NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Artillery Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

NLOS-C Being Put Down

August 21, 2009: The U.S. Army appears to have lost its second replacement vehicle for the half-century old M-109 self-propelled 155mm howitzer. The new XM1203 NLOS-C self-propelled 155mm howitzer has been, well, if not cancelled, then suspended.

The NLOS-C was to have been the first of the eight MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle) systems to enter service as part of the FCS (Future Combat System) program. But the FCS lost its focus, budget discipline and Congressional support. It was recently cancelled.

Six years ago, the prototype NLOS-C was cobbled together in six months, after the new (and very high tech and high priced) Crusader SP artillery system was cancelled. The Crusader got the chop. This 45 ton vehicle used an autoloader and an engine similar to the one used in the M-1 tank. It was deemed too heavy and too expensive, and in 2002 it was cancelled. The NLOS-C used the Crusader autoloader and some of its electronic components.

The current self-propelled system, the M-109, is a fifty year old design. Although the M-109 has been frequently updated, the NLOS-C incorporates many new technologies. This includes an auto-loader (from the Crusader) and a more modern 155mm gun and an APC chassis with a hybrid-electric engine (to reduce fuel consumption.) This all weighs 23 tons, about the same as the M-109. But the NLOS only has a two man crew, compared to five in the M-109.

 The final version of the NLOS-C was to be heavier (about 27 tons), because more defensive systems were added, to reflect experience in Iraq. The NLOC-C also got a lot of new electronics. The vehicle carries 24 rounds of 155mm ammo. One new item, the hybrid-electric power pack, is considered too expensive, and an untried (in combat) element. Congress originally demanded that NLOS-C be in service by 2008, but development needed a few more years. Field testing (operating as one would in combat), began last year with the six prototypes.

One problem the brass were concerned about was the ability of the two man crew to hold up during 24/7 operations. The M-109, with a five man crew, has enough people to take care of maintenance, standing guard and, basically, always having one or two people rested and alert. Not so easy when you only have two guys. One solution was to have two or more crews per vehicle, as combat aircraft (and some warships) have done for years. The off-duty crews would be back with the support troops. The army also wants to test various bits of new equipment on the NLOS-C.

One of the things that probably killed the NLOS-C was the new GPS guided Excalibur shell. The Excalibur shell entered service last year, and changed everything. Excalibur appears to work in combat, and this is radically changing the way artillery operates. Excalibur means 80-90 percent less ammo has to be fired, meaning less wear and tear on SP artillery like NLOS-C (and less time needed for maintenance), and less time replenishing ammo supplies, and more time being ready for action.

In the current war on terror, even the M-109 has not been used much. The lighter, towed, M777 has proved more useful, especially when using the Excalibur shell. Currently, the army plans to keep M109s around until 2050, just in case. You never know, and it pays to be careful. Meanwhile, the army is planning to make a third attempt at a M-109 replacement. This will also borrow from Crusader and NLOS-C, and might even succeed. Eventually.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ATTRITION: Reviving A Dying Breed


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
flyingarty    Nlos-C   8/21/2009 5:32:19 AM
Just buy the Panzerhaubitze 2000 from the Germans. It is an excellent state of the art artillery piece and we would save billions in development costs. Yes the thing is heavy, but the Army in asking for everything keeps getting nothing!
 
The troops need a new SPA machine and this one is available, NOW!
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    We Canceled   8/21/2009 8:38:42 AM
Crusader because it was too heavy...ditto Pzh2000.
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       8/21/2009 9:18:34 AM
See the comments in the June 26, 2009 article "FCS Died For Our Sins".
 
Quote    Reply

Headlock       8/21/2009 11:21:13 AM

See the comments in the June 26, 2009 article "FCS Died For Our Sins".

yup, been down this well-trodden road already.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    I know that   8/21/2009 11:22:24 AM

Crusader because it was too heavy...ditto Pzh2000.


You miss my point completely. The Army neeeds to get off the light weight thing altogether.If you need a lightweight artillery piece air lifted in-then you want a freaking M777. You are going to have to float in most SPA, just like the M-1. The M-109 itself weights in at a a healthy 27.5 tons, less than the Panzer but not nearly as effective either. Frankly if you want instant lightweight self propelled arty you probably want the HIMARS anyway, so where's the big freaking monkey on the weight thing?
 
I know this is politicially unpalitable, but I want the troops to haave the best quality equipment for the dollar, and I want them to have it now! Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Roberts       8/21/2009 11:27:09 AM
Why not just continue to update the M109?  I read a while back I believe, that one of the big issues the U.S. Army has with the M109 was its supposed inability speed wise to keep up with our other armored platforms, the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley.  Why not just "tweak" the existing platform to get a bit more speed and install a 52 caliber cannon, which seems to be the current rage these days.  I realize that these changes would present certain engineering obstacles but I'm sure they could be overcome and perhaps a lower cost than an entirely new weapon system.
 
Quote    Reply

dba       8/21/2009 1:29:40 PM

Just buy the Panzerhaubitze 2000 from the Germans. It is an excellent state of the art artillery piece and we would save billions in development costs. Yes the thing is heavy, but the Army in asking for everything keeps getting nothing!

 

The troops need a new SPA machine and this one is available, NOW!

 

Flyingarty



 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No I got your point...   8/21/2009 1:41:17 PM
we canceled Crusader because it weighed too much and didn't meet it's own design spec's...and the same weight problem occurs with Pzh2000.  So no Crusader OR Pzh2000....
 
And do we need a "new" SPH?  Why? Because M-109 is old...as in it's breaking a lot?  Because if they're still running, then mayhap upgrades are what we need...new engine, new FCS, new this, new that....and leave the barrel issue in abeyance.  Do we REALLY need a 52 caliber barrel?  Why for range?  Isn't that what GMLRS gives us or CAS or BAI?
 
Somewhere they're is the UNSPOKEN assumption we MUST get a new SPH?  Please show me why, if the current fleet is not too expensive to maintain, is accurate (FCS and Excalibur), and the total fire support SYSTEM (tube, rocket, Missile, and A/c) have the lethality and range necessary to generate victory on the battlefield.  Yes Pzh2000 is really neat, so are Ferrari's, but I don't need a Ferrari either.
 
Quote    Reply

paperpusher    It is not the cost   8/21/2009 5:26:55 PM
With this present administrations needs for money for non-defense programs. The canceling of the F-22 and now the NLOS-C is just the beginning of big ticket programs to be cut. It's not the cost- it's the savings
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       8/21/2009 7:56:33 PM

With this present administrations needs for money for non-defense programs. The canceling of the F-22 and now the NLOS-C is just the beginning of big ticket programs to be cut. It's not the cost- it's the savings

Yeah, and this regrime also eliminating the manned space program too!. All to paid for more socialism. Everyday, we are become a dying civilation like Europe. I am hoping that one day there will be a new administration and we will restore this country again. Also, I am starting to think that the heavier SP gun makes over sense, since the vehicle mainly is to support heavy armor and mech divisions anyway, and they are not air-tranportable, so the SP gun possibly does not need to be either. However, since SP artillery is a support weapon which operates well behind the front lines, I do not see why it needs heavy tank-like armor as some have argued. Not needing heavy armor will save alot of weight. How about using the M-1 chassic with a long calbre 155 mm barrel in a light armored turret. Then you have the commonity needed for lower cost and the speed needed to keep up with the armor units. If you want a light SP gun, just put a 155 mm on a truck. That is what the French and Swedes did.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Why Replace the M109   8/21/2009 10:57:10 PM
There are many reasons why the M109 needs to be replaced of which some are more compelling than others.
 
A replacement would cost less to maintain and require less man hours.  The cost to keep upgrading the M109's is significant and they do require upgrades.  It's a 1955 design a replacement would also have significant mobility upgrades.  In my view both of these are nice but not compelling.
 
A replacement would offer significantly better protection.  This is not a compelling reason to replace the M109 for our current COIN conflicts.  As far as I am aware we are not losing many M109s to mines, IED's, enemy fire, etc.  It could be a significant advantage in a conflict with an army that actually fights- unlike the Iraqi army we fought twice.  The armor on a self propelled howitzer is mainly there to deal with enemy counter battery fire.  A replacement would be much better protected.  It's a reasonable request for a better protected SPH but again not a compelling reason.
 
The main issue vis a vis the M109 is the range of the howitzer.  If the M109 can take a 52 cal then we can make a reasonable choice between how much an upgrade would cost to purchase and operate and how it compares to a new build.  The M109A6 has a range of 22 km vs 30km for a 52 cal 155mm.  In terms of area coverage the difference is more than double 1,382 sq km vs 2,827.  So one needs around twice as many M109s to provide all around support over a large area.  Providing long range artillery support from firebases is extremely common in COIN.  If one fights a real enemy than them having a 25+% range advantage can mean you take counter battery fire before you even enter range of the enemy.
 
Having to operate within the other sides engagement envelope can be managed but it's certainly an advantage one can exploit if one can engage the other guy outside his window.  The US Army would be better served by a longer ranged SPH.  Whether that is a new vehicle or an upgraded M109 others can do cost effectiveness studies.  That said I would note two points.  Firstly, military sales provide advantages in interoperability, influence, and help our economy.  Not having a new design on the market to concedes much of the market to others.
 
Most importantly is whether the M109 replacement also provides other cost saving synergies.  Consider if a new MBT, IFV, SPH, CEV, and other heavy armored vehicles shared a common chassis, engine, and other systems.  The cost savings here would be greater than simply purchasing a stand alone replacement.  
 
Frankly the main consideration for artillery systems firing precision munitions is going to be range.  It's worth considering if much of the rest of the world is moving to 52 cal 155mm that we merely match that or go to a larger calibre or even large round.  The M107 and it's 34 km standard range would serve us much better in Afghanistan and Iraq than the M109s 22 km.  What a new 175mm could do is worth investigating.  What really is not a matter of debate is the utility of longer ranged artillery and the desireability to replace the the 22 km howitzer on the 109 with either a new gun or a new vehicle.
 
South Korea's K9 155mm 52 cal has a BB+RAP round that goes to 56 km and the G6 has fired out to 73 km.  The 155mm 62 cal for the USN was fired to 109km in 2005.  The 155mm Long Tom of 1938 had a 45 cal gun that fired to 23 km and 71 years later the US Army seems content with the 22 km of it's M109s.  We need to replace the M109 ( or at least the gun) because at some point every single potential foe will have significantly longer ranged artillery and having such short range howitzers means we need many more batteries to provide coverage over a given area.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    wee-trodden, defintely. But apparently forgotten, too.   8/22/2009 7:57:39 AM
(from the main aricle...)
"...The NLO[S]-C also got a lot of new electronics. The vehicle carries 24 rounds of 155mm ammo...."
 "One of the things that probably killed the NLOS-C was the new GPS guided Excalibur shell. The Excalibur shell entered service last year, and changed everything. Excalibur appears to work in combat, and this is radically changing the way artillery operates. Excalibur means 80-90 percent less ammo has to be fired, meaning less wear and tear on SP artillery like NLOS-C (and less time needed for maintenance), and less time replenishing ammo supplies, and more time being ready for action. "
 
My input:
No, Excalibur never killed the NLOS-C. In all actuality, it was because of things like the Excalibur PGM, and the developmental PGK precision guidance kits, which allowed the NLOS-C concept to be kept down in weight: the days of saturating a target area with massed area-effect fires was going away, the US Army believed, and having a gun system that fired every round a precision round to hit point targets rather than spread unguided destruction all over areas we nowadays don't want to risk damaging (gotta win the hearts and minds of the local populace: you can't do that by saturating everything they've ever knowbn with artillery rain), the U Army decided that precision rounds negated the need to carry large payloads of unguided shells and charges, like the 60 rounds seen in large systems like the Crusader and PzH2000.
The need to no longer carry as many rounds, that meant we didn't need to protect as large an ammo magazine/bustle ,loaded with shells and charges, thus reducing weight down to the under-30-tons that we had in the NLOS-C (and why, even with a "short" 39-cal M777 howitzer in the prototype, it looked like the vehicle was fitted with a gun too big for its chassis...the production NLOS-C was originally envisioned to use a lightweight 38-cal tube, but certainly on grounds of cost reduction and commonality, using the M777 would've worked, just minus a higher sustained rate of fire from the autoloader).
 
