Self Propelled Artillery: M109 replacements

jsport said:
devarts said:
That little gun on top of the model is supposed to easily take out tanks?
Click to expand...
Research on RLGLP possible velocities would answer your question.
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • 8V71T Low Heat Rejection.pdf
    503.8 KB · Views: 27
Bruno Anthony said:
Links to an ad? Lots of integrity Breaking Defense.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jsport said:
Again according to the patents binary propellants now allow much safer propellant storage.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
www.armyrecognition.com

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

US Army Initiates Development of 155mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery System
www.armyrecognition.com 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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom