M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA

[jsport]

IMHO abandoning 8" artillery has been shown to be a mistake given the Ukr context.

Only in terms of using boosted shells of some kind.

The basic 203mm artillery only had a 25km range!

The M650 rocket assisted projectile had a 30km range.

The "long range" gun was the 175mm M107 with a 40km range.

Needs to be pointed out that at the same tine?

The basic 155mm also maxed out at 28km for long range shells.

Even for tge long barrel guns like the XM2001 only got up to 40km by extanding the barrel by like 10 feet going from L38 to L52.

It only within the last 12 years is that the 40km plus shells from 155mm L38s became a thing.

A similar upgrade of the 8 inch might, no wait.

The USN gunfighter program got up to 70km in the 1960s, so be look at almost double that for a modern 8 inch gun.

Correct.

The M107 had poor accuracy due to barrel whip, making it roughly incapable of counterbattery fire. The M110 only had as much range as the 155mm guns.

So the MLRS got the counterbattery role, and the 175mm and 203mm guns went away due to not having a distinct role to play.

a 203mm ramjet could carry more fuel thus longer range.
16" SCRAM at Mach 7 a different story
and light gas SCRAM yet another

 

[Scott Kenny]

IMHO abandoning 8" artillery has been shown to be a mistake given the Ukr context.

Only in terms of using boosted shells of some kind.

The basic 203mm artillery only had a 25km range!

The M650 rocket assisted projectile had a 30km range.

The "long range" gun was the 175mm M107 with a 40km range.

Needs to be pointed out that at the same tine?

The basic 155mm also maxed out at 28km for long range shells.

Even for tge long barrel guns like the XM2001 only got up to 40km by extanding the barrel by like 10 feet going from L38 to L52.

It only within the last 12 years is that the 40km plus shells from 155mm L38s became a thing.

A similar upgrade of the 8 inch might, no wait.

The USN gunfighter program got up to 70km in the 1960s, so be look at almost double that for a modern 8 inch gun.

Correct.

The M107 had poor accuracy due to barrel whip, making it roughly incapable of counterbattery fire. The M110 only had as much range as the 155mm guns.

So the MLRS got the counterbattery role, and the 175mm and 203mm guns went away due to not having a distinct role to play.

a 203mm ramjet could carry more fuel thus longer range.
16" SCRAM at Mach 7 a different story
and light gas SCRAM yet another

Could, yes.

16" is completely out of question, the US does not have the capability to make new 16" guns. I'm not sure the US has the ability to make new 8" guns...

Light gas guns are nice laboratory toys, and terrible to try to make work in the field.

 

[Elan Vital]

chapter 1：ITS A DISASTER！

In the 1979-1989, the main 155mm guns of the US Army were the M198 towed howitzer and the M109/109A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 self-propelled gun, the specifics of which are easily accessible and will not be described in detail here.

There are, however, a number of details worth noting:

The M109 developed to roughly the M109A5 stage towards the end of the Cold War.
View attachment 702107
Of these, the M109A2/3, which entered service in 1979, was fitted with the 39x M185 howitzer, which could fire the 30km range M549 rocket-extended projectile.
The M109A3 was an upgrade from the M109/109A1 to the M109A2.

View attachment 702105

It was not until 1989 that the M109A4 became available for NBC triple defence（｀Δ´）！



The M109A5, which entered service in 1990, was able to withstand the chamber pressure of the "Super 8 charge", which made it compatible with the new generation of shells such as the M795 (although the M795 did not enter service until the late 1990s) and had a range of up to 22.5km (M795 howitzer): 30km (M549A1). range.
View attachment 702111


More importantly, of course, the M109 did not have an automatic loader and had a ridiculously poor rate of fire.
View attachment 702108

On the other hand：
View attachment 702109
The M198 heavy gun, which entered service in 1979, weighed 7.154 tons and had a range of up to 30km from the M549A1 rocket-extended projectile and 22.5km from the M795. However, the US Army's M107 shell was so poor in the Cold War that it could only hit conventional grenades for less than 18km, roughly the same level as the D20, and was completely crushed by the performance of the new Soviet 2A65.

TIPS：
View attachment 702110
The German DM121 (left) is essentially the British L15A1/2. The L15 is the new generation of NATO high charge density ammunition that was finalised with the FH70, the comparison on the right is the older US made M107 shell.

The L15A1/2, with a total weight of 43.5kg, of which 11.3kg is explosive, has a charge density of 26%!!! This is close to the famous B4 203MM heavy howitzer, which had a charge density of around 10-15% during WWII.

The core reason why they could hold so much explosive was that the British had overcome the technology of ultra-high strength thin-cased shells in the 1960s. Compare this to the US Army's Cold War-era M107 conventional grenade, with a total weight of just over 43kg, only 6.8kg is explosive, and the load density is only 15.8%, which is just a little better than WWII levels∑ (´△｀)？！

TIPS2：
You may ask why the US Army is not using the M549 across the board to replace the less effective M107 or even the M795?

Because the M549 series of rocket range extenders are actually very expensive - the M795 costs only $333 per round (in 90s currency), while the M549A1 costs $995 per round (in 90s currency), which is three rounds of M795 per round, and without a precision-guided end system, the accuracy of the M549 is abysmal.╯▂╰
View attachment 702112View attachment 702113



Add aII reasons together resulted in the US self-propelled artillery and to towed artillery during the Cold War,IS A DISASTER！！ And arguably the worst of any NATO country ！！！！！(　ﾟ皿ﾟ)

next chapter is about famous FH/SP70series and RUS 2A65 /2S19
COMING SOOOOOOOON

It gets worse as France already adopted a new projectile just as HE M107 was entering service, the OE 155mm Mle. 56, updated in 1969.
This had longer range and greater HE payload while being only slightly heavier overall (translation: mass, propellant charge mass?, max range):


Filler mass is 8.9kg in OE Mle 56/69 vs 6.8kg in the M107.



The French also adopted a 30 caliber 155mm gun on its SPH, which extended range further to 20km by 1969.

 

[trajan]

rare photos：

The M109A6 SPH was armed with 155mm/54 caliber XM297E2 cannon as cancelled Crusader armament system test rig.


another weapon plan for XM2001 and led
the XM907 program（from my source）

The development of XM907E2 cannon of ERCA utilizing 155mm/58-caliber XM282 Advanced Armament System (AAS) for Howitzer Improvement Program (HIP), which features larger 1700 cubic inches (28-liter) chamber capacity than XM297E2 (1400 cubic inches).

and news about XM907 in 21 oct 2022

 

[jsport]

IMHO abandoning 8" artillery has been shown to be a mistake given the Ukr context.

Only in terms of using boosted shells of some kind.

The basic 203mm artillery only had a 25km range!

The M650 rocket assisted projectile had a 30km range.

The "long range" gun was the 175mm M107 with a 40km range.

Needs to be pointed out that at the same tine?

The basic 155mm also maxed out at 28km for long range shells.

Even for tge long barrel guns like the XM2001 only got up to 40km by extanding the barrel by like 10 feet going from L38 to L52.

It only within the last 12 years is that the 40km plus shells from 155mm L38s became a thing.

A similar upgrade of the 8 inch might, no wait.

The USN gunfighter program got up to 70km in the 1960s, so be look at almost double that for a modern 8 inch gun.

Correct.

The M107 had poor accuracy due to barrel whip, making it roughly incapable of counterbattery fire. The M110 only had as much range as the 155mm guns.

So the MLRS got the counterbattery role, and the 175mm and 203mm guns went away due to not having a distinct role to play.

a 203mm ramjet could carry more fuel thus longer range.
16" SCRAM at Mach 7 a different story
and light gas SCRAM yet another

Could, yes.

16" is completely out of question, the US does not have the capability to make new 16" guns. I'm not sure the US has the ability to make new 8" guns...

