it must not have worked out all well. From what others here have described it sounds like the current methods of rifling, driving bands, etc. that these guns use isn't suitable for the level of performance they wanted.

I'm not suggesting going back and putting the Crusader in production but when just considering the design there are a few things that wouldn't seem to be needed based on what we've seen in the following decades. It's good to be able to achieve a high burst rate of fire but the sort of very impressive rate the Crusader could achieve is now something of overkill due to how much better and more common PGMs like Excaliber have become. Unless there are some other advantages to it, I don't think the active barrel cooling it had would really be worthwhile now. The gas turbine probably isn't the right choice of engine either. It was selected for the Crusader because the desire was to upgrade the M1 Abrams with the same engine too, but as of now the Army hasn't really laid out their plans for the future of the Abrams beyond the latest SEP v3 upgrade. There was probably some thinking left over from how it was imagined a war with the USSR would go. Those self-propelled guns would have to relocate very often and when they did faster was better. So, the increased fuel usage probably wasn't all that bad given the improved turbine design and how they are actually pretty efficient when running at a high rpm.
Click to expand...
There has been no work on LP since the 90s when it was proven to a great extent under the Crusader program et al including machine guns. Please see Crusader thread et al and or do ur home work. Most Crusader concepts are exactly what is needed in a HIC scenario, but yes it would much larger and expensive vehicle. It would need a great deal of self protection whilst maintaining high mobility on tracks, but a lot less of them would be needed.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
So is the idea that the towed 155s will be replaced by one of these wheeled self-propelled designs that have become increasingly common? I know that over the years many have questioned the survivability of the towed guns in a high intensity conflict.
Click to expand...
The intent here is that the popular wheeled designs are more survivable than towed systems, Ukraine seems to be bearing this out.
 
aonestudio said:
breakingdefense.com

Towed artillery has reached ‘end of the effectiveness,’ Army four-star declares - Breaking Defense

The service has not yet released its new tactical fires study, but officials have begun previewing possible artillery changes.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
www.defensenews.com

Army artillery needs more range, mobility and autonomy, study finds

The Army's conventional fires study is leading the service to focus on munitions range and capacity as well as more mobile and autonomous systems.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
“We are in a resource constrained environment,” he added. “You can go after an exquisite system or you can take a more holistic approach.”

abbreviated language for we have no money so we have no solution therefore "holistic" limited numbers of missiles and the AF will do the rest w/ non existant CAS. perfect.
 
jsport said:
There has been no work on LP since the 90s when it was proven to a great extent under the Crusader program et al including machine guns. Please see Crusader thread et al and or do ur home work. Most Crusader concepts are exactly what is needed in a HIC scenario, but yes it would much larger and expensive vehicle. It would need a great deal of self protection whilst maintaining high mobility on tracks, but a lot less of them would be needed.
Click to expand...
What was wrong with the MACS charge Crusader that was the prototype? We can’t even get any new howitzer in service so no need to do more experimenting. R&D forever and ever. Pass.
 
RD&TE is as important as fielding.one must have the bandwidth to do both...and there may be some time to replace Abrams, Bradley & Paladin but everyone has gotten all bundled for something that might not even be capable of happening for sometime, but one better get it right then or lose.
 
jsport said:
RD&TE is as important as fielding.one must have the bandwidth to do both...and there may be some time to replace Abrams, Bradley & Paladin but everyone has gotten all bundled for something that might not even be capable of happening for sometime, but one better get it right then or lose.
Click to expand...
So there hasn’t been any RDT&E? Other countries have jumped the gun so to speak?
Give it another 30 yrs?
 
Bruno Anthony said:
So there hasn’t been any RDT&E? Other countries have jumped the gun so to speak?
Give it another 30 yrs?
Click to expand...
...remain convinced Dr. Bull's work hasn't been forgotten by the PLA for instance. Meanwhile in the west, where has scram rd research went? Missile fetish abounds. Guns need to be long range missile deliverers.
 
jsport said:
...remain convinced Dr. Bull's work hasn't been forgotten by the PLA for instance. Meanwhile in the west, where has scram rd research went? Missile fetish abounds. Guns need to be long range missile deliverers.
Click to expand...
Ok then
 
aonestudio said:
breakingdefense.com

Towed artillery has reached ‘end of the effectiveness,’ Army four-star declares - Breaking Defense

The service has not yet released its new tactical fires study, but officials have begun previewing possible artillery changes.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
www.defensenews.com

Army artillery needs more range, mobility and autonomy, study finds

The Army's conventional fires study is leading the service to focus on munitions range and capacity as well as more mobile and autonomous systems.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Towed artillery still has its place - most notably in scenarios where counter battery fire isn’t present. Or where transport and fuel logistics military are adverse to armored tracked SPG or even permanently truck mounted installations.

With the return of the Cold War, you also have a need for a mobilization reserve of simple and cheap towed artillery pieces. The casualties from counter battery fire would be unacceptable for the volunteer militaries of developed countries. However, we are living in an era of proxy wars between less developed countries where conscription is apparently accepted, as are staggering casualties. Honestly, I don’t understand it but I also don’t comprehend the evil of ethnic nationalism.
 
Tow Arty is fine for the lighter Heliborn Units since you can shove those into fun spaces you cant with SPGs.