(Bob Roberts 8/21/2009 11:27:09 AM)
 "Why not just continue to update the M109? I read a while back I believe, that one of the big issues the U.S. Army has with the M109 was its supposed inability speed wise to keep up with our other armored platforms, the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley. Why not just "tweak" the existing platform to get a bit more speed and install a 52 caliber cannon, which seems to be the current rage these days. I realize that these changes would present certain engineering obstacles but I'm sure they could be overcome and perhaps a lower cost than an entirely new weapon system. "
 
My input:
Any self-propelled artillery doesn't really need to keep up with the armored blitz spearhea advance of MBTs and various other infantry AFVs, unless you can develop an SP artillery platform that can fire on the move just like them.
Typically, artillery has always been a stationary weapon to allow maximum precision to be achieved with unguided ammunition.
Making them mobile just allows them to advance further and faster (but do they really need to race cross country at 75km/hr with the MBTs of the main assaulting element, or better use their longer-range guns to compensate instead? Not every future war will allow the US Army the open-desert high-speed dashes made so infamous during Desert Storm),
and being able to shoot-and-scoot to avoid counterbattery fire once/if their firing position was detected in the first place is always a good thing (plus putting it in an armored vehicle protects the crew from both both hostile fire and the elements (very important for hostile fire, since future wars may longer be defined by rear areas and forward areas, and an artillery section could come under fire from any direction at any time).
 
(JFKY No I got your point... 8/21/2009 1:41:17 PM)
"we canceled Crusader because it weighed too much and didn't meet it's own design spec's...and the same weight problem occurs with Pzh2000. So no Crusader OR Pzh2000....

And do we need a "new" SPH? Why? Because M-109 is old...as in it's breaking a lot? Because if they're still running, then mayhap upgrades are what we need...new engine, new FCS, new this, new that....and leave the barrel issue in abeyance. Do we REALLY need a 52 caliber barrel? Why for range? Isn't that what GMLRS gives us or CAS or BAI?

Somewhere they're is the UNSPOKEN assumption we MUST get a new SPH? Please show me why, if the current fleet is not too expensive to maintain, is accurate (FCS and Excalibur), and the total fire support SYSTEM (tube, rocket, Missile, and A/c) have the lethality and range necessary to generate victory on the battlefield. Yes Pzh2000 is really neat, so are Ferrari's, but I don't need a Ferrari either."
 
My input:
It wasn't so unspoken after all, that's why the US Army even decided on the FCS NLOS-C to be that new SPH, even if the M109 still did the job (and in terms of firepower, was just as capable as achieving the same range and precision as the new NLOS-C, but carrying a few more rounds, even!).
They figured, this new generation of lighter more mobile, more-quickly-deployed brigade of combat vehicles might as well have self-propelled artillery at its disposal on a common chassis in addition to all the other variants. Eases the logistics, they thought.
(But at over $20M for a production-ready vehicle, would've still be too cost-prohibitive to equip all the brigades the Army desired to do so!)
 
(SAE 8/21/2009 7:56:33 PM)
"With this present administrations needs for money for non-defense programs. The canceling of the F-22 and now the NLOS-C is just the beginning of big ticket programs to be cut. It's not the cost- it's the savings
Yeah, and this regrime also eliminating the manned space program too!. All to paid for more socialism. Everyday, we are become a dying civilation like Europe. I am hoping that one day there will be a new administration and we will restore this country again. Also, I am starting to think that the heavier SP gun makes over sense, since the vehicle mainly is to support heavy armor and mech divisions anyway, and they are not air-tranportable, so the SP gun possibly does not need to be either. However, since SP artillery is a support weapon which operates well behind the front lines, I do not see why it needs heavy tank-like armor as some have argued. Not needing heavy armor will save alot of weight. How about using the M-1 chassic with a long calbre 155 mm barrel in a light armored turret. Then you have the commonity needed for lower cost and the speed needed to keep up with the armor units. If you want a light SP gun, just put a 155 mm on a truck. That is what the French and Swedes did."
 
My input:
Myself and a few others (who've far more personal experience with artillery, and with my utmost respect to them) have already voiced our observation that open-platform wheeled chassis may not be the most ideal design for artillery.
In Caesar's case (or an FMTV-derivative M777 much like HIMARS), there's no protection from the elements and no protection from even small arms fire. Probably the two biggest shortcomings.
In temperate conditions (mild weather, no rain or blowing sand), they're a nice way to go.
But throw in open sun with continuous >120 degree heat, or extreme winter conditions,
and your artillery team's capability drops from its optimum level.
Artillery isn't just supposed to be a fair-weather weapon.
Sweden's Archer isn't a bad design, but again is hampered by low number of rounds carried (will require resupply more often). Otherwise, that's probably the best wheeled design currently out there (honorable mention to the South African Rhino 6x6 155/52 system).
 
US would never go that route, though, my supposition principally on the points of enemy fire and the elements.
With the failure of the NLOS-C program to reach production, the best two immediate courses for the US Army to consider would be the M109 PIM ,(a considerably-enhanced Paladin with a 43-round ammo capacity),
or the Artillery Gun Module (a German adaptation of the PzH2000's 155/52 gun in an automated turret on the MLRS chassis....there's a newer version of this called DONAR, built on an ASCOD AFV chassis).
Benefit being, both platforms integrate automotive components from the M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicle family (and the M270 MLRS, which shares common automotive bits with the BFV), easing commonality versus the standard M109 whose current parts are considerably chassis-specific to it.
Seeing as the US still has no firm belief in the longer ranges offered by the 155/52 artillery tube, I could almost see the US doing an M777-equipped variant of the AGM system using the MLRS chassis.
But again though, if the guided MLRS rockets are so superior, why do we even need a self-propelled 155mm artillery system to begin with?
 
(LB Why Replace the M109 8/21/2009 10:57:10 PM )
"There are many reasons why the M109 needs to be replaced of which some are more compelling than others. "
 
(a lot of great stuff there, buddy, but to avoid writing another one of my rantful books...)
My input:
Costwise, IIRC I saw somewhere that it took about $17M to build the M109PIM, and I'd hope that production would get that price down by a few million at least once the kinks of manufacture were streamlined.
The various FCS Manned Ground Vehicles, to include the NLOS-C, IIRC was at one point speculated to produce at in the neighborhood of $25M per vehicle, or roughly $1M/ton, far too expensive for the US Army to procure for several brigades (at the beginning, a Crusader wasn't even supposed to tip the scales at $20M, and to think people balked at that idea!).
 
As per combat losses of the M109s (losses to actual combat-related being minimal, rather than to maintenance issues),
I'm pretty sure that's because of the nature of today's conflicts: we're pretty much stationary with deployment of artillery, operating from within the confines of relatively secure fire bases and FOBs,
to the point that, as far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, it would be easy to let the towed M198s and M777s howitzers and the MLRS and HIMARS conduct all the fire missions while the M109 fleet is recalled to the US to undergo PIM conversion (IF we had the money and desire, being the key).
This is because we currently have no perceived need to race across Iraq or A-stan at breakneck blitz warfare speeds like in Desert Storm or the opening days of OIF, so the mobility of artillery (read as: support fires for troops who need it) 
currently is adequately satisfied by towed guns (which can be flown in also), rocket systems, and even aircraft,
so now would be a prime time to do it (again: but only if the US Army had the desire and found the money to do it).
 
With response to the actual 155mm gun itself, again the the US Army and USMC both seem content with the lighter, shorter-ranged 39-cal tubes versus nations who've gone to the range-enhancing 45-cal tubes (average 10km over 39-cal) and 52-cal tubes (average 20km over 39-cal), both of which can reach ranges, with improved shells, that seem absolutely phenomenal when compared to standard US fare (most notable being the Denel VLAP ammunition reaching into the 70km neighborhood). Again though, range means nothing without accuracy once you get there, so if these coming PGMs and guidance fuzes can't take the higher firing impulses of these longer-tubed guns, the US might as well abandon the notion of even needing a self-propelled 155mm system and just stick with lightweight towed guns and MLRS systems (including HIMARS).
 
ArtyEngineer, where art though now?
 
He and I have often discussed gun tube length, in that there's little reason that the M777's titanium (alloy?) construction could not be used to create a longer tube with superior range, yet retain a lighter weight than current steel alloy barrels.
In effect, this could've given the US a towed gun within the weights of the heavier M198 (heavier than an M777) yet have superior range over any other 39-cal tube-based system, putting it more on par with the range kings of today that can hit out beyond 40-50km.
The best supportive argument for it is that the tube then allows a greater area that a given gun can cover, as compared to needing more guns to cover an equivalent ground footprint with which it can fire into.
Last time I checked (late 2008), an Excalibur guided shell cost upwards of $120K. I don't know what a guided MLRS rocket costs, but if those PGK precision guidance fuzes do eventually make production, work as avertised, and do manage to come in even at a production price of a generous $25K (they were hoping for under $15K), that's still going to be more favorable then to use tube artillery for targets out to the 50km (or better) range.
 
All in all, very nice posts, you guys.
Unfortunately, under the current US administration, we are entering a day and age where the military will be sacrificed one chunk at a time to satisfy a populace that is too often all too slothful to see what is in its own best interests, which includes a strong and capable military, not just an "adequate enough" one.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

greyghost       8/22/2009 10:51:53 AM
  Most of the other countries of the world have longer range artillery because they have to. I think we are slow to bring in a new SPG because of our air power. I personally like the Panzerhaubitze 2000 and the G6. The new long range guns would go very well with the new GPS guided  shells. I still like the Idea of being able to bring a good old fashion artillery barrage when the electronics stop working. (UAV's and GPS guided munitions make me nervous. They seem vulnerable to electronic jamming.) 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    SP 155/52   8/23/2009 12:19:26 AM
There are not many non 155/52 SP howitzers in production.  Sweden, Norway, and France have ordered a truck mounted system (Archer and Caesar for France).  The UK was going to upgrade it's AS-90's to 52 cal, Poland is using the AS-90 turret with 52 cal on it's new SPH which India is very interested in as it's mounted on a T-72 chassis.  At least four nations operate the G6.  South Korea has the K9 which is built under license in Turkey as the T-155- South Korea has a BB + RAP round tested to 56 km.  At least 4 nations operate the PzH2000.  Japan's Type 99 is also 52 cal.  The only SPH I am aware of in current production with an L39 is a Singapore model.
 
There are multiple rounds in service or under test that go out to 60 km from a 155/52 including Excalibur.  The USN fired a guided (GPS+INS) 155/62 to 100+ km in 2005.  Nations around the world are going to 155/52 not because they have to but rather because longer ranged artillery has multiple concrete advantages.

A 155/52 would permit about half the number of artillery batteries to cover the same area compared to an L39.  That itself is significant in a COIN operation when you have to protect and resupply fire bases.  
 
Sure the US Army does not have a current compelling reasont to buy new artillery.  That's because the current wars they have are both COIN.  Before Iraq the US Army didn't have thousands of armored and uparmored trucks either.  It's understandable to deal with current operations but history proves the next war is rarely like the last one and preparing for the last war always shows myriad lack of preparation.  There is very little more basic in ground combat than artillery.  Why anyone is content with the US being outranged by so many is a mystery to me.  The range of enemy artillery systems has mattered post WWII for the US and will matter again.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       8/23/2009 1:37:55 AM

C. 1990 when the Brits were looking for a new 155mm SP their Treasury forced them to consider more M109 (at that time about half their M109 fleet was about 25 yrs old and the other half less than 10). The army produced a convincing case against M109 hence AS90. IIRC one of the points against M109 was that they were already finding turret ring cracking.  A bit odd given that they didn?t fire very much at high charges.

AS90 gives them 48 rds onboard with 30 shells in the semi-auto magazine, total cbt wt 48 tons or so. Also 3 rds in < 10 secs and in trials it achieved 10 rds in a min, but this is unsustainable due to barrel heating and the normally quoted intense rate is 6 8 for 3 mins even so they have to keep an eye on thermal management. A 52 cal barrel was developed and successfully trialled, hasn?t been adopted because their preferred very low wear S African bi-modular charges can?t meet the insensitive ammo regulations. Like PzH2000 AS90 doesn?t need spades or stabilisers for any charge (unlike the various wheeled SPs), also like PzH it has an aux gene to keep the batteries charged instead of running the main engine when stationary. In Iraq in 2003 AS90 had the highest availability rating of any AFV used by Brits.

Turret crew is 4, and normally 2 outside handling ammo, bear in mind that UK 155mm ammo in war stocks comes fuzed, shells in tubes like 105mm, carts in plastic tubes like 81mm mortar bombs. 

Interestingly in 1980 they conducted an ?8 day loading trial? with M109, with the then standard detachment of 8 men, they didn?t represent a really high rate of fire but even so the load of frequent movement, ammo handling, sentries, NBC, etc meant that after 2 days the guys were knackered and barely keeping it together (the psychologists observing the trial called it something else). As a result they increased the full mobilisation detachment size to 12.

My understanding is that precision and dumb munitions are expected to coexist in service for the foreseeable future, although course correcting fuzes will doubtless have some effect depending on how they are used (eg over particular ranges, danger close or everything?). There?s also the matter of the variety of ammo and what this means for the onboard ammo load.

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy