Not surprised that they want to retain them, while a direct comparison the DPG will win hands down ability to more easily deploy and shift them via multiple means makes the M777 a valuable back up even if in peacetime they are just parked with the reserves, don't imagine upkeep costs would be high for them so small price to pay for ability to cover all scenarios.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Makes zero sense to keep them other than # of barrels; we can't get enough SPH in service at once. Note they aren't easier to deploy, or to sustain. And they are obsolete and a really poor substitute.
Unfortunately that's the way that the money and time fell.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I assume the cost of trying to mount M777 onto a truck bed isn’t worth the effort as opposed to just buying a wheeled SPH?
Nope. Even if you went to the trouble and expense of engineering it, the gun would be layed and fired the same way it is on the ground. It’s chief advantage over other guns was it’s relative lightweight whilst still being a NATO standard, 39Cal, 155mm gun. Mounting it on a truck however would eliminate that advantage yet it would not enjoy the capability advantages heavier guns do.
Plus given the way it fires, crews would horribly exposed to any form of incoming fires…
Any purpose designed wheeled gun should do a lot better than that.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
The AM General Brutus Mobile Howitzer System uses the cannon and breach of the M777 and mated it on the back of an FMTV 5t truck with a soft-recoil system. My math shows you lose CH-47 air mobility though. Developed in search of a more mobile 155 system to better match US Army Stryker unit mobility.
Another attempt to gain more mobility was BAE's M777 Portee as part of the British Army Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System - Gun (LIMAWS (G)). It couldn't actually be fire from the back of the truck (Supacat HMT 8x6 derived) but was mechanically partially offloaded directly behind the transport. But while mounted was capable of C-130 transport, and reportedly liftable by CH-47 (likely with very little fuel on either and no one having eaten recently /s/). Could also be configured in standard tractor/gun mode allowing the truck to carry more ammunition.
So the SPH can be transported by a CH47? At 47 tons the K9 can only be transported one at a time by air and only by the C-17, while M777 has many other methods.
Mobility on the ground I'm sure the K9 would be bloody awesome in most scenarios but outside of that it will be multiple times harder and longer to deploy so trying to make out M777 isn't easier to deploy doesn't cut the mustard.
If our forces hypothetically required such artillery support on an emergency situation are you going to load it up on a ship and tell those in field your looking at two weeks wait time if lucky... Or use our entire C-17 fleet to get just a mix of 8 K-9/AR-10's if a suitable landing site available.
If you are going up against light forces who can’t shoot back, a towable 120 mm mortar would be much better. An M777 is not easy to move once it is on the ground. You also tie up a large proportion of our CH-47F fleet trying to move a battery and its ammunition by air. If it’s a peer opponent that can shoot back, that battery is dead as soon as it starts firing.
Takao
The Bunker Group
No it can't, but to move that M777 by air you need a CH-47. Two actually, for one gun - at a pinch three for two guns. Those CH-47 need significant support, especially fuel. There is no mission in our region that uses air-mobile M777 that can't be met by SPH, mainly due to the latter's greater range. So two SPH + one K10 (that gives ~4 - 10x the weight of fire depending on terrain) v two M777 and three CH-47. Which is more deployable?
Assuming the shells supply line remains the same, a SP Tp has 4x SPH and 2x K10. A M777 Tp has 4x PMV, 4x HX77 and 4x M777. So when it comes to fitting them on a LHD, 6 vehicles (smaller than a HX777...) are easier to fit than 12. In fact, with clever parking, I can fit a Bty of SPH in the same space as a Tp of M777 - assuming I take the K10 (which makes the SPH immensely more useful than the M777). And when you do the maths, the fuel requirement is about 80%. So which one is more deployable?
On top of all that, remember that the M777 rate of fire is woeful. At high elevation (which is the only time you'd use a CH-47), it's nearly 2 round / min. In a hypothetical engagement in PNG-type terrain, I need a Regt of M777 to match a single Tp of K9. So what is easier to deploy, a Regt of M777 or a Tp of K9/K10?
Finally, how do you think the force is getting there and being sustained? It's mostly coming by ship. So yes, you can C-17 individual platforms in, but when you take into account the fuel and ammo usage (and that's just for the guns, not for the manoeuvre element), you are taking ships. When renders all the airmobile stuff irrelevant. And on that topic, you can fit 1x M777 on the C-17 (because it needs the PMV and HX77); a K9 is at least one, perhaps two. Which, if we duck back to the first example, you need 4x C-17 for an airmobile Tp of M777 or 2x C-17 for a Tp of K9/K10. So which is more mobile?
So yes, an individual M777 is smaller than an individual K9. But it can't do anything. It needs all this other support that you have to factor in.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Makes me wonder - if your K9 can reach out and precisely touch things 70 or even 100km away (eventually), are the aimpoints it can't reach even serviceable with the M777? Particularly in the West Pacific where you're likely to be operating on islands? Just a thought.
So, too heavy for practical heliborne operations (in which case 120mm mortars or NLOS missiles on a trailer or light vehicle makes more sense) and if you can get a landing craft or C-17 in then you might as well send a K9.
Looks like the only real niche the M777 has left is where you're limited to C-27 or C-130 support... And in our region that'd leave, what, the highlands of New Guinea or Borneo?
Takao
The Bunker Group
Not even then - it just can't shoot enough.
But, putting that aside, there have been a number of DST and overseas study about the optimal mix of artillery for the Australian Defence Force. Most have been based across a range of terrains and missions, all from the Indo-Pacific. While details are obviously classified, any combination with a towed 155mm piece ends up on the bottom. The most optimal combination (81mm towed, SP 120mm mortar, SP 155mm gun) is able to do more by far, and that's before the logistics kicks in.
The only niche that the M777 has is holding down the MRH-90s at the 30 fathom line.
I have always said, and I stand by it, that at least 1 regt of Hammel 105mm needs to be maintained, even at ARES level.
In mountain terrain, like PNG, Timor type country, in the wet season, SPG and towed 155s are going to be a nightmare. The 105s are easily deployable by Chinook and resup of ammo much easier. 105mm might not be anywhere near as effective as 155, but it's a hell of a lot better than no indirect fire support bar 81mm mortar.
In mountain terrain, like PNG, Timor type country, in the wet season, SPG and towed 155s are going to be a nightmare. The 105s are easily deployable by Chinook and resup of ammo much easier. 105mm might not be anywhere near as effective as 155, but it's a hell of a lot better than no indirect fire support bar 81mm mortar.
I actually think it's horses for courses and just because something is bigger it doesn't necessarily always make it better. I still think that there's a place for the 105mm on the battlefield and you don't always need a ginormous bang. Sometimes a big bag will do the job perfectly. Like the Bishop said to the actress, "it's not how big it is that matters, but how you use it."
I think we could start a new thread.
Quote of the week
I naively like the M777 but this quote is a corker
"The only niche that the M777 has is holding down the MRH-90s at the 30 fathom line."
Well done Takao
Cheers Stampede
To complement larger calibre guns or for a niche role? A reason some armies still retain them is because they can be underslung by medium lift helicopters but the issue of also air lifting crew, ammo and other things comes into play.
The other reason I see is because you have not got anything else, like NZ.
im actually kinda happy they retain 105s.The other reason I see is because you have not got anything else, like NZ.
I think NZ could provide a niche capability in this regard, and of course they have a history of contributing excellent arty Support.
Out of interest did we sell the old Hammels & M198's or are they in long term storage? Cheers
BTHe L118s/119s were sold (article here, sorry but the guts of it are behind a Murdoch paywall). The M198s were up for disposal but unsure if they ended up scrapped or sold.