BAE Systems in the U.S. has won a hefty £450 million contract from the U.S. Army to produce and deliver M109A7 and M992A3 vehicles along with fielding kits.
According to a press release from the Department of Defense, the production and delivery work will be carried out at various locations, including York, Pennsylvania; Sterling Heights, Michigan; Aiken, South Carolina; Elgin, Oklahoma; and Anniston, Alabama.
The project is expected to be completed by 31 January 2029.
The U.S. Army has already committed £206 million from its fiscal 2023 and 2024 weapons and tracked combat vehicle procurement funds for the initial phase of the contract. The Army Contracting Command will manage the contracting activities.
The M109A7 vehicle is the latest in BAE’s M109 series, designed to offer indirect fire support for armoured brigade combat teams. It boasts several upgrades, including a new chassis, high voltage architecture, enhanced engine, transmission, suspension, and steering systems.
This contract comes on the heels of another significant deal for BAE Systems earlier this year. In January, the company was awarded a £325 million contract from the Army for additional self-propelled howitzers and carrier ammunition-tracked vehicles.
I’m looking forward to the announcement of new tracked artillery for the British Army. For too long the RA have seen their inventory shrink inexorably to what must now be dangerous numbers. If the Ukraine War has taught us anything it’s the invaluable worth of artillery. We need to equip the RA with the urgency the Americans appear to be making in recent months.
And to top it all another 10 AS90s are on the way to Ukraine . Hope we get replacement soon 🤔
The interim replacements have arrived – 14 ex-Swedish Army Archers. We must now wait some time for the long-term replacement to be delivered – Boxer RCH-155, as there is seemingly more development work to be done.
So as we said earlier on another thread Sunak has signed us up to as yet an unproven system that has the potential to go tits up!
Not sure it was Sunak himself as he seemed very disinterested in the nuts and bolts of defence. But, yes, Boxer RCH-155, a largely German project, is not fully developed, and will take some years to conclude development, to evaluate, tweak etc and then bring into full-scale production.
Meanwhile we have gifted 60 AS-90s to Ukraine and some reports say that our own RA is about to do their final firing camp ever with it. Never mind, we have got 14 Archers to use in the interim!
I am surprised how rapidly Boxer RCH-155 ‘won’ the MFP competition. Was there even a proper competition of any type held?
The interim replacement for AS-90 is a handful of Archers (14 so far). The actual replacement is Boxer RCH-155. Did you miss these announcements, Maurice?
No I didn’t miss that one but I was referring to a tracked replacement, which I understand is still required by the top brass. I’m not sure the German’s who will share the Boxer RCH -155 programme will dispense with their highly rated tracked gun? On another subject, I’m unhappy with reports about modern Western MBTs performance over some Ukrainian battlefield conditions, manly foot print weight being too heavy. Should the NATO members be investigating a lighter medium tank as a matter of urgency. Obviously, the gun needs to be as powerful as is practicable and may even have a crewless turret?
As far as I understand it there is no tracked replacement. Its short term Archers and then the new Boxer
Sadly protection against modern MBT fired armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (SPFSDS) rounds or Fin for short. Comes from armour mass and spaced armour distances.
Soviet/Russian designed MBTs forgo the mass and spaced armour distance. Instead relying on explosive reactive armour (ERA) backed with thinner passive armour. The L7 105mm Fin round will penetrate it. Which is why they are around 50 to 55t. Once the ERA has been initiated. The underlying passive armour is fairly weak by Western standards.
If you want to look at a lighter tank, the French Leclerc is a good example. Which without additional appliqué/ERA weighs about 55t. However, its passive armour although composite, is said to be way below that of Leopard in effectiveness.
There may be light at the end of the tunnel, through APS developments. Currently only Iron Fist has “publicly” demonstrated that it can defeat a MBT’s HEAT round. It has shown that it has a chance of deflecting a Fin round, though the percentage is fairly low. However, if this can be improved by using a far larger explosive. Where the concussive wave is used to deflect the round.
If APS works and can deflect a Fin round more often, then we will start to see MBT weights falling. As the armour mass won’t need to be as thick/heavy. Until then, the crews lives takes precedence, there requiring heavy armour.
Typo? Perhaps APFSDS?
Duh! Using your phone on a crowded train isn’t always easy.
😁👍
Your knowledge on this subject is far greater than mine and I thank you for the physics behind the art of the MBT. The SUN report on the CH2 was very good indeed as are these observations but go unseen due to the bad name the SUN has with the British higher Acy. Admittedly, we gave the Ukrainians a Ferrari when they were use to the equivalent of a Trabant, so obviously, there would be initial capability issues.
I think I know of the report you mean. The Sun’s defence reporter was embedded with the Ukrainian Chally regiment for a couple of weeks whilst they were training.
What surprised me was the interview with one of the Ukrainian’s who had used Chally in anger. Saying they were using HESH on Russian tanks. Normally you use a Fin round, as the ERA can counter HESH, whilst a Fin round tends a good chance of passing through ERA. But from what he was saying it still can achieve a mission kill if it hits the turret. Plus he said he enjoyed scaring the cack out of the Russians, who’d bale out of the tank after a HESH hit. I guess against today’s threats better to bale than be incinerated when the ammo cooks off!
Chally’s mobility is better than what most think, which is down to its hydrogas suspension. Many times I’ve seen Chally’s cross terrain faster than a Leo. Admittedly it does need more power. Hopefully Chally 3 with its engine upgrade will go to way in solving this. Though it won’t help the Ukrainians.
I wonder if it’s worth buying Jordan’s Chally 1s and upgrading them to give to Ukraine. The armour is still pretty effective by Russian standards, especially if covered with additional ERA. However it would have to stick with the older L11, unless it could be upgraded to the L30. Not sure changing to a smoothbore and the need for a new turret would be economically viable. Though I’d reckon Ukraine would fund it due to the urgent need. Also fit a modern fire control computer and some second hand optics. Along with the euro pack engine. It could be a very effective tank.
Dear Prime minister, how’s the job going? I have a cunning plan that I’d like to put to you…..
The AS-90 replacement programme was termed the MFP- Mobile Fires Platform.
The interim solution was 14 Archers to replace 32 AS-90s sent to Ukraine and the eventual winner was the Boxer RCH-155.
It is immaterial if any of the top brass still want a tracked SPG – the decision has been taken. It is also immaterial what the Germans do.
Western MBTs were never designed for operations in Ukraine with its fragile bridges and seasonal deep mud. The US is soon to field M10 Booker, a lighter tank than M1 at c. 40 tonnes with a 105 gun, and described variously as an assault gun or fire support vehicle. The Germans have KF51 Puma described as an MBT but weighing more than M10 at 59 tonnes. I am not aware of any British efforts to design and develop a tank lighter than (and additional to) CR3.
I keep hearing this odd response that Europe’s MBTs were not designed for operations in Ukraine, so dose that mean that they would function better on Russian soil? The damming fact is clear, tank design has pivoted on sound and stable ground, which in truth would manifest the same issues as experienced in Ukraine. MBTs were not used in Afghanistan due to inappropriate conditions yet worked remarkably well in the Iraq War?? The best way forward is a smaller vehicle with improved foot print something closer to the M10 Booker. May be the UK may supplement the CH3 with a modest fleet of M10s to give commanders more heavy armour battlefield choices.
Hi Maurice, it is no surprise that Europe’s MBTs have a history of being designed primarily to meet a Cold War threat – comprising Soviet/Russian T-series tanks operating against us following the Warsaw Pact forces invasion of West Germany.
German Bridges, roads and tracks (farm tracks were invariably concreted) could generally take heavy MBTs. Much of the rural areas (flat and rolling plains – ‘good tank country’ were well drained otherwise the farmers would not have made much of a living). Rain was usually not incessant.
When the Cold War ended, British tanks and other armoured vehicles were often deployed on operations, mostly kinetic, outside Germany – the desert in Gulf War 1 (1990/91) and GW2 (2003 on), the Balkans many times in the 90s etc. Our tanks had to be adapted for desert conditions in the Gulf Wars – add-on armour, improved engine air filtration, external fuel tanks etc. But mobility was not seemingly an issue.
Ukraine is different – infrastructure such as bridges is often not strong enough to take heavy western MBTs. Farm tracks and country roads are dirt or lightly constructed tarmac respectively. There are distinct and dramatic rainy periods in Ukraine (and Russia) which turns dirt roads to thick glutinous mud. It even has a special name (Rasputitsa).
[Wiki: Rasputitsa meaning “season of bad roads” is the mud season that occurs in various rural areas of Eastern Europe, when the rapid snowmelt or thawing of frozen ground combined with wet weather in spring, or heavy rains in autumn, lead to muddy conditions that make travel on unpaved roads problematic and even treacherous.
Rasputitsa has repeatedly affected wars by causing military vehicles and artillery pieces to become mired in the mud. In conjunction with the general conditions of winter, rasputitsa has been credited with encumbering the military campaigns of Napoleonic France in 1812 and Nazi Germany during Operation Barbarossa, as well as all belligerents in the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian war].
Rasputitsa is an issue for all military vehicles,but heavier vehicles generally fare worse, sinking when static more quickly (I won’t cover ground pressure points here).
MBTs were used in Afghanistan in small number. In Camp Bastion we had a Danish Leo2 tank company. They were used for ‘show of force’ missions. They had no terrain access issues. MBTs were not used more widely as the Taliban did not operate tanks, not because of any terrain issues.
In the Iraq war, you had sand, not thick mud.
It also has to be said that the Ukrainian CR2 tank drivers have much less experience than a British driver and seem to get bogged in somewhat more often.
Our CR3 will be about 1 tonne heavier than CR2 in ex-factory trim – not much difference.
Not sure if we have a role for a lighter tank or tracked fire support vehicle or assault gun (differing names abound) to support Infantry with heavy direct fire, given our Orbat as it stands at present – the armoured brigades have Chally supporting the Inf; 1 DRSBCT has no Inf to support; the Inf in 4th and 7th brigades in 1 Div are relatively lightly equipped (Jackal, Foxhound) and their brigade footprint being smaller aids deployability.
Wow Graham a great piece of writing. The days of BAOR and the huge exercises across German agriculture (and generous compensation) may have lead us to believe the modern MBT was the best way to blast forward to enemy positions with reasonable optimism. The circumstances as you so clearly point out that makes the Ukrainian operation more complex, does pose considerable problems for future tank designers. The conditions faced by operation Barbarossa was on Russian soil and probably nothing has changed leading one to believe there is a weight issue period, whether it’s a Land Rover Defender of a Warrior? One factor may be in the minds of war planners that there is little chance of NATO tanks charging towards Moscow or the possibility of any incursion into Russian territory. If so, we continue to live with the status quo.
Thanks for the compliment Maurice. In the two Gulf wars British armour did blast forward in the advance using a Combined Arms manouevre warfare approach.
Rasputitsa is for a limited period and only really prevalent in Russia and Ukraine. I doubt our tank designers would be totally constrained by this issue. However I am sure that modern MBTs will be somewhat lighter than the Leviathans they would replace. Germany’s KF51 is 59 tonnes, and ws devloped from Leo2Aw. South Korea’s K2 Black Panther is 56t. US M1E3 Abrams in development is expected to be sub-60t.
Of course the 56-60t range is still rather heavy, but that is MBTs for you. I could see such ‘slightly lighter’ MBTs soldiering on in the armoured brigades and Medium tanks might be fielded in the West in future for use by mechanised brigades, maybe in the 40-50t range? Much weight can be saved by adopting an unmanned turret or an external gun approach.
Warfighting in Ukraine is fairly untypical of armoured warfare elsewhere and in a different era. The Russians could have used a ‘Blitzkrieg’ approach, a hard-charging style, and fought in Combined Arms groupings…but didn’t, and is favouring now a war of attrition.
Watch a video by “Task and purpose” on YT … It seems to imply a a new U.S doctrine of a move away from tracked artillery to wheeled systems given experiences in Ukraine. The shoot and scoot times and deployment issues are significantly better with wheeled artillery. Ukraine has shown you now need to deploy , shoot and move within 30 seconds to stand a good chance of avoiding counter battery fire .. . and this is c/b fire from the Russian systems which is not that sophisticated. The Boxer RCH155 type system seems to be the way to go alongside new long range shells.
That’s an interesting fact about doubts with tracked vehicles. I’ve the same concern with the current MBT designs. In the few years of the Ukraine conflict one issue has been exposed and it’s weight resulting in most Western tanks getting stranded in deep mud. I feel the answer is lighter tracked MBT’s (and tracked artillery) with possibly, a crewless turret but fielding a 120mm gun. Though getting bogged down applies to both sides using Russian tanks the incidents appear to be less? The quick fire and scoot looks like a design must and Archer certainly achieves a quick turn around. That being the case, the Boxer RCH 155 mm may be the better way forward?
I think most modern western MBTs, certainly Challenger , Leopard and Abrams are pretty much a throw back to 70s and 80s designs when the emphasis was fighting a defensive war in Europe . Big gun and good armour were the order of the day. Only the leopard giving a bit more of a nod to mobility. The doctrine recently prior to the onset of the Ukrainian war has been on expeditionary warfare. Now we are thrown back into the sharp reality of a peer vs peer conflict in Europe with armour. This where tanks are actually not really engaging each other but rather providing localised fire support and getting destroyed by smart artillery , drones, missiles and mines . Must be very confusing for tank strategists and designers at the moment !!
My instinct tells me to go smaller to somewhere in the Centurion size if not smaller. A crewless turret must save weight and reduce topside bulk, thus improving exposure? In hindsight the relatively small CH3 numbers may well be fortuitus if the way forward is to redesign the MBT.
Don’t think Boxers (whether they be APCs or SPGs) can’t get bogged in!
AS-90 had impressive shoot and scoot skills right from its 1992 introduction to service – 3 rounds fired in 10 seconds – and I am sure that into and out of action timings were fast too.
The very taut figure of 30 seconds surprises me. Is that a guess or has it been researched?
I am concerned that Boxer RCH-155 won the BA’s MFP ‘competition’ to replace AS-90 so quickly – looks like a political fix.
On 12 December 2023 Shepherd Media reported on the bids that had been offered or anticipated:
Option 3 was speedily selected, which is not MOTS – it still requires further development by an Anglo-German team replacing the Germany-only team. When will it be developed, tested and evaluated, tweaked and built in series numbers – we have very few AS-90s in service at the monment and a capability gap looks likely.
Were all 4 of the above options properly evaluated?
Ummm, perhaps someone could once again explain why M109A7 is not considered to be a logical replacement for AS90, subject to field trial results? Could this become an eerily similar case to the CV90 saga? BAES obviously crossed swords w/ the wrong party in tbe UK land warfare defence hierarchy. RN does not appear to have the same attitude toward BAES. Curious…🤔
M109A7 still only has a 39-calibre gun – that is very old school. Just about everyone is going for or has switched to 52-cal barrels.
M109 A7 has less performance where it matters than even the unmodernised 1992-era 39-cal AS-90 – less range, slower sustained rate of fire, slower intense rate of fire and inability to do a burst fire of 3 rds in under 10 seconds.
Presumably firs US army requirements and doctrine. In UKr its praised for its mobility and the US units have comprehensive supporting assets, lots of ISTAR, they will always have air superiority over the battlefield, have large helo fleets and deep.magazinws of GMLRS, ATACMs and soon PRSM..
They will be on the front foot so maybe 10-15km extra range in 155 artillery isn’t critical?
Yes, but perhaps M109A8, 9 or 10 will be substantially upgraded. USA strong suit is dogged persistence, eventually it will prevail, even if by random chance.
they have a new RAP round which gives a 40km range from the 39 caliber but are planning to install a 58 caliber gun on the M-109 in the future along with the hypersonic projectile. m-109s have a long future ahead of them
(US) Defense News reported in March this year that they had abandoned the 58 cal gun.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/03/11/us-army-scraps-extended-range-cannon-artillery-prototype-effort/
– not sure why they did not try 52 cal, as everyone else did. I agree that M-109s will have a long future. The Americans have made some big money out of it over the years.
Curious that the US is spending heavily on an SPG with 39 calibre barrel. Other countries have opted for longer range 52 calibre guns. The UK trialled a 52 calibre barrel to upgrade AS 90. Now we have joined with Germany to develop a Boxer variant with the longer range weapon.
IT’S odd going for the Boxer variant ,specially when we bought 14 Archer artillery platforms last year of the Swedes which is a fine system.I do think Boxer was a Sunak deal to keep the Germans happy , but thing is do the Army want it ?
A handful of Archers was always flagged up as an interim procurement to replace AS-90. The actual replacement is Boxer RCH-155. Some years ago the army wanted the Braveheart upgrade for AS-90; what they want now is anyones guess but they will get the wheeled Boxer SPG, whether they like it or not.
Well, no one should dare argue against that official, irrefutable logic. 😉
Sadly the Braveheart project got shelved as part of cost savings placed on the MoD by the Treasury. However the turret with the upgraded ammo handling and new barrel was cold to Poland and used on their T72 clone chassis to produce the Krab SPG.
Poland has given a number of these to Ukraine. Where it seems it’s doing well. I’d imagine the Braveheart AS90 would have just as good at least. Sadly another missed opportunity!
The story cited by Wikipedia is that Braveheart was dropped due to the inability of the proposed propellant to meet MoD’s Insensitive Munitions criteria. Odd – just go to another supplier!
The lack of upgrade for AS-90 was part of a whole era where that was the case for other AFVs. Inexplicable, and has caused untold harm.
Braveheart would have been great and could still have been in service for another decade. It may even have had export success.
Boxer is a platform manufactured here with engines also now UK made. If a wheeled system is what is judged best for modern shoot and scoot operation, it does seem the obvious longer term choice.
All of these wheeled SPGs look a bit ungainly. Both Cesar and Archer have to lower the gun from the platform before firing and return it before moving. RCH 155 doesn’t and can also fire on the move.
Hi Pete, not sure by what you mean by lowering the gun from the platform before firing. The gun is not separated from the truck for firing. Both Caesar and Archer have the guns mounted via turntable to the truck’s chassis. Caesar parks the gun over the truck cab, securing it with a cradle. Archer automatically stows the gun barrel in an armoured box, which runs the full length of the trailer section behind the cab.
Manpower wise, Caesar requires the gun to be manually aimed and loaded. Whereas Archer’s gun is remotely operated and mechanically loaded. Which means the Caesar crew operate out in the open, whilst Archer’s sit in an armoured cab. It also means Archer can set up and firing in about a third of the time it takes Caesar.
Boxer RCH takes this a step further. Although Archer is fully automated. It still needs to use hydraulic leveling jacks to align and steady the trailer for firing. Boxer it seems doesn’t need to do this. The firing computer must take into account the vehicle’s suspension movement following firing. Thereby allowing it to fire without using jacks, but also allowing it to fire on the move. Which in today’s war is a game changer!
Shoot and scoot is not a particulalary recent idea. Tracked SPGs can shoot and scoot too.
they are investing more in round technology such as the XM1133 and hypersonic projectile and have been trialling a 58 caliber
From what I understand the US trialled a 65 calibre barrel to get longer range but it wore out significantly quicker than the 52s or 39s 7000 expected rounds through the tube . The thinking now is they can get the required range from just improved technology in the shell itself.