BAE Systems has been awarded a £418 million contract by the U.S. Army for the continued production of M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzers and M992A3 ammunition carriers.

The contract, as detailed in a recent press release, extends the production period and delivery schedule for these vehicles until 2025.

The M109A7, the most recent model in the M109 family, serves as the primary indirect fire support system for the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT). As stated in the press release, the M109A7 boasts enhanced capabilities in size, weight, power, cooling, readiness, force protection, and survivability, say BAE.

Dan Furber, director of ground vehicle production at BAE Systems’ Combat Mission Systems business, expressed the company’s commitment in relation to the contract.

“This contract furthers our commitment to helping the U.S. Army meet its mission needs,” he said. Furber highlighted the vehicle’s role on the dynamic battlefield, adding, “The battlefield is constantly changing, but the ABCT can feel assured in the indirect fire support capability this vehicle provides.”

The press release also highlighted the design improvements of the M109A7, noting advancements in chassis, engine, transmission, suspension, and steering system. The design is aligned with the Army’s extended-range lethality goals, featuring a new high voltage architecture and enhanced survivability.

With this contract, the total value of BAE Systems’ commitments for M109A7 production has reached £2.5 billion since the initial contract in 2017.

Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

73 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_787781)
3 months ago

All the bad-arse comments about the UK’s current AS90 but our M109s went years ago! If this US system is that good why did the MOD sell off our fleet?

farouk
farouk (@guest_787788)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Maurice wrote:
“”why did the MOD sell off our fleet?””
Because it is the nature of the Tory party to sell anything and anything in which to cut costs and no doubt earn a backhander.

Last edited 3 months ago by farouk
geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach (@guest_788037)
3 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Except for the minor problem that they were disposed of in the 1990’s you’re right so the wicked Tories elected in 2010 are obviously to blame.

Lazerbenabba
Lazerbenabba (@guest_788202)
3 months ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

That’s telling him!

DF
DF (@guest_789568)
3 months ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

Sure, it was the Tories elected in 1992 instead!

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_789605)
3 months ago
Reply to  DF

Are you sure you’re sure because to be fair I’m not sure so maybe.😉

ChrisJ
ChrisJ (@guest_790417)
3 months ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

The last remaining 83 M109s (50 odd A2 and around 30 A3 variants) in British Army service were sold to Austria in 1994…

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_790436)
3 months ago
Reply to  ChrisJ

Fair enough. You learn something every day. It was the wicked Tories thern, just not this lot.🙂

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_787803)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Because the AS90 was superior in many areas to the mark of M109s we had at the time – mostly A1 and A2 and just a handful (Qty 32) of A3s.

This article is about the A7.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_787854)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

However, wouldn’t it be rational to include M109A7 in the competition to replace AS90? A given that performance, price, all the ‘ilities, would be the primary decision criteria, nonetheless, somewhat intangible factors may also exist (e.g., commonality w/ US forces, support of (and potential tax revenue derived from) BAES, etc.). 🤔

George
George (@guest_788004)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

You would think so. I do like the idea of some commonality with US forces. Especially if we have a production line here in GB.

However, we are talking MOD acquisitions where “rational” is a taboo word. They consider wheeled Archer as a replacement for AS90, rather than a complimentary asset with some overlap, that can keep pace with Boxer.

Must admit, I’ve been watching the hype about the ROK K9A2 and it is impressive. Something reflected in sales numbers/slice of the global market.

Expat
Expat (@guest_788064)
3 months ago
Reply to  George

Forget anything non UK or non EU, we’re entering an era where support for UK jobs will trump capability and cost.

Louis
Louis (@guest_788231)
3 months ago
Reply to  Expat

K9a2 offers the best UK industrial participation out of any of the alternatives.

George
George (@guest_788247)
3 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Buying from the EU will not support British jobs. Only if military equipment in manufactured here, will we maintain employment and skills. I’m with Louis on this one.

Expat
Expat (@guest_788061)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

It would but AS90 replacement will either be manufacturer in UK or a EU co-op project as the replacement decision will fall to the next government who have made it central policy to buy British or join EU defense projects and end international tendering.

BAe would be wasting their time pitching MA109 when their own Archer is more likely to be chosen.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788068)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I bemoan the fact that AS90 has been upgraded very little over the years since its introduction into service in 1992 – probably just got a radio upgrade (Bowman replacing Clansman). The Braveheart programme initiated in 1999 to give it a longer 52-cal gun to replace the 39-cal gun and improved munitions was cancelled as the revised ammunition was not acceptable (not sufficiently insensitive). Therefore it is deemed to be elderly, out of date and warranting replacement. We are where we are – I fully agree that M109A7 should be one of those under consideration as well as the South… Read more »

David
David (@guest_787823)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

I think they are different in every way compared to the 1970s models we used. The newer ones are based on the bradley Hull and components. 39 cal replaced with a 52.

Not sure why it’s not a runner for the British army now, at least we would plug into US supply lines and stocks. Realistically 96 guns isn’t going to be enough to keep a production line open if we went for Archer or Boxer variant.
Korea and the k9 would give some UK build buy if we wanted a quick solution these are in build.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_787832)
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Does seem ridiculous to turn to a domestic solution when the small numbers were not cost effective and we had no real intention or ability to keep updated as has happened with 109. That said the Archer or Boxer platforms wouldn’t simply rely on UK acquisitions any more than alternatives. Even if a production line were opened here further upgrades to the system generally could be incorporated within it.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_787877)
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

“The Republic of Korea Armed Forces will confirm the ROC for K9A2 Block-I upgrade in March 2022. The K9A2 is expected to be operational by 2027. The military is designing the K9A3, with a firing range of 100 km. The operational K9A2 technology demonstrator was revealed to the public by Hanwha Defense in February 2022.” Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) released new footage of the automated loader & firing system of K9A2 Thunder self-propelled howitzer. This K9A2 technology demonstrator is equipped with a fully automated turret capable of firing & reloading the howitzer with a single push of a button… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Nigel Collins
maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_787912)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Just a point, would it be wise to purchase the K9A2 but build them in KD form in the UK? There is a risk in logistic terms to purchase complete vehicles from South Korea considering a major conflict could break out at any time. Relationships are at an all-time low and instability appears to be a major concern. I know we have built RN supply ships there without incident, yet matters have changed since that time.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_787939)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Hello maurice10, My idea would be to do the exact same thing as Poland. You may recall I suggested this many moons ago before Poland jumped on the bandwagon. The Redback IFV selected by Australia was a missed opportunity in my opinion. Short-term, purchase directly until we have the capability in place to start manufacturing them ourselves. They are also in the process of developing their next generation of MBT with a 130mm main gun. This would be a very smart move also as we are developing Armour which may very well interest them. They have pretty much all of… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Nigel Collins
maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_787995)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Like their motor industry, South Korea produces ‘international quality’ in their cars so why not military vehicles? The UK could strike a deal with them to buy in and build in? The UK gave up its military vehicle manufacturing for whatever reason and now is dependent on foreign companies to supply. Admittedly, the home assembly percentage is vital for logistical reasons. This being the case, as long as 70% is assembled in the UK, we should be open to purchasing heavy armour from Korea and Japan. The new MBT might offer the UK a way forward beyond CH3, though I… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788033)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

👍

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers (@guest_788168)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Why would you manufacture such things in a country with no domestic steel production, horrifying energy costs, high taxes and an unqualified, underpaid and demoralised workforce that order paltry amounts of the end product? We have no manufacturer of rifled barrels in the UK either.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_788226)
3 months ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

BAE can still manufacture M777 at Barrow. Curious that the US continues to buy SPGs with a 39 caliber barrel, when all the talk in the UK is about the need for longer range.

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers (@guest_788276)
3 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Can they? Perhaps. Do they? No. I’m not sure what all that chat about conscription was a few weeks back. What are we planning to do with 300k 40 year old bullpups? It would be like the start of “Enemy at the gates”.

pete
pete (@guest_802376)
2 months ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

Only about 140,000 SA 80’s A2 and A3 , dish out the pitch forks pike !

Math
Math (@guest_792954)
3 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Well, longer range is better, though we can see in Ukraine that barrels done last as long and in a sustained engagement, ability to keep firing a bit longer is also a factor.

pete
pete (@guest_802375)
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Don’t think we have machinery for large gun barrel manufacturing now as demand to small to be economic .

Jack
Jack (@guest_788264)
3 months ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

No domestic steel production ?

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers (@guest_788275)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jack

That is correct. Steel from ore production is ending at the last blast furnaces in Port Talbot. Then it’s just scrap railings time in arc furnaces.

Math
Math (@guest_809787)
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Biggest issue here is a conflict in Asia. Everybody knows that in this case, sea lines will most likely be disrupted between South Korea and UK. Assembly, sure… What about the components from South Korea? Atlantic is difficult to secure. Pacific is worst. Channel seem in the capability of everyone. Tell Ukraine about repleshmebt in a conflict… Tell them it is not an issue… It definitely is. Better Choose a PzH2000, a Caesar or an Archer. It is like all lessons from WW2 are forgotten so easily… It is just unbelievable that some European countries consider arms supply from a… Read more »

George
George (@guest_788012)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

If we can have production lines here and feed in our own technologies (armour, radar etc) where required. I’m 100% behind the entire package. Ammunition compatibility with NATO being enough for now.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788031)
3 months ago
Reply to  George

Exactly George, It makes perfect sense to me. They are developing some excellent aircraft too, and I’m sure they would be very interested in working along with us on that front using some of our advanced technologies in their fighters.

Expat
Expat (@guest_788072)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Sorry to pour cold water on this, won’t happen. The next government will want to collaborate far more with Europe on weapons programs. They will begrudgingly keep Tempest and AUKUS. You can apply as much logic as you like but this is politics where’s there no logic applied 😀

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788092)
3 months ago
Reply to  Expat

It works for Poland! Glass Half Full at my end 😅

Expat
Expat (@guest_788081)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins
One of us
One of us (@guest_789054)
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Do you realize that you Brits have almost no army!? The number of personnel in the British Army is ridiculous, as if you are a country with 5-6 million inhabitants, and not a country with (for Europe a large) 67 million inhabitants! You have the same situation with a number of tanks, APS’s, IFV’s and other military vehicles of any type, including mechanized artillery. If it were not for your “big brother”, the United States and NATO, you would not be able to project force anywhere in the world. Any average Army would smash you on the battlefield now.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_788057)
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Think AS90 was a bit of a wasted project really , for what it was worth should of stuck with M109s and just did upgrades .🤔

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788078)
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

No, not at all. AS90 was superior in just about every way from the mainly M109A2 fleet we had (there was only a handful of A3s). Its combat performance was excellent. Why the nay-saying? Its rate of burst fire is still way ahead of the K9 Thunder.

We should have upgraded AS90 over the years but didn’t. I think it just got its radio upgraded. That is the more interesting, if very depressing, story.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_788161)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Ok Graham thanks for that 🍺

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_788212)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

GM,

Somewhat OT, but just read an article (Forbes com) which indictes that some non-updated UK equipment is still fit for purpose. Evidently, the Ukrainians are using CR-2s, operating near Robotyne with 82nd Brigade, as either mobile or embedded artillery w/in tree lines. The CR-2s are destroying Orc fixed, concrete emplacements, principally at night. Intercepted radio traffic from Orc observers, characterized UKR vehicles as ‘huge and loud.’ 😁👍

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_788213)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

…indicates…🙄

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788365)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Very true. I think most of what we have sent Ukraine is non-updated or only ever received minor upgrades in service with our forces. It is all of course capable of delivering more combat power than their elderly Soviet era kit. Many would still rank the unmodernised Challenger 2 as one of the best 3 or 4 (or 5) tanks in the world. We would not use our Challys that way – we would mostly use them in the Offence in Combined Arms (CA) manouevre with Infantry, artillery, combat engineers etc. But in the days of BAOR we trained to… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_788627)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Understand. Less sanguine than before re additional US equipment which UKR must have to succeed. Evidently EU is taking tentative steps toward seizing interest payments on frozen Orc capital and crediting it to UKR. That is several billion/yr., but the Ukrainians need tens of billions. Otherwise, this conflict could remain a WW I style trench warfare conflict indefinitely.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788857)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

When do the NL and DK F-16s arrive in country? They should help greatly to reduce Russian second echelon forces and to support UKR counterattacks. The EU’s move on redirecting seized interest payments is good but they have still not endorsed their latest financial aid package: CNBC – ‘The European Union failed to agree Thursday on a 50 billion-euro ($54 billion) package in financial aid that Ukraine desperately needs to stay afloat, even as the bloc decided to open accession negotiations with the war-torn country’.The aid was vetoed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, delivering another tough blow to Ukrainian… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_789063)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Danish and Dutch F-16s should start to be delivered sometime during the spring. As both highly valued and severely quantity limited (perhaps an initial squadron) assets, not certain when UKR will commit them to the air campaign. Deliveries will continue into 2025. No one has apparently broached the subject of contributing retired A-10s; do not have the faintest clue why that is the case. ,🤔

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_789367)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Thanks. I hope it won’t be too late for the F-16s to turn things around. A-10: they would be hard to maintain given their age?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_789453)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes, but USAF would probably be given instructions to expend every effort to assist in maintenance of donated A-10s.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788090)
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

12 Jan 2024 6 rounds per minute The K9 Thunder has a maximum rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute and is capable of multiple-round simultaneous-impact firing. It is able to fire three rounds in 15 seconds, each in different trajectories so that all of the shells arrive on target at the same time. The newest M109 version for U.S. service is the M109A7, formerly known as the M109A6 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM). The M109A7 shares common components with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle such as the engine, transmission, and tracks. This creates commonality with other systems and maximizes cost… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_788164)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Cheers Nigel 🍺 🇬🇧

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788178)
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

You’re welcome!

AS 90

It can fire standard charges up to 24.7 km (15.3 mi) using 39-calibre long barrel and 30 km (19 mi) with 52-calibre long barrel

The maximum rate of fire is 3 rounds in 10 seconds (burst); 6 per minute for 3 minutes (intense); and 2 per minute for 60 minutes (sustained).

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788369)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

These are still impressive figures for an SPG designed in the 80s and some are better than the much more modern K9 and M109A7.

Just think what AS90 would be like if MoD had bothered to upgrade it during its (so far) 30+ years service! ..as the Americans have done with M109.
The proposed Braveheart upgrade to a 52cal gun (and other mods) foundered on a South African munition not meeting newly adopted IM criteria – surely we could have sourced ammo from elsewhere. Its a disgrace.

Last edited 3 months ago by Graham Moore
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788562)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

They most certainly are impressive figures, Graham. Better than the K9A1/2? In September 2020, the K9 howitzer was chosen by the Australian Army as the preferred solution for the Protected Mobile Firepower requirement under its LAND 8116 programme. The project will deliver a lethal, heavily armoured, and tactically manoeuvrable land system. The final contract is anticipated to be awarded in early 2022. K9 howitzer armament The main weapon is the 155mm / 52 calibre gun. It has a burst rate of fire of three rounds per 15 seconds and a maximum rate of fire of six to eight rounds a… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788867)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

You would not expect a SPG with a short 39-cal barrel designed in the 80s (AS90) and never appreciably modernised to be as good as a SPG many decades more modern and with a 52cal barrel (K9). But AS90: has a Burst rate of fire of three rounds per 10 seconds rather than per 15 seconds (the Koreans thought it impossible to do this in 10 seconds without a major and expensive R&D programme, which they were not willing to fund) has a comparable maximum rate of Intense fire of six rounds a minute for three minutes. has a comparable… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788924)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Will it ever stop evolving? Korean Hanwha K9A3 cannon come with an increased 70 km range “The K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer is considered by dozens of experts to be the best in the world. The South Korean government will apparently try to maintain this “expert assessment” in the future. That’s why Seoul has already signed an agreement with Hanwha Defense that the next K9 model will have an increased range. This model is already being worked on and it bears the name K9A3, i.e. the third version of K9. According to South Korean sources, the K9A3 will have an increased… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_789255)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I can’t get my head around Poland ordering 672 of the K9 Thunder SPG. Makes our order for 179 AS90s back in the day look feeble. More feeble will be the number of MFP artillery pieces we eventually order – probably less than 100!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788366)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Nigel, you sound like an arms dealer!

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_788561)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I missed a trick there!😆

pete
pete (@guest_802374)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Both the turret and hull has been changed on the American M109’s at various upgrade stages .so is nothing like the early ones .

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_802864)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

We replaced our M109A2 and A3s by the far superior AS-90 in 1992. You are now talking about the ‘2024 version’ of M109 and perhaps comparing it to the AS-90 which sadly was not upgraded since 1992.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker (@guest_787967)
3 months ago

Basically a brand new vehicle/system compared to previous models. It’s a nice gun.
The U.K. should have a capability competition. Let the guns prove themselves.
AS90, archer, M109a7, K9, Caesar, PZH2000, Krab and anyone else that fancies their chances. There are quite a few cheaper offerings from countries like Czech Republic, Ukraine, South Africa and so on. The M777 could be worked onto a truck system.
Capability and cost should be high up the priority list. For a fixed budget getting 50 top range guns versus 200 guns offering 95% of the abilities should be appealing.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_788140)
3 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

Technically speaking the Archer system is vehicle agnostic. So rather than fitting it to the MAN HX2, it could also be fitted to Boxer!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788280)
3 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Boxer is probably the most expensive wheeled AFV in the world. I am sure the MAN HX2 would be much, much cheaper.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_788357)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The HX truck will be significantly cheaper than Boxer. Though Boxer will offer a lot more crew protection. I’d imagine Boxer to be better off road as well. Though HX will likely win based on cost alone.

As a concept though the Archer installation would offer some benefits over the RCH155 version. Though holding slightly less rounds, Archer is faster firing. Plus it’s a whole lot lighter. I think the turret height would be lower, so it could go in an A400M.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788544)
3 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I thought I would do a double check. Pretty sure that the Archers we have bought are first version models (surplus to the Swedish Army) based on the Volvo A30D all-terrain hauler, rather than the later version based on the MAN HX2. [BAE Systems Bofors began trials for the HX2 variant in Jan 2020]. The RA versions certainly look more like Volvo than MAN. Anyway… Archer of course has an armoured cab. Not sure if we know for sure if Archer has less crew protection than Boxer – I don’t have the metrics. You may be right about Boxer having… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_788743)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hi Graham, yes we purchased the first version of Archer, that uses the Volvo 6×6 truck chassis. The Archers that we bought and the ones sent to Ukraine were part of a cancelled Norwegian order. I’m not sure why they binned the contract, especially as the systems were built? I agree that it’s unlikely we will get the Boxer with the RCH155. If you see one up close, they’re massive! Makes a AS90 look small. From what I know it won’t fit in a Herc, but I believe that goes for an A400M as well. I feel the RA will… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788920)
3 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks. I think the RA will feel like they are in a very small sweet shop which doesn’t sell very much at the moment. Just 14 Archers on order so far, which will only part-replace the 32 AS90s gifted to UKR.
But things should look up more so, when the MFP decision is made and hopefully a large order placed.

I hear UKR have lost four AS90s destroyed, but I have not heard how.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_788439)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Think it’s best to leave it on the Volvo chassis saves time and money plus don’t HMG making a mess of things with there Record even though should be a simple project .Volvo said to be top unite on trails and showing good results in the field etc. 🇬🇧

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_788545)
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Yes. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks we would tinker with what we have just bought even if it seems that the Swedish army is switching to a MAN HX2 chassis.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_788571)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Didn’t know that actually Graham will look into that 👍

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_788754)
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Sadly there is an issue with the Volvo chassis. After using the gun, the gun barrel is stowed in an armoured box. The barrel sits horizontally behind the cab. Therein lies the issue. The gun uses a barrel 52 caliber’s long. So if in the future it needed to be extended to say 59 or 62 calibre. Without major modifications to the truck chassis, you are stuck with a 52 calibre barrel. Using the MAN HX truck, when stowed the barrel sits on top of the truck’s cab. Therefore, even a longer barrel would do the same. It would be… Read more »

Simon
Simon (@guest_788114)
3 months ago

Bit off topic but BAE have brought Uk drone manufacture Malloy Aeronautics