General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS), in partnership with KNDS, has unveiled the NEMESIS tracked artillery system at the FEINDEF International Defence & Security Exhibition in Madrid.
The system is based on the ASCOD platform and features the 155 mm / L52 Artillery Gun Module (AGM), developed by KNDS.
The NEMESIS system is designed for indirect fire support and can be operated by a crew of two, with an option for fully unmanned operation. The system’s automated design aims to enhance efficiency, and it includes a 360° azimuth capability, allowing it to fire while moving.
The system can achieve a firing range of up to 54/70 km, depending on the type of ammunition used, and features Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) capability.
The NEMESIS is built on the ASCOD platform, powered by a 1100 hp diesel engine. It can be equipped with steel or composite rubber tracks and is designed to operate on a variety of terrains. The system’s mobility is intended to enable rapid deployment and repositioning after firing, known as “Shoot & Scoot” tactics.
The NEMESIS follows the DONAR system, introduced by GDELS and KNDS 15 years ago as a tracked artillery demonstrator. According to the companies, the new system is part of ongoing efforts to develop self-propelled artillery that meets current operational requirements.
In addition to NEMESIS, the companies are also displaying the PIRANHA AAC, a wheeled 10×10 artillery system that was launched in 2024. Both systems are intended to offer options for artillery capability, with the tracked NEMESIS and the wheeled PIRANHA AAC providing flexibility for different operational needs.
The NEMESIS system is seen as a potential replacement for older artillery systems, such as the M109 howitzer, currently in service with the Spanish Army and other military operators.
Many already proven alternatives exist, Caesar, Archer, Bohdana, what does this have that the others don’t?
Maybe lower unit cost, with the system aimed at less cash flush militaries?
Not possible with a 50+ km range and the RCH 155 turret.
This is very expensive.
So it will be a diamond-priced system.
Agreed
Tracks & decent armour
Parts commonality with other Ascod variants for things such as drivetrain, engines, tracks etc.
A face only a mother would love.
Interesting.
But I can already see the biggest problem with such a system: it will be so expensive (to buy and maintain) that it won’t be possible to procure them in decent quantities.
It’s great to have high-end products, but we should start looking to develop balanced systems that are cheap and quick to produce as well.
Have we learned nothing from Ukraine?
No.
Governments priority is sending money to the MIC.
MIC ??
Military Industrial Complex
As Steve says.
Even President Eisenhower in his leaving address warned of its growing power.
As far as I’m concerned, our government sees the MoD budget primarily to feed it, not ensure the military has sufficient people, kit, assets, and pay.
Nothing I’ve seen has yet changed my mind.
It’s an interesting thought but without it we don’t have an industry to supply anything. TBH I don’t really see much parallel between the US Style MIC and the U.K if it ever existed the draw downs post Cold war wouldn’t have been allowed to the extent they were.
In the US it’s a very fine line between industry, profit, procurement officers retirement plans and Pork Belly Politics, the thing that is scary is for all the talk of DOGE and waste no one has gone near it. It’s the US 3rd Live Rail in Political survival you just don’t touch it.
In U.K I think we have something completely different, we have a Cross Party, wokist / treasury led agenda which uses the Conventional Military as convenient back stop for industrial relations / emergency relief issues and just ignores its true purpose.
The present investment in renewing the industrial base is mainly in the Ship building / steel making industry as it’s a Political tripwire for all parties but the vast majority is in the DNE to support our Nuclear CASD. The other investment seems to be as part of a supply chain for future military Aid or other European projects.
How else can we explain the present investment strategy at SFM, BAe, Rheinmetal all to build artillery barrels and BAe ramping up Munitions capacity when we have not ordered one single bit of Artillery.
It’s as if we are quite happy to build and supply parts / munitions for others to use as long as no one asks the Treasury for some money to buy our own.
I hear rumours about the SDR being imminent but it’s long on words and ambitions but very short of any real short term expenditure.
On this point, cheaper systems don’t really mean less money, as these cheaper systems are to be built in relatively large quantities and therefore can compensate.
It’s the R&D that loses out with this approach, but again, since it’s not a question of replacing high-end solutions with this but balancing very high-end and cost-effective systems, at the end of the day, you don’t lose anything.
It can even be more expensive, but much more interesting.
If done right (and in dreams, at the European level), you can even cycle the cheaper systems quickly toward second-hand buyers and maintain an important and updated inventory.
Well I’ve always believed in a balance between quality and quantity, buy buying cheaper OTS to supplement the gold plated.
The RN might be going down that route like a two tier fleet but the Army loves it’s multi billion projects with acronyms.
The one that constantly springs to mind with me is Patria to go alongside the ruinously expensive Boxer.
Unless this is GDELS trying to broaden the appeal of ASCOD and ASCOD based derivatives to existing customers I just don’t see any sense in this product. The market is full of wheeled, tracked and towed Artillery options and most are cheaper than this is going to be, we are going for the same turret mounted on Wheeled Boxer and as it’s modular Tracked Boxer would be logical tracked option.
The only thing I can think of is that as the USA is finally acknowledging that the M109 is on its last legs development wise, this is GDLS leveraging their US ASCOD platform as a ready to go replacement. With the US cutting M10 Booker orders that would make sense.
Not that I believe this for a second:
However if we where to operate Boxer in 7 and 4 Brigade, and Ajax in 1, 12 and 20, then Boxder RCH155 in 1 UK Div and Nemesis in 3 UK div would actually make some sense. But yeah, not likely.
If we are going to get RCH155 on Boxer anyway then getting it on Ascod as a tracked option makes sense given that I believe there are problems with tracked Boxer
That would be the dream option!
Not a chance in hell unless there are massive surprises in store, of the good kind.
Rumours persist Andover are still keen on extra Ares though.
We can all dream the dream 👍
Dern is spot on
We need a TRACKED howitzer for the arm inf bdes, a wheeled gun will not offer the same off-road reliability and speed of movement.
For divisional long-range artillery, sitting well behind the FEBS/front line, Archer or this odd-looking Boxer RCH 155 will be fine.
This lurch towards wheeled armoured vehicles for front-line combat is distinctly odd. I can only think that the MOD in-house rationale goes like;
We need a new tracked armoured vehicle for the arm inf bdes.
We also need a new medium wheeled armoured vehicle to replace Mastiff for low intensity out-of-area ops.
We don’t have enough money to commission both
So why don’t we go for a hybrid thingy, a wheeled APC without a cannon, and just foist that, and a howitzer version as well, on the arm inf bdes?
It will look like we’re doing SOMETHING, rather than nothing, and the Treasury will be pleased with our evonomical cost-cutting solution.
What’s not to like Minister? – you’ll be gone by the time these wheeled APCs and howitzers have to prove themselves in a peer conflict and someone else will get the blame…
vehicle
This is a conversation myself and Dern have had a lot. Everyone pretty much agrees we need a division with 3 well equipped heavy brigades.. ( tracked with IFV mounted armoured infantry battalions , and an MBT regiment, self propelled fires reg, armoured cav regiment , precision fires reg, air defence reg, medical reg, engineering and electrical reg , logistics reg etc), we also all agree the that in 1st division is not fit for purpose,4th light brigade has zero CS,CSS making it not deployable as a brigade ( it needs cav, fires, medical, mechanical and electrical, engineering, logistics regiments as well as protected mobility for its infantry battalions), 7th light Mec, is not really light mech at present, its protected mobility its some CS and it needs almost as much CS,CSS as 4th as well as proper APCs ( boxer would do nicely) to be truly a deployable brigade..
But the question we bat back and forward is how do you get all the CS, CSS for 3 heavy brigades, 1 mec brigade, 1 light role infantry ( protected mobility) brigade and an air assault brigade.. ( 6 deployable brigades) when the army really only has the CS, CSS regiments for 2 heavy brigades and 1 infantry brigade ( with one heavy/strike brigade presently having no CSS, one light Mec brigade having half the CS,CSS and the light role brigade having none CS,CSS..) the CS,CSS is the big question to solve as that takes trained specialist regimental establishments in hard to recruit fields like medical and engineering professions.
In reality the capital equipment element is easier as you can sort that with:
60 more challenger 3 conversions at 300million
250-300 warriors via a life ex program ( the MOD even has the cannons laying around ) probably be done for 700 million
Move the boxers on order to supply 1 Mec battalion for each heavy brigades and for the Mec battalions in 7th brigade. Already paid for
Give 7th brigades protected mobility vehicles to 4th brigades.. free
1000 cheap as chips APCs with stanag level 4 protection for all the CS,CSS etc needs.. at £100,000 a pop ( that’s what France is paying) so 100 million.
Then get 3 regiments of armoured self propelled 155mm guns for the 3 heavy brigade regiments ( 54-60 ) at 10 million a pop 600 million.
Move the archers to 7th brigade for their fires and 7 brigades 105mm guns to 4th brigade for their fires..
Essentially vehicles wise you could have 6 fully equipped deployable brigades for an extra 1.7 billion over what had already been ordered… when you consider the army spaffed 2.8 billion on 550 boxers ( the most expensive wheeled APC on the planet.. that costs the same as a brand new tracked IFV and about the same as a challenger3 ).
Be fine for working with Ajax and some parts match, useful as a tracked option. Just not sure how many or cost. RCH 155, is the right choice for Boxer units support. Really depends how many are ordered. Its wise have a tracked SPG not all just wheeled.
Looks good, sounds ok, but yet another gold plate price tag? The interesting point that intrigued me was, “operated by a crew of two, with an option for fully unmanned operation”.
I am wondering if the ‘unmanned’ ability would make this a system of more ‘interest’ to potential users?
I’m not sure you would ever want something so expensive, limited in numbers and vital as an unmanned option. Industry is still trying to sell the gold plated mega expensive autonomous platforms, but actually what Ukraine has shown is that autonomous systems and drones are actually all about the return of cheap mass and attritional capabilities to the battlefield.. no one cares how many drones die in the winning of a war.. so you can produce and losses them by the hundreds or thousands… but for that they need to be cheap… maybe a cheap 81mm or 120mm mortar unmanned platform.. but not this.
Yeah that is the interesting part.
Can’t see the UK been really interested in this System. Looking like our government fully committed to Boxer RHC 155 just like the conservative government of the time .Personally I think we’d be better off with more Archer platforms .