Light gas guns are nice laboratory toys, and terrible to try to make work in the field.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2010/armament/WednesdayLandmarkADavidKruczynski_StephenFloroff.pdf

light gas gun - Google Search

..not sure if a 16" ever makes sense again but ..am quite sure if there were resource and will large barrels isnt that difficult. Likewise, rifling may well not be needed.

The light gas gun has been argued on this forum more than a few times and minus empirical evidence ..am still not buying anything short of low will and resource as the problem. congressional capture by traditional artillery contractors is likely the prohibitor.

As stated, and on thread--Ramjet rd equipped tanks which are more like SPHs and SPHs which are more tanks is the near term postulation.

 

[Firefinder]

16" is completely out of question, the US does not have the capability to make new 16" guns. I'm not sure the US has the ability to make new 8" guns.

When the Army refurb Waterveil Arsenal in the 1990s they order it able to built 100 to 210mm size guns.

Which was fair easily to do due to how modern gun barrels are built.

Only thing they have to do is order a metal blank, that size properly and flip the switch to 203mm.

And let the system do its thing. In a few hours a new 8 inch gun is born.

The bigger issue be Ammo, but Ukraine just got a load of NEW M106 203mm shells that they using to slap Russia so...

 

[jsport]

The principal issue w/ both M110 +M109 based platforms and 'tank like' maneuver is that both vehicles have a "dead" track likely to throw a track during severe maneuver. Another reason why Crusader should not have been cancelled and some version of an active track, up armored, up armed 155mm SPH needs to replace M-109 form factor writ large. Current M-109 upgrades are still lipstick on a pig. SPHs need to be at the very front of the battle and fighting both longest range indirect fire but w/ local mobile protected firepower (MPF) direct fire (if need be).

 

[jsport]

16" is completely out of question, the US does not have the capability to make new 16" guns. I'm not sure the US has the ability to make new 8" guns.

When the Army refurb Waterveil Arsenal in the 1990s they order it able to built 100 to 210mm size guns.

Which was fair easily to do due to how modern gun barrels are built.

Only thing they have to do is order a metal blank, that size properly and flip the switch to 203mm.

And let the system do its thing. In a few hours a new 8 inch gun is born.

The bigger issue be Ammo, but Ukraine just got a load of NEW M106 203mm shells that they using to slap Russia so...

A 210mm a 203mm is worth developing as a ne w indirect fire vehicle, The cancellation of the SLRC was a travesty. Some research into exotic propulsion needs to be ongoing until enough unknowns become known and prototype vehicle built. It maybe expensive and time consuming to get to 1000km, and interim vehicles w/ much lesser range built and utilized. A craw walk run strategy which is necessary.

 

[Kat Tsun]

16" is completely out of question, the US does not have the capability to make new 16" guns. I'm not sure the US has the ability to make new 8" guns.

When the Army refurb Waterveil Arsenal in the 1990s they order it able to built 100 to 210mm size guns.

Which was fair easily to do due to how modern gun barrels are built.

Only thing they have to do is order a metal blank, that size properly and flip the switch to 203mm.

And let the system do its thing. In a few hours a new 8 inch gun is born.

The bigger issue be Ammo, but Ukraine just got a load of NEW M106 203mm shells that they using to slap Russia so...

Is there evidence the shells are actually new and not just National Guard surplus?

They have M113A3s from the National Guard too. Those aren't new, though. The US can't really manufacture 8" ammunition since it stopped production of the line in the 90s, and it's doubtful the Ukrainians have accurate ballistic tables, unless the U.S. made some.

It's a decent-ish stopgap until new Soviet-era ammo can be found, but it's not going to be as good as Soviet ammunition, obviously.

 

[Firefinder]

16" is completely out of question, the US does not have the capability to make new 16" guns. I'm not sure the US has the ability to make new 8" guns.

When the Army refurb Waterveil Arsenal in the 1990s they order it able to built 100 to 210mm size guns.

Which was fair easily to do due to how modern gun barrels are built.

Only thing they have to do is order a metal blank, that size properly and flip the switch to 203mm.

And let the system do its thing. In a few hours a new 8 inch gun is born.

The bigger issue be Ammo, but Ukraine just got a load of NEW M106 203mm shells that they using to slap Russia so...

Is there evidence the shells are actually new and not just National Guard surplus?

They have M113A3s from the National Guard too. Those aren't new, though. The US can't really manufacture 8" ammunition since it stopped production of the line in the 90s, and it's doubtful the Ukrainians have accurate ballistic tables, unless the U.S. made some.

It's a decent-ish stopgap until new Soviet-era ammo can be found, but it's not going to be as good as Soviet ammunition, obviously.

The coating and letter is too clean and clear.

Not faded like a shell that been in storage for the nearly 3 decades plus be.

Also the Image I seen have a clear shot of one with a modern lot code, its was a 2023 build.

And that NOT a thing they will change due to how everything works with tracking of artillery shells. Cause there are tables where the date matters awhole lot. So putting in the wrong date will end in mess.

Plus remember, explosives have a shelf life. Like you said they stop production in the 90s, specifically the early late 1994 just after I was born just 30 years ago when the M110 gun was retired. Thats far past the age the US Military likes to keep its shells, especailly when we don't have weapon to use it with.

Pretty sure I read that all of the 8-inch shells were either destroy or sold off in the early aughts anyways, but I have can't find that...

In all likely hood the army did the same thing with the 155mm shell plants as the did at Waterveil, order them to be able to make 203mm shells if needed. Which be fairlly easy to do due to how the shells are made these days. That or kept a 203mm plant in cold storage, and reactivated it last year and started making new 203mm shell bodies.

Or they bought they bought off of someone who still has 203mm production but I cant think of anyone but Russia and Ukraine who does.

As for the ballistic tables?

Too easy to make these days.

Once you have the Shell Ballistics performances at an X velocity, it becomes easy to scale it up or down as need. Ukraine just need to find out the average Velocity of the M106 from the 2s7 Pion gun, plug it into the old forumal and you good.

A afternoon of shotting with a radar or two at most.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The coating and letter is too clean and clear.


Not faded like a shell that been in storage for the nearly 3 decades plus be.

Also the Image I seen have a clear shot of one with a modern lot code, its was a 2023 build.

And that NOT a thing they will change due to how everything works with tracking of artillery shells. Cause there are tables where the date matters awhole lot. So putting in the wrong date will end in mess.

Agreed. Once my sub got a message to dispose of an entire lot of 9mm ammunition. So we had a steel beach and fired off some 1000 rounds of 9mm from that particular lot.

Plus remember, explosives have a shelf life. Like you said they stop production in the 90s, specifically the early late 1994 just after I was born just 30 years ago when the M110 gun was retired. Thats far past the age the US Military likes to keep its shells, especailly when we don't have weapon to use it with.

Pretty sure I read that all of the 8-inch shells were either destroy or sold off in the early aughts anyways, but I have can't find that...

In all likely hood the army did the same thing with the 155mm shell plants as the did at Waterveil, order them to be able to make 203mm shells if needed. Which be fairlly easy to do due to how the shells are made these days. That or kept a 203mm plant in cold storage, and reactivated it last year and started making new 203mm shell bodies.

Or they bought they bought off of someone who still has 203mm production but I cant think of anyone but Russia and Ukraine who does.

IIRC, Taiwan still has 203mm and 240mm guns in service as coastal artillery. Though I'm not sure how much ammo they'd be willing to sell/donate.

As for the ballistic tables?

Too easy to make these days.

Once you have the Shell Ballistics performances at an X velocity, it becomes easy to scale it up or down as need. Ukraine just need to find out the average Velocity of the M106 from the 2s7 Pion gun, plug it into the old forumal and you good.

A afternoon of shotting with a radar or two at most.

And you technically could do all that while still shooting the rounds in the direction of Russians as general harassment.

 

[James1978]

Given that there are still a fair number of M110A2 users out there with several hundred guns, it doesn't seem beyond belief that the US may have been producing the occasional batch of 8" shells for allies on an as needed basis.

Though if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Pakistan Ordnance Factories produce 203mm shells. If true, that seems like the most likely source.

 

[jsport]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529081399525113856

View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1529081399525113856

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308600382118002688

View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1308600382118002688

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529081399525113856

View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1529081399525113856

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308600382118002688

View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1308600382118002688

Those pictures look like the M65 Atomic Cannon. 280mm bore, 30km range.

 

[jsport]

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

 

[jsport]

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground remains on artillery test cutting edge

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark Milley has identified long-range precision guided munitions as one of the service's top modernization priorities. U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground is currently testing a variety of systems associated with the Extende...

www.army.mil

This 155mm Xm113 ERCA round test platform appears to be larger than a 155mm gun..

 

[jsport]

An Advanced Gun System Prototype, Extended Range Cannon Artillery and M110 Advanced Gun System are positioned to support Advanced Battle Management Systems (ABMS) Onramp 2 at White Sands Mission Range, New Mexico on Aug. 28, 2020. The effect ABMS is

Download this stock image: An Advanced Gun System Prototype, Extended Range Cannon Artillery and M110 Advanced Gun System are positioned to support Advanced Battle Management Systems (ABMS) Onramp 2 at White Sands Mission Range, New Mexico on Aug. 28, 2020. The effect ABMS is attempting to...

www.alamy.com

cant seem to find the contemporary M-110 firing picture seen previously online.​

 

[Scott Kenny]

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground remains on artillery test cutting edge

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark Milley has identified long-range precision guided munitions as one of the service's top modernization priorities. U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground is currently testing a variety of systems associated with the Extende...

www.army.mil

This 155mm Xm113 ERCA round test platform appears to be larger than a 155mm gun..

Probably an oversized pressure barrel. Have you seen the guns they build for Benchrest shooting? They take a barrel blank that's a good 2" in diameter and don't thin it down any. Giant barrel for maximum stiffness.

 

[jsport]

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground remains on artillery test cutting edge

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark Milley has identified long-range precision guided munitions as one of the service's top modernization priorities. U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground is currently testing a variety of systems associated with the Extende...

www.army.mil

This 155mm Xm113 ERCA round test platform appears to be larger than a 155mm gun..

Probably an oversized pressure barrel. Have you seen the guns they build for Benchrest shooting? They take a barrel blank that's a good 2" in diameter and don't thin it down any. Giant barrel for maximum stiffness.

thank you for the info. No.. have not seen.
the point is there is still an interest and basis for ~ 200mm guns and ammo to be produced if they are properly pursued.

 

[Scott Kenny]

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground remains on artillery test cutting edge

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark Milley has identified long-range precision guided munitions as one of the service's top modernization priorities. U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground is currently testing a variety of systems associated with the Extende...

www.army.mil

This 155mm Xm113 ERCA round test platform appears to be larger than a 155mm gun..

Probably an oversized pressure barrel. Have you seen the guns they build for Benchrest shooting? They take a barrel blank that's a good 2" in diameter and don't thin it down any. Giant barrel for maximum stiffness.

thank you for the info. No.. have not seen.
the point is there is still an interest and basis for ~ 200mm guns and ammo to be produced if they are properly pursued.

IF the US still has the industrial capability to make them, of course.

Part of the problem is how heavy the gun itself is. The 8"/55 Mk16 automatic guns in the Des Moines class weighed 20 tons each. Just for the gun barrel, not including any of the extras. The Mark 71 turret and magazine weighed about 80 tons counting at least 75 rounds of ammunition. And it goes 3 decks below the turret. Each projectile weighed 335lbs, and burned 78lbs of powder in a separate brass case.

It's certainly possible to reduce the barrel weight, Naval guns are significantly heavier than their ground mount counterparts because they're assumed to fire at maximum rate for half an hour or so. But the size of the autoloader can't be reduced much, because the shells are so big and heavy.

 

[jsport]

An upgraded SPH along the lines of M110 but a Mobile Protected Firepower(MFP) platform able to maneuver far forward firing something along the lines of ramjet-powered 203mm Advanced Indirect Fire System (AIFS) missile developed by Norden. Eventually a family of SP modular artillery platforms able to operate forward and no so forward and, include a light gas gun firing scram rds reaching the SLRC goal of 1000 mile rg would also be goals. Such guns can perform SEAD, BAI and engage Critical Mobile Tgts (CMTs) because the number of PRSMs will not exist in high enough numbers for a long or large conflict.

 

[Scott Kenny]

An upgraded SPH along the lines of M110 but a Mobile Protected Firepower(MFP) platform able to maneuver far forward firing something along the lines of ramjet-powered 203mm Advanced Indirect Fire System (AIFS) missile developed by Norden. Eventually a family of SP modular artillery platforms able to operate forward and no so forward and, include a light gas gun firing scram rds reaching the SLRC goal of 1000 mile rg would also be goals. Such guns can perform SEAD, BAI and engage Critical Mobile Tgts (CMTs) because the number of PRSMs will not exist in high enough numbers for a long or large conflict.

That would be heavily modified from the MPF/Griffon 3. Just for balance sake you'd have to put the turret aft, so the chassis would need to be flipped around.

 

[Forest Green]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0k1atsZZEg

 

[jsport]

23 APRIL 2021

US Army opting for 23-round autoloader for ERCA
by Ashley Roque

US Army opting for 23-round autoloader for ERCA

The US Army is scaling down an autoloader for its new Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) programme and will not meet its initial goal of having the enhanced...

www.janes.com

View: https://youtu.be/fwB6TGFsBN0

would sure hope all the resource expended on the complicated "DSWS New Start" autoload development was worth it and included in an new autoload.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'd agree that the second iteration of the Crusader does look an awful lot like the vehicle we need today. One thing I did not understand however was the desire to use a gas turbine engine in it. I suppose it might have made some sense when the concern was a rain of Soviet counter-battery fire hitting the position you just fired from but by the early 2000s it seems like a multi-fuel diesel engine would have been the more economical choice.

Part of that was to use the same engine as the Abrams/Abrams replacement, back when the Crusader was supposed to be a 60ton behemoth.

Whenever I see a contrived acronym I think, "somebody needs to be fired". Obviously they don't have enough to do.

Marketing Majors need jobs, too!

And for added Context the Excaliber shell current cost over 100k per pop with ranges of no more then 60km.

Not to mention that that is still the Preproduction costs and not the prime time being dump out of tge factory cost.

Which if we go with that cost the two newest Shell designs in the XM1113 and XM1128 are around 15,000 bucks a pop with 40km max ranges.

No, they don't.

Cost per round in 2016 was $68k. Adjusted for inflation, that's $84k in 2022 dollars (Westegg inflation calculator won't do 2023 dollars yet)

 

[Firefinder]

No, they don't.

Cost per round in 2016 was $68k. Adjusted for inflation, that's $84k in 2022 dollars (Westegg inflation calculator won't do 2023 dollars yet)

Yes yes they do.

As of 2021 they cost 112,800 dollars a piece, and as of this pass budgeting they are sitting at a cool 95k.

This is due to the fact that not only did the US not buy any between in 2019‐2020 due to budget, but also cause they bought less. The Army orders these in batches to try and balance the stockpiles and the like, with 2020 being well...

20 bloody 20

None of tge Artillery units got to shot that year. Like my unit average nearly 800 shells a month in 2019, that dropped to zero in 2020 due to covid. And that was the North Korea goes Rapid QRF, so we trained alot. So 2020 had major knock on effect for those who balance the stockpiles...


Then you had the supply chain shock that increase the price of everything well above the inflation rate due to parts not being able to get to where they needed.

End result being a near doubling of the price.

 

[aonestudio]

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall showcases innovative defense solutions for the U.S. Army at AUSA 2023: One partner for all missions.

www.rheinmetall.com

The “M109-52” Self Propelled Howitzer prototype featuring Rheinmetall’s L52 Howitzer Cannon System and enhanced by advanced artillery technologies
Rheinmetall’s world class, combat proven L52 155mm Cannon Armament integrated on the M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer System is the optimal solution for the Army’s requirement to upgrade the M109 fleet. The exceptional L52 armament currently in service in Ukraine and with eight global allied users delivers a significant increase in range, precision and lethality. Rheinmetall will further display its operationally proven suite of propellants and munitions on site at AUSA this year. These products and capabilities are closely aligned with the Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires modernization priorities. The Rheinmetall-BAE team will perform a series of live fire demonstrations of the upgraded M109-52 in 2023 and 2024. Rheinmetall will feature the systems solutions for platform, cannon, projectile and propellant technology across the artillery “eco-system” on its booth. A full-sized M109-52 prototype system will be featured on the BAE Systems booth (#925) for attendees to view throughout the show.

https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1711185589553533235

 

[aonestudio]

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

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711503108621177051

View: https://twitter.com/BAESystemsInc/status/1711503108621177051

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-successfully-tests-m109-self-propelled-howitzer-modified-with-52-caliber-cannon

 

[Kat Tsun]

Probably an oversized pressure barrel. Have you seen the guns they build for Benchrest shooting? They take a barrel blank that's a good 2" in diameter and don't thin it down any. Giant barrel for maximum stiffness.

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Yowza!

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.

That doesn't make sense to me, but if true definitely would kill the project. There are way too many old shells with copper driving bands in the stockpile.

 

[Kat Tsun]

That doesn't make sense to me, but if true definitely would kill the project. There are way too many old shells with copper driving bands in the stockpile.

Because it's a relatively (to other artillery pieces) high pressure rifled gun. The point was to be backwards compatible with older 155mm, which is why it's 155mm, and not something useful like a 203mm smoothbore. Or even a 155mm smoothbore.

Copper driving bands are doable up to about 1,000 meters per second of muzzle velocity, at which point they become useless, because they are destroyed on firing.

Nickel driving bands survive but devour throat life.

A smoothbore would solve both problems but that would require ERCA to be a completely different gun I guess.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711578887749283929

View: https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1711578887749283929

 

[kqcke for you]

Now give that some Upgrade from KAWEST, 155mm L/52A1 and you got a Fine ass good modern(ish) howitzer

 

[MadRat]

Seems like you would want to start investing in a bit of stealth/survivability to these gold plated artillery solutions. Since you wouldn't want to stand out after firing off a barrage, what could be done?

 

[aonestudio]

 

[jsport]

dead tracks dead tracks dead tracks yeah, extremis maneuver (ie counter counterbattery) will require a new vehicle.

Live tracks refer to a vehicle equipped with return wheels, the rollers that support the upeer run of the track, like the M60, Abrams, Leopards, etc. Dead, or slack tracks, refer to AFVs that do not have this feature, wherein the track rests on top of the road wheels or sags under it's own tension.

 

[Josh_TN]

If the 59 cal barrel is too much, would it be realistic to just go down to 52 and call it a day? Or would that "super charge" MAC 7 equivalent still strip out copper drive bands? In any case, it seems like ERCA is a bridge too far in terms of adding range to conventional rounds, if the rounds then can't be conventional.

 

[TomS]

ERCA doesn't have to use the super charge all the time, though. At lower charges it shouldn't be significantly worse that standard guns, should it?

 

[Josh_TN]

ERCA doesn't have to use the super charge all the time, though. At lower charges it shouldn't be significantly worse that standard guns, should it?

If your ammunition still has to be different to get your full range I think it isn't worth the effort, personally. Since HIMARS can fill the long range band currently, I think the use case of ERCA gets pretty thin if it can't use off the shelf rounds. The Army is completely rethinking its long range artillery in light of the Ukraine war; we'll see what they come up with.