Gee, guess I should've waited a few more minutes... Figured you'd eventually get in on it, Arty.

Re Denels modular charges, highlights an important point, barrel wear is not a happy story with the longer barrels and higher charges.  Denel's problem is that they seem unable to make them meet the insensitive munitions criteria (which is why the Brits have not popped the 52 cal barrel into AS90 having selected the Denel chgs).

 

The French upgrade to AUF has auto chg loading using modular charges.  They've also managed to fit a primer magazine to a screw breach, its the primer mag that gives good rate of fire with 155mm.  The main advantage of auto loading is not rate of fire but the ability to reduce the turret crew and either give a smaller vehicle or more ammo storage space or some combination of the two.  Of course induction fze setting (also used with PzH2k) also reduces turret crew.

 

There are indications (originating from the bottom of the food chain not the mfr or mil hierarchy - soldiers of differnet nations talk to each other) that PzH2000 may have reliability problems with its auto ammo handling system. 

 

A Brit general said it all in the early years of WW2 'in peace the cry is for mobility, in war for weight of fire'.  Seems to keep getting forgotten.

   Nice points, Sabre.

Without trying to go off on a rant again (as in any debate, sometimes a loud and boisterous response is needed to finally get the prominent points across), I'll take it again a step further: on mobility:

As you mentioned (and others), seems the brass and politicians (who'll most likely never come under longer-ranged arty fire) who argue that cost savings begats weight savings begats better mobility are failing to realize that, if the C-130 requirement (weight restriction) is lifted, does it make much sense to build a 22-ish ton SPA system when a 30-35-ish ton one could have a bit better protection, a bit longer gun, and several more rounds? After all, if it's still to be airlifted, it will be going by C-5s & C-17s, who would be just as concerned with the vehicle's footprint (how much sq ft of cargo floor area it takes up) just as much as weight: what's the edge if, say, the C-5 could carry 4x30-tonners and you opted to buy the lesser 22-tonner, which it can't carry more than 4 of anyway?

Aircraft fuel saving? (We'd save more in the longer run by giving those aircraft the newest turbofans with improved sfc's over the models the airframe was designed around.)

 

And I agree with you on the automation issues: some automation, even if there are breakdown issues, is better than none. Otherwise, we would never have adopted internal combustions engines in the first place, which took considerable time and development to gain the reliabilities and efficiencies we have today. Besides, the more the engineers tinker with automation, the better they'll become at making more streamlined, less-breakdown-prone mechanical loaders. After all, it's not like you're going to get things right on the first (several) attempts, anyway. But surely we (US) have gained valuable experience in automated ammunition systems since the end of WW2: everything from naval guns to AFV autocannon, and certainly with the Crusader and this latest NLOS-C surrogate/demonstrator.

 

On the note of ammo stowage: some may suggest that the US would only ever follow an approach with SPA as we saw the Israelis do: so what if your guns only carry a few dozen rounds? You just group the battery fairly close together in an area you hope is secure enough, and just stack crated ammo pallets out in the open within close enough proximity to the guns that they have an almost never-ending supply (as long as your logistics keep trucking it in).

But then, hell, if you're going to use a centralized fire base type system, then why even build SP systems? You'd save even more money just by building all towed/helo-sling guns, if all you're ever going to do is use them almost predominantly from static positions (but here is where you pray the adversary you face never bought any of those longer-ranged guns with larger magazines and shoot-n-scoot capabilities. Otherwise, your stationary gun crews are in for some serious harassment they may be hard-pressed to answer.

 

So here's hoping then that our mighty USAF and USN will always, without question, be there with enough aircraft to always be able to make up for Army (and USMC) artillery deficiencies.

(I'm sure that somewhere in their ranks, there are proponents who'd foolishly suggest that, if the USAF and USN could get all the aircraft they wanted, then the Army and Corps wouldn't even need artillery. But then again, that works in reverse, too: if the ground forces had all the artillery systems they wanted,  highly-expensive aircraft might not have to do CAS as much. So I see why it's such a tough call deciding who's getting their wishlist cut: which is better for ground support? 10-12 SPAs at $8 million a piece, or one F/A-whatever at $80-100 million a piece? It gets even tougher if you try figuring in all the life cycle logistical costs that will trail alongside each system.)

Doggtag & Sabre

 

You guys pretty well summed up my entire thoughts on the subject.  It just frustrates me to know what we could be developing and fielding but for some reason are not bothering!!!!

 

I also have heard talk of PzH 2000 maintenance/reliability issues, however everyone I know here in the US who has had contact with the system during its testing at the US ranges thinks its an awesome piece of kit. I personally would rate it as the foremost SP artillery system in service at the minute, and Idont see anything in the works hat will surpass it for quite some time. 

 

If the Brit MoD ever decide to go with the 52 cal tube in the AS90, I think it could be competitive ( its considerable lighter), however I dont see that happening at teh minute, as Neutraliser pointed out the inability of Denel to get their charges to meet the insensiteve munitions regulations means this program is for all intentional purposes "Dead"  Even though the charge is by far the best "performance wise" modular charge out there. 

On past German form I'd guess that any PzH2000 made available to the US has a team of the mfrs best techs available at the drop of a spanner and probably checking everything at the end of each day! 

 

AS90 Braveheart is available if anyone wants to buy.  Of course they'd have two choices, take the Denel modular charges as they are, or use the German, US or French modular charges, and I think the Germans are claiming theirs meet the insensitive ammo standard, with the price of barrels being a lot higher because they have to be chrome plated and even then they have far less life than using the Denel charges.   Of course this only matters if you actually think you might need to use your guns to fight, for training which can always be done with low charges, it doesn't matter.

 

The Dutch taking PzH2000 to Afghanistan rather makes the point about strategic mobility.  I's not a problem if you have time.  Of course shiping also has alne lenght limits, and this tends to favour SPs over towed guns.

I wouldn't take the Israeli arty as being an example of anything much.  All the photos I say showed they were still using optical sights with all the limitations that imposes (although PADS and several directors/aiming circles can give a bit of deployment freedom).

 

The Dutch ammo arangement is interesting, I think that arrangement is the same as the Germans use (a photo from years back sticks in my mind).  However, I don't think it's too smart either because the shells don't seem to be on any internal pallet, although it looks as if the carts might be.  I still think the Brits did the sensible thing when the introduced FH70 in the mid 70s, and adopted 155mm Unit Load Containers (ULC).  These carry 17 rounds (fuzed shells in paperboard containes like those for 105mm rounds) and carts in plastic contrs like those used for 81mm mortar ammo.  ULCs weigh about 1.2 tonnes full but they then have all-terrain fork lift trucks in the bty.  When DROPS was introduce each flatrack carried 10 ULCs, you can re-arrange the mix of ULCs on each flatrack as needed, either in the bty or in the regt ammo point.  This means you can operate a 'tight' or dispersed gun posns (or bty manouvre area) and move flatracks or ULCs around as needed, typically HE only flatracks and less used ammo types in their own ULCs but in mixed loads on flatracks.  I think they also use some ULCs that are purely chrg super.