Ermmm ... the Chinook can carry more than one cargo underslung, as long as it stays within the rated load for each of it's 3 cargo hooks.
Not just further but higher too. Think Kashmir.
M777
- Thread starter geebee
- Start date
Well I'm no Viking warrior of myself and I had no proplems with the projectiles.
But the physical stress is enourmos in guncrew and all reliefs for any part of the whole process makes difference.
Self-propelled artillery piece is where the gun is fitted for usually tracked chassis and have armoured turret to protect the gun and the crew. Most common systems are the US M109 and the Soviet 2S1.
APU fitted towed artillery pieces however are just normal towed guns with Auxiliary Power Unit attached which means that a diesel engine is fitted and axel to drive the wheels of the gun. The gun has limited mobility and in a way its selfpropelled. APU usually gives the gun around 10 km/h maxiumspeed and the mobility is mented for that the gun can change the fire position in small area without being hauled with truck or other vehicle. But when moving to greater distances a normal hauling is needed. I theory almoust every towed artillery piece design can be fitted with APU.
Examples of APU fitted towed howitsers are FH-70, Our 155K98 or the Pegasus in question.
Well in theory the hauler can be anything that has the power to haul the gun.
M777 and Pegasus can bring to ADF improved capability in sense of air transportability but as far as fire power, there is no significant improvement over M198.
I can not see justification for spending that sort of money to just get better air transport capability. We have large number of M198 (in context of the size of our force) that has hardly been used. Wouldn’t it make more viable and economical sense to upgrade the M198 rather then scraping it and moving to M777.
I can not see justification for spending that sort of money to just get better air transport capability. We have large number of M198 (in context of the size of our force) that has hardly been used. Wouldn’t it make more viable and economical sense to upgrade the M198 rather then scraping it and moving to M777.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Land 17 request for tender called for proposals on the basis of 18, 24 and 30 SPG guns to be supplied to Army.
If 18x guns are acquired, then only 8/12 Mdm Regt will get SPG's along with the training schools.
If 24x guns are acquired then 8/12 Mdm Regt will get 2x operational SPG batteries and 1 Field Regt will get 1x SPG battery.
If 30x guns are acquired 8/12 Mdm Regt will get 2x operational SPG batteries and 1 Field Regt will get 2x SPG batteries.
The LWH will equip 3x operational batteries in 4 Field Regt, plus 1 or 2x operational batteries within 1 Field Regt, depending on the numbers acquired, plus the training schools.
The M198 howitzers are not likely to be replaced and are likely to be "cascaded" to other units after they've been upgraded to utilise the Raytheon AFADTS system, plus fire the new MARAP 155mm munitions, Excalibur and SMART 155 "precise" artillery munitions.
The 105mm guns will be withdrawn from service as I understand Army's intention. This will mean Army will maintain an artillery capability of around 100 - 105x 155mm artillery pieces.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
According to Army technology, No, however the M777 can be.
S-70A Black Hawk Multi-Mission Helicopter
That means the EH 101 can too, though I haven't yet found out if the NH-90 can that will be interesting, I imagine so however if the Blackhawk can.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Cheers Weasel, fixed that up to clarify.
Actually the APU of the Pegasus allows it to be self moved at about 10km/h if required. The Pegasus if i'm not wrong, uses less titanium to make it more affordable.
That said, Lightweight howitzers might be mobile but it would also require a dedicated heli wing to actually make full use of it's small tonnage. It's 39 cal gun would also reduce the range of the rounds(10km?) as compared to a towed 52 cal.
That said, Lightweight howitzers might be mobile but it would also require a dedicated heli wing to actually make full use of it's small tonnage. It's 39 cal gun would also reduce the range of the rounds(10km?) as compared to a towed 52 cal.
I am sure we are not considering 52cal for towed system. 52cal is based on SPH system.
Generally speaking combination of two systems will provide defence with greater ability to hold its grounds against enemy offensive or to incapacitate enemy held position before the offensive in the battlefield. The 52cal SPH protected platform would be used to attack deeper into the enemy position to cut off their supply chain and destroy any valuable targets to incapacitate the enemy’s war fighting capabilities at the battlefront by move closer into the edge of the warfront and fall back once the mission is accomplished.
Generally speaking combination of two systems will provide defence with greater ability to hold its grounds against enemy offensive or to incapacitate enemy held position before the offensive in the battlefield. The 52cal SPH protected platform would be used to attack deeper into the enemy position to cut off their supply chain and destroy any valuable targets to incapacitate the enemy’s war fighting capabilities at the battlefront by move closer into the edge of the warfront and fall back once the mission is accomplished.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The only 2x towed guns that are being considered under the Lightweight Howitzer requirement for Australia's LAND 17 artillery replacement project are the M777 and the Pegasus towed howitzer.
Both are 39cal 155mm guns.
The Pegasus I believe, does not meet the weight requirements that the ADF have specified for the Lightweight Howitzer so I'm not quite sure where that leaves that particular gun...
I asked this same question on another thread about Oz military but got no replies.
I was curious why only 52-cal SPH was considered by Oz military? Since, as you also said, the more mobile SPH will attack deeper into enemy territory, why do you still need a 52-cal gun?
I quoted the example of our Primus 39-cal SPH which weighed 28 tons versus PZH 2000 52-cal which weighed abour 58 tons. The weapon range of 39-cal vs 52-cal was merely 10km. A 28 ton SPG is smaller and can even fit into narrow streets and bridges. And the feather weight means less headaches with bridges. Not to mention so much more economical.
We use 52-cal only in towed format (one type with APU). The SPH and the Pegasus are 39-cal only. My guess is that since both of these are for deplyment closer to the front, you don't need the 52-cal barrel.
If Oz military did pick the Pegasus, wouldn't UK (and other Westerners) accuse Aussies of buying a cheap Asian rip-off and supporting "plaigerism"?
winnyfield
New Member
Best footage the I have thus far seen of the M777 in action.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFrG9jPcxk"]YouTube - E Battery Canadian Forces[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFrG9jPcxk"]YouTube - E Battery Canadian Forces[/ame]
winnyfield
New Member
I recall ADF statements, that they wanted the longest range possible. Also, as you said, there isn't much of a differrence; so why not go for the 52-cal SPH? The crew, maintenance, transport (heavy transport haulers) and ammunition requirements are the same for 39 as it is for a 52. In terms of weight, the tracked 52-cal SPHs are about the same weight as Australia's MBTs (both Leopard and Abrams) so its not such a big deal - if you can handle one, then you can handle the other.
I would call it a mixed breed personally
It might come in useful to set up and fire quicker or if the transport vehicle/heli doesnt turn up. At least, you can travel 100metres away and radio for help rather than sit that and pray there's no CF coming in.For the rest of the time, the extra 1ton is just deadweight. Pegasus's inability to be transported by an SP is a huge disad vs the M777 in terms of lift capability reduction. (Psst but it's cheaper!)
Edit:
Actually, 10 KM distance in shelling ability is a huge advantage. You know you are keeping your enemies' field guns 10km further back (10 km further away from you and your buddies upfront) LW howitzers allows rapid deployment within enemies' firing range. The element of surprise allows the shorter range gun to shoot first from a new direction and CF your opponents' long arm. (i'm not sure about my last statement but it's what i think can be employed)
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Agree to the first paragraph. A howitzer that cannot move in a hurry is a dead duck.I would call it a mixed breed personally
For the rest of the time, the extra 1ton is just deadweight. Pegasus's inability to be transported by an SP is a huge disad vs the M777 in terms of lift capability reduction.
Since the M777 is to be landed by chopper, there is always the possibility that the choppers cannot arrive in time to pick you up, or one or two develop engine trouble, got shot down etc.
Or simply, after the M777 has fired, CF arrive just as your choppers are arriving to pick you up.
The Pegasus, OTOH, with an APU will be able to go to another pre-arranged location to get picked up. Or if chopper cannot arrive in time, will still be able to move at least to avoid CF, as you've already stated.
I think there is great merit in having the power to move.
Longer reach is unquestionably an advantage.
But I was comparing the penalty in terms of weight and size for an SPH of 52-cal vs 39-cal. A typical 52-cal SPH could be twice the weight of the 39-cal (e.g. Primus), but its gun reaches only 10km further.
A lighter and smaller Primus means they can be transported easier overseas or overland. And more can be brought to bear. They are also cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate. Light weight ensures you have less trouble with bridges - which actually means you can go further and more places than a huge 52-cal SPH.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Towed guns have gun tractors to assist as well. They don't have "manhandling" and helos as their only mobility options...
The guns will never be too far away from their tractors (Unimogs are currently used by Aus Army for this purpose) and it's entirely possible (and probable) that the "gun tractor" selected for the M777 or the Pegasus in the unlikely event it is chosen, will be CH-47 transportable too.
M777 and Supacat Portee anyone?
(Bearing in mind the Supacat has already been chosen for SASR and 4RAR (Cmdo) as the Landrover RSV replacement vehicle, to be known as "Nary" in Australian service)...http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/portee.htm
The UK looked at the Supacat Portee for their new lightweight 155 artillery and MLRS rocket system, but I understand the cab cannot be armoured to the desired level (B6-7) without completely compromising mobility. Lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in ALL future vehicles (bar specialized roles - SASR / Comm'do for example) having the ability to be upgraded with add-on armour to protect crews in transit. Australia may specify a similar requirement if they decide to place the system on a wheeled chassis.