M777

[geebee]

Utilizing the new M777 howitzer

The new lightweight M777 howitzer seems to be the state of the art, but is not being produced fast enough to replace existing equipment swiftly.

The barrage lying capabilities seem quite all inclusive, and I have only curselorly reviewed them.

I wonder if currently or in the future, unmanned aerial survelance planes could be used as forward observers for the M777. Targets acquired by the aerial survelance could be relayed back to the M777 crew using global positioning co-ordinates, and shell fall strikes or misses instantly relayed allowing firing to be adjusted to the target.

Other unmanned aerial survelance plane sensors using nightvision, infraray, and "other" could also be used to relay target information.

For all I know this may already be available.

I was surfing the net using google, and ran across the M777 website.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Utilizing the new M777 howitzer

The new lightweight M777 howitzer seems to be the state of the art, but is not being produced fast enough to replace existing equipment swiftly.

The barrage lying capabilities seem quite all inclusive, and I have only curselorly reviewed them.

I wonder if currently or in the future, unmanned aerial survelance planes could be used as forward observers for the M777. Targets acquired by the aerial survelance could be relayed back to the M777 crew using global positioning co-ordinates, and shell fall strikes or misses instantly relayed allowing firing to be adjusted to the target.

Other unmanned aerial survelance plane sensors using nightvision, infraray, and "other" could also be used to relay target information.

For all I know this may already be available.

I was surfing the net using google, and ran across the M777 website.

Back in the late 80's and early 90's the mighty USS Missouri used a UAV artillary spotter. Therefore in 2008 tactical UAV's can be and are most definatly used as artillary spotters.

 

[Pro'forma]

Utilizing the new M777 howitzer

The new lightweight M777 howitzer seems to be the state of the art, but is not being produced fast enough to replace existing equipment swiftly.

Do you consider light-weight is big step forward, manufacturing
or is it secondary to user ?

 

[Atilla [TR]]

This is Towed artillery right? I do not like towed artillery because have you seen the time it takes to set it up?

 

[Gollevainen]

I have and have actually set them up...

And what I've seen from M777 is that its setted up amaizingly fast compared to other towed guns exspecially as it has no power-assistant fitted.

What takes long with modern towed artillery setting up is the spading. You need to hammer the trailinglegs with large spades (depending the size of the gun, around 1-3 spades per trailing leg) into the ground. But in the advent of APU, some models, like the Singaporean ones can use its APU's reverse gear and "drive" the gun to the ground. Basicly this means that the trailing legs have a sharp heads pointing to the ground. When the trailing legs are opened and the gun reverses, the legs dig themselves to the ground and stabilizes the gun. By this the set up of the gun is theoretically as fast as normal SP gun system.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

How many of these are they planning to buy? Its supposed to replace the M198 right?

 

[eckherl]

Good advancements in light weight materials such as Titanium and Aluminum, same materials used on the new XM291 gun mount.

 

[croc]

problem with M777 is its long delivery time frame and logistic cost of maintaining the gun. we will need to rely on US companies to support the system as we don't currenly have the capability.

I can't see any one in the industry wanting to invest in the infrastructure to service for only 24~30 guns of this type.

 

[Chino]

STK has built a copy called the Pegasus.

 

[aaaditya]

STK has built a copy called the Pegasus.

i believe pegasus is nearly a ton heavier. how can that be if it was a copy of m777?i believe that the pegasus is a different system.

 

[Gollevainen]

Pegasus is a direct derivate of M777, the reason why its slightly heavier is becouse the Pegasus has a APU fitted.

This IMO makes the pegasus unique as there is no other light weight howitser of 155mm calibre with APU. It combinates the ability to be "hauled" via helicopter of M777 and superior land performances of the most modern towed howitsers with APU.

APU does not only gives this gun ability to move on itself, but power to the hydraulics which eases/fastens the deployment of the gun to firing mode and vice versa. APU also gives one cruisal benefit...power to the electrics which means that fully computerized fire control, navigation and positioning can be added making the gun even faster and more versitale.

 

[buglerbilly]

Pegasus is a direct derivate of M777, the reason why its slightly heavier is becouse the Pegasus has a APU fitted.

This IMO makes the pegasus unique as there is no other light weight howitser of 155mm calibre with APU. It combinates the ability to be "hauled" via helicopter of M777 and superior land performances of the most modern towed howitsers with APU.

APU does not only gives this gun ability to move on itself, but power to the hydraulics which eases/fastens the deployment of the gun to firing mode and vice versa. APU also gives one cruisal benefit...power to the electrics which means that fully computerized fire control, navigation and positioning can be added making the gun even faster and more versitale.

PEGASUS has nothing to do with M777, it's a plaigerised copy that is not as good. It doesn't set-up as quick as M777 and doesn't have various technology that M777 has. The APU is nice-to-have NOT need-to-have in this instance.

The electronic elements of M777 are also superior.

 

[kotay]

PEGASUS has nothing to do with M777, it's a plaigerised copy that is not as good. It doesn't set-up as quick as M777 and doesn't have various technology that M777 has. The APU is nice-to-have NOT need-to-have in this instance.

The electronic elements of M777 are also superior.

On the issue of plagiarism, it was mentioned by GF that the Pegasus prompted a flurry of "Please Explain" from BAE a while back. Given that there have been no lawsuits, I take it that the issue is settled? Or they may have settled out of court :shrug:

Re: Set-up times, tech & electronics ... on what basis do you make your claims?

I'm not trying to champion the Pegasus or deride the M777. Just that I know one of your claims to be patently false and am trying to establish some objectivity here.

 

[buglerbilly]

On the issue of plagiarism, it was mentioned by GF that the Pegasus prompted a flurry of "Please Explain" from BAE a while back. Given that there have been no lawsuits, I take it that the issue is settled? Or they may have settled out of court :shrug:

Re: Set-up times, tech & electronics ... on what basis do you make your claims?

I'm not trying to champion the Pegasus or deride the M777. Just that I know one of your claims to be patently false and am trying to establish some objectivity here.

IF you feel one of my "claims" is "patently false" then feel free to say so.

My opinion says its better same as yours may say its not........the decision from the Indian programme may prove which of us is right.

 

[kotay]

IF you feel one of my "claims" is "patently false" then feel free to say so.

Okay .... M777 has a setup time of 3 minutes, Pegasus has a setup time of 2.5 minutes. Both figures are from product litreature (not indicating that I treat glossy brochures as gospel truth). If you have any knowledge that this is not true, I'd be happy to hear them.

I wouldn't even take the above to indicate the Pegasus has a quicker setup time than the M777. It's close enough to make no difference.

The thread didn't start off as a pissing contest, let's not turn it into one.

My opinion says its better same as yours may say its not

Just to reiterate, I am not claiming one is better than the other.

Neither am I'm trying to prove you wrong or change your opinion. You are entitled to your own opinions. I am however interested on the basis of your opinions, especially if they relate to experience with or technical knowledge of the two. If, as you seem to be implying, that it's just a personal, unsubstantiated opinion, then that's fine too.

........the decision from the Indian programme may prove which of us is right.

Interesting choice of benchmark. So DoD procurements always choose the best platforms? No consideration for operational requirements, equipment commonality, budget or even politics?

 

[Gollevainen]

I also find buglerbilly's claims outrageous. Exspecially as he doesent provide any proof for them.

From my part I cannot give anything solid, only my own assumptions over the genral concept of these guns.

My claim that Pegasus is superior to M777 is based the fact that it indeed has a APU. I've worked both non-APU fitted and APU fitted artillerypieces so I do know how huge the difference is. Claiming that APU doesen't give you any benefits is just silly.

Depating over the deployement time when the marginal is 30 sec is pointless...in practice its all down to the guncrew. Yet the overall flexibility provided by APU gives you dimensions that cannot be achived with plain M777 as well as the great relief for the physical stress of the guncrew, cruisal in the morale of your troops.

Also as for the electronics, without APU, its difficoult to gain power for the fire control computers and what I've seen from M777 pics, the aiming is done by using simple optical sights. I'm not sure exactly what sort of aiming mehtod Pegasus uses, but the fact that it has a APU gives the possibility to use fully centralised and computerised fire controlsystem with intergrated positioning and navigational systems. This fastens the main task of any artillery system, the actual practical firing rate in operational conditions.

As you claims were quite bold, I assume that you have worked with the M777? If so, then I really would like to hear and know about how the things are made with the gun, what type of fire control it uses and so on?

 

[kotay]

Yet the overall flexibility provided by APU gives you dimensions that cannot be achived with plain M777 as well as the great relief for the physical stress of the guncrew, cruisal in the morale of your troops.

It could also be said that the lack of an APU gives the M777 greater flexibility in some areas.

For instance, if the M777 was coupled with a quad ATV, it will give the M777 the same mobility as the Pegasus at approx. the same weight. Once deployed, however, the quad ATV can be used to shuttle equipment and ammo, something the Pegasus cannot do since the APU is built into the gun.

By not adopting a built-in APU and keeping the weight at ~10,000lbs, the M777 can be emergency lifted by a Blackhawk or similar medium lift helo, something the Pegasus cannot since the APU component cannot be detached.

Also as for the electronics, without APU, its difficoult to gain power for the fire control computers and what I've seen from M777 pics, the aiming is done by using simple optical sights. I'm not sure exactly what sort of aiming mehtod Pegasus uses, but the fact that it has a APU gives the possibility to use fully centralised and computerised fire controlsystem with intergrated positioning and navigational systems. This fastens the main task of any artillery system, the actual practical firing rate in operational conditions.

I'd assume that they do have some means of generating the power, maybe just not built-in. Battery packs or a simple portable generator will do the job.

Likewise, through some rather nifty engineering of it's recoil system and recuperator mechanism, it's able to provide flick ramming and power traverse, without the need of an APU too.

At the end of the day, both are rather good pieces of kit. Their design basis and resultant capabilities are different enough that it's kind of pointless to claim one is better than the other, independent of any operational environment.

One thing though, ST products tend to be designed with the SAF as the prime customer. Because the SAF has a rather unique set of operational requirements, it often results in products that do not translate well into other Armed Forces

 

[Gollevainen]

It could also be said that the lack of an APU gives the M777 greater flexibility in some areas.

For instance, if the M777 was coupled with a quad ATV, it will give the M777 the same mobility as the Pegasus at approx. the same weight. Once deployed, however, the quad ATV can be used to shuttle equipment and ammo, something the Pegasus cannot do since the APU is built into the gun.

By not adopting a built-in APU and keeping the weight at ~10,000lbs, the M777 can be emergency lifted by a Blackhawk or similar medium lift helo, something the Pegasus cannot since the APU component cannot be detached

.

Pegasus is not a Self propelled artillery piece as no other APU fitted guns. They still need hauler which can be either a cross country truck or APC/IFV, depends which one you prefer. So Pegasus would have same hauler capacity as the standart M777.

Also I'm not certain about which particular helicopters can transport Pegasus, but at least Chinooks can do it, I've actually seen a video of it.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[kotay]

Pegasus is not a Self propelled artillery piece as no other APU fitted guns.

I'm not quite sure I understand this statement ... can I trouble you to clarify it?

They still need hauler which can be either a cross country truck or APC/IFV, depends which one you prefer. So Pegasus would have same hauler capacity as the standart M777.

Need not be a truck or APC/IFV. Like I said, Quad ATV will do just fine. BAE has apparently tried that with the M777

Also I'm not certain about which particular helicopters can transport Pegasus, but at least Chinooks can do it, I've actually seen a video of it.

But can a Pegasus be lifted by a medium lift helo like the Black Hawk? Chinook is a heavy lift helo.