Issue is all their advantages get nulled when you try to use them with mechanized forces like Strykers or Cav. Too light for proper use of long range shells and too slow for keeping up with everyone.
 
the arsenal of america is vast and that sometimes is a problem. Replacing a legacy system requires massive amount of money so unless the capability leap is that significant the cost isn't worth it.
 
Moose said:
The intent here is that the popular wheeled designs are more survivable than towed systems, Ukraine seems to be bearing this out.
Click to expand...
I understand the idea there, I know the survivability of towed guns in a high intensity war has been in doubt for quite some time. Even by the close of the Cold War weren't a lot of planners arguing that they wouldn't be very useful in a (non-nuclear) war with the USSR?

But I'm wondering if the Army is now thinking they should replace the tracked self-propelled howitzers with these too? I think it would be preferable to have both systems in use, with the armored/mechanized units having the tracked SPGs like they still have the M109A7s now.

I fully believe R&D in the sort of technologies that would make ERCA ranges practical, liquid propellant, and even more exotic stuff beyond that should be ongoing. Yet considering ERCA has been the 3rd cancelled attempt to get a new 155mm in service in the immediate term we ought to get a new tracked SPG based off what has already been proven to work. Some kind of son-of-Crusader or even just that BAE/Rheinmetall upgrade for the M109A7 with the L52 gun. Ideally we could put some sort of autoloader or method of semi-automatic loading in the latter option for a burst rate of fire closer to that of the competition.

I don't think calibers larger than 155mm should be dismissed either. I know the strategic long range cannon was cancelled but it seems like a less ambitious program wouldn't be a bad thing. It would help make achieving greater ranges easier. Perhaps not whatever caliber (280mm?) they were planning for SLRC but something like a new 203mm.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
But I'm wondering if the Army is now thinking they should replace the tracked self-propelled howitzers with these too? I think it would be preferable to have both systems in use, with the armored/mechanized units having the tracked SPGs like they still have the M109A7s now
Click to expand...
I do knkw that the US was looking at a wheel Howitzer for a long monute before Ukraine went hot again.

That was for use with the Stryker and Mechanized units with the 109 staying with the Armor folks.

That one 8x8 howitzer, the Czech Dana i want to say, was apparently being shipped over in November of 2021 for testing among with several others.

And that was due to all the Armor guys who became Stryker complaining bout the lack of speed in the M777 movements compare to M109s they were use to.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I'm wondering if the Army is now thinking they should replace the tracked self-propelled howitzers with these too? I think it would be preferable to have both systems in use, with the armored/mechanized units having the tracked SPGs like they still have the M109A7s now.
Click to expand...

I think this market survey from PMO-Towed Artillery is different from the impending RFI for alternative extended-range artillery solutions to replace ERCA. If so, that would suggest that they are looking at both wheeled and tracked artillery, and probably off-the-shelf solutions for both, while looking to make up most of the range by using new new designs of extended-range ammunition like XM1155 (either the BAE subcaliber version derived from its HVP work or the Boeing-Nammo ramjet version). An L52 barrel firing XM1155 should do at least as well as an L58 firing XM1113.
 
jsport said:
Guns need to be long range missile deliverers.
Click to expand...
No. Guns are a terrible way to deliver rounds past about 100km. That range requires guidance systems, and any guidance system hardened to survive a 9000 gees gun launch is stupid expensive.

Rockets have a gentle acceleration (under 10 gees) so don't need a super-hardened guidance system.



Colonial-Marine said:
I understand the idea there, I know the survivability of towed guns in a high intensity war has been in doubt for quite some time. Even by the close of the Cold War weren't a lot of planners arguing that they wouldn't be very useful in a (non-nuclear) war with the USSR?

But I'm wondering if the Army is now thinking they should replace the tracked self-propelled howitzers with these too? I think it would be preferable to have both systems in use, with the armored/mechanized units having the tracked SPGs like they still have the M109A7s now.
Click to expand...
I'm reading that differently, that this is strictly to replace the towed M777 155mm guns with wheeled SPGs. Armor units still keep M109s, because wheeled guns can't go where the tracks go.

Probably need to make a special exception for airborne and air assault units, since helicopters can put guns into interesting places that neither tracks nor wheels could ever get. Except I think those are all 105mm guns, not 155s.
 
Hmm one of the benefit of M777 is that it is light enough to be carried by CH-47 as sling-load
 
SK2 said:
Hmm one of the benefit of M777 is that it is light enough to be carried by CH-47 as sling-load
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see if someone offers a portee configuration so the gun can be airlifted if needed.
 
SK2 said:
Hmm one of the benefit of M777 is that it is light enough to be carried by CH-47 as sling-load
Click to expand...
So units planned to mostly be airborne or heliborne may keep the M777s while most leg infantry get wheeled SPGs.
 
TomS said:
Be interesting to see if someone offers a portee configuration so the gun can be airlifted if needed.
Click to expand...

Say, like LIMAWS-G

M777 LIMAWS-G Portee

GlobalSecurity.org is the leading source for reliable military news and military information.
www.globalsecurity.org www.globalsecurity.org

1711757714898.png
 
Scott Kenny said:
No. Guns are a terrible way to deliver rounds past about 100km. That range requires guidance systems, and any guidance system hardened to survive a 9000 gees gun launch is stupid expensive.

Rockets have a gentle acceleration (under 10 gees) so don't need a super-hardened guidance
Click to expand...
We went through this before on a different thread. Hardened Electronics being expensive is so early 2000s.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom