BAE Systems has been awarded a $473 million contract by the U.S. Army to produce additional M109A7 Paladin self-propelled howitzer systems, the company stated.
The award covers the manufacture of 40 further M109A7 Paladin sets, including the associated M992A3 Carrier Ammunition Tracked vehicles used to support artillery operations. The contract was issued by the U.S. Army Contracting Command Detroit and represents the first award under a wider five-year contracting framework.
According to the company, the agreement also includes a range of support services alongside vehicle production, such as technical support packages, post-production refurbishment activity and welding compliance work intended to sustain the fleet over its service life.
Dan Furber, Combat Mission Systems’ artillery and combat support programme director at BAE Systems, said: “The M109A7 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer provides the firepower and operational advantage Soldiers need on the modern battlefield. This platform gives warfighters the decisive edge in any conflict, and we are looking forward to continuing to provide this proven capability to the U.S. Army.”
The M109A7 is the latest iteration of the long-running Paladin artillery system, modernised to improve mobility, survivability and integration with current U.S. Army formations, according to the company. Production of the vehicles will take place across multiple U.S. facilities, including York, Pennsylvania; Elgin, Oklahoma; and Anniston, Alabama. BAE Systems said the contract was awarