US Army - 155mm Next Generation Howitzer (NGH)

Scott Kenny said:
Aluminum works reasonably well as armor versus small arms and shell splinters.

An SPG that can take anything but a direct hit from a 155mm shell is probably what we're going to see in terms of passive armor, IMO. Shell splinters at 5m, plus APS for top attack threats like DPICM, drones, loitering munitions, and ATGMs.
Click to expand...
APS still requires strong base armor that SPH cannot really afford. That capability will have to come from SHORAD systems.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why would an APS require strong base armor? Interception distances matter.
Click to expand...
I don't think we'll be seeing any time soon APS intercepting at sufficiently long range to leave typical SPH armor levels where they are now. At least not until the market is beyond satured with modern SPH.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I still think the optimal answer for top attack munitions of whatever flavor is an APS, not steel plates or even ERA.
Click to expand...

It depends on the specific kind of top-attack weapon. An FPV drone is not likely to be stopped by any affordable or economic APS. They often attack in large groups now, sometimes double digit numbers, which was not the case early last year or in 2023. An anti-tank missile might be adequately protectable against since they only attack in small single digit numbers. A bomblet can be stopped by rubber matting like on the SPz Puma, or Special Armor like on the XM2001, and the same goes for SADARM and other explosively formed penetrators.

Given what we're seeing in Ukraine it may be that the self-propelled gun's days are over though, to be handed over to tactical ballistic missiles and long-range weapons like GMLRS-ER, at least going by Russian loss rates. If the Russians are losing these things at such rates, it's unlikely anyone else will be able to protect their howitzers so well, given the immense depth of inventory the Russian Army had.

Artillery has always preferred to operate outside the distance of enemy counter battery and this is no longer possible, even with towed pieces, since in the past year (from Summer 2024 to now) we've seen the expansion of the "killing zone" of fighting vehicles (tanks and self-propelled pieces) in Ukraine go from about 10-15 kilometers to over 50 kilometers. The Russians themselves expect that armored vehicles will be at significant threat of destruction as far as 150 kilometers from the FLOT by 2030 perhaps sooner.

This is reflected in the incredible disappearance of self propelled howitzers from the Russian inventory over the past year. With the speed at which modern Western military procurement schemes move, it is much better to simply watch and wait, because the utility of anything procured now will rapidly be nil within literal months.

Towed guns remain the most survivable pieces in the Ukraine War, so long as you can find men to man them, as even motorcycles full of fuel cans and ammo boxes can be rapidly located and destroyed by assault drones. The Russian experience in (frankly any) vehicle operations at the frontlines is instructive as to the long term viability of Cold War-era armored fighting vehicles in particular.

When you can see the entire battlefield, victory is wrought by mass and nothing more, because there's no room for clever tricks. Until we make vehicles that can dig underground tunnels, or make tunnel creation in general a military art again, it's unlikely that self-propelled forces will matter much for the coming few decades.
 
Last edited:
Why doesn't the US simply give South Africa a $100 million (very cheap, but that's a lot of money to us) to completely update and modernise the G-6 Gun, and then buy the design rights for it, produce it in the US - all at a fraction of the cost and time to develop their own new gen mobile artillery..?

Or they could do the same with our G-7 and Rooikat systems - again, it will save them a ton of money and time, and they will most likely end up with the best systems that money can buy..?

Or better yet - both G-6 and G-7 systems..

For another $50 million more, we would happily develop our 155mm and 105mm ammunition even further (then at the cutting edge of world design as it currently is), to include things like RAMjet projectiles (they were pretty much succesfully developed many years back) - BTW - the US already has an agreement and usage in place regarding our 105mm projectiles for quite a few years now..
 
Last edited:
Graugrun said:
Why doesn't the US simply give South Africa a $100 million (very cheap, but that's a lot of money to us) to completely update and modernise the G-6 Gun, and then buy the design rights for it, produce it in the US - all at a fraction of the cost and time to develop their own new gen mobile artillery..?

Or they could do the same with our G-7 and Rooikat systems - again, it will save them a ton of money and time, and they will most likely end up with the best systems that money can buy..?

Or better yet - both G-6 and G-7 systems..

For another $50 million more, we would happily develop our 155mm and 105mm ammunition even further (then at the cutting edge of world design as it currently is), to include things like RAMjet projectiles (they were pretty much succesfully developed many years back) - BTW - the US already has an agreement and usage in place regarding our 105mm projectiles..
Click to expand...
Because:
A. That's not how R&D works.

B. If they wanted previous-gen stuff they wouldn't be running this program.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Because:
A. That's not how R&D works.

B. If they wanted previous-gen stuff they wouldn't be running this program.
Click to expand...
I think that you missed the part about paying us a small amount (for the US) to completely update and modernise everything.

By also paying us for the IP, they get all the R&D anyway, with the developmental path, as if they had developed it themselves - so it's a leapfrog for them, at a fraction of the cost and time - so everyone wins..!

BTW - my initial comment above was a bit 'tongue-in-cheek' (a bit of a joke) - however there actually is a lot of merit in it.
 
Thing is, there's a competition because that's how DoD (mostly) does procurement. If Denel wanted to offer the G6, they could (assuming they can find a US production partner). But it looks like they haven't done that.

And the G6 hasn't been in production for what, 26 years? You'd have to wonder if anyone still at Denel actually knows the ins and outs of its production.
 
Graugrun said:
I think that you missed the part about paying us a small amount (for the US) to completely update and modernise everything.

By also paying us for the IP, they get all the R&D anyway, with the developmental path, as if they had developed it themselves - so it's a leapfrog for them, at a fraction of the cost and time - so everyone wins..!

BTW - my initial comment above was a bit 'tongue-in-cheek' (a bit of a joke) - however there actually is a lot of merit in it.
Click to expand...

Britain did this for Spain and Austria. It got Ajax from what was the then-unfunded Spanish-Austrian ASCOD 2. It's terrible. America would like to avoid a similar situation, so anyone who can bring something can bid something, but it's not going to pay for someone else's failures.
 
Graugrun said:
I think that you missed the part about paying us a small amount (for the US) to completely update and modernise everything.
Click to expand...
I'm not paying you a dime until you can deliver me an SPH and even then I cannot afford it.
Graugrun said:
By also paying us for the IP, they get all the R&D anyway, with the developmental path, as if they had developed it themselves - so it's a leapfrog for them, at a fraction of the cost and time - so everyone wins..!
BTW - my initial comment above was a bit 'tongue-in-cheek' (a bit of a joke) - however there actually is a lot of merit in it.
Click to expand...
If Denel kept developing tech over the years, they wouldn't need a unique R&D contract. At least not for the early phases.

If their products and tech are stagnant, then no point in investing because a solution is needed now, not later. And there is an abundance of solutions to choose from.
 
Adaptation for the future is imperative, and the tyranny is range is pervasive. COTS will not answer. Both gun and projectile technology advancement requires research and risk assumed by governments.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The G6 is what should have been bought to support the Stryker brigades.

But there hasn't been a G6 built since 1999.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why Denel made that automatic G7 for the Strykers instead LOL.

I guess somewhere between 1999 and 2005 they completely lost every ounce of the G6 manufacturing base.
 
Graugrun said:
Why doesn't the US simply give South Africa a $100 million (very cheap, but that's a lot of money to us) to completely update and modernise the G-6 Gun, and then buy the design rights for it, produce it in the US - all at a fraction of the cost and time to develop their own new gen mobile artillery..?

Or they could do the same with our G-7 and Rooikat systems - again, it will save them a ton of money and time, and they will most likely end up with the best systems that money can buy..?

Or better yet - both G-6 and G-7 systems..

For another $50 million more, we would happily develop our 155mm and 105mm ammunition even further (then at the cutting edge of world design as it currently is), to include things like RAMjet projectiles (they were pretty much succesfully developed many years back) - BTW - the US already has an agreement and usage in place regarding our 105mm projectiles for quite a few years now..
Click to expand...
Also, BAe and Rheinmetall have the JBMOU-compliant guns. Why would the US Army move towards an external non-JBMOU 155mm gun when it has both domestic JBMOU (Rheinmetall/BAe M109-52 and M777/52) and non-JBMOU (ERCA) guns available? What advantage does G6, even the L52 JBMOU version, have over a US developed system? Other than relying on the industrial base of south africa, which I assume is healthy and thriving and doesn't suffer from corruption, rolling black- and brown-outs, brain drain, and generally not being competitive with the South Koreans for the relatively western but not American bulk arms market...
 
whatismoo said:
Also, BAe and Rheinmetall have the JBMOU-compliant guns. Why would the US Army move towards an external non-JBMOU 155mm gun when it has both domestic JBMOU (Rheinmetall/BAe M109-52 and M777/52) and non-JBMOU (ERCA) guns available? What advantage does G6, even the L52 JBMOU version, have over a US developed system? Other than relying on the industrial base of south africa, which I assume is healthy and thriving and doesn't suffer from corruption, rolling black- and brown-outs, brain drain, and generally not being competitive with the South Koreans for the relatively western but not American bulk arms market...
Click to expand...

JBMOU is a handicap and the sooner it's abandoned the better, but the G6 isn't the piece to do it, even if 25 liter chambers are good things. Forcing NATO to follow in its footsteps for the betterment of themselves, against their wishes, is America's calling card.

I crave the L/52 25-liter chamber towed M777. Even better would be an ERCA's 28-liter but they've already forgotten about barrel bands.
 
Kat Tsun said:
JBMOU limits range because of mandating bad ballistic coefficients and tiny chambers. 40 kilometers in 2025 is like 20 kilometers in 1995.
Click to expand...
So you add another MOU for (ERFB) shells with good ballistic coefficients.

Chambers we're going to have to suffer with, I think. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get 25L chambers. I don't think that the ERCA 28L chambers will happen until the MOU specs driving bands that can survive the MVs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So you add another MOU for (ERFB) shells with good ballistic coefficients.

Chambers we're going to have to suffer with, I think. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get 25L chambers. I don't think that the ERCA 28L chambers will happen until the MOU specs driving bands that can survive the MVs.
Click to expand...
Frankly I'm more worried about shell production and interoperability. We need on the order of a million shells a month and that isn't happening soon. So we need to be able to use whatever shells we can get, and JBMOU helps that, 23L chamber and all.
 
whatismoo said:
Frankly I'm more worried about shell production and interoperability. We need on the order of a million shells a month and that isn't happening soon. So we need to be able to use whatever shells we can get, and JBMOU helps that, 23L chamber and all.
Click to expand...

The ERCA chamber could still fire JBMOU-compliant ammo.
 
whatismoo said:
Frankly I'm more worried about shell production and interoperability. We need on the order of a million shells a month and that isn't happening soon. So we need to be able to use whatever shells we can get, and JBMOU helps that, 23L chamber and all.
Click to expand...
Right, but adding another class of long range shells with good BC to the JBMOU is just creating another shell OML and then data tables for the troops to use. And ditching the L39 gun tubes would easily cover the data in old gun computers for the long range shells.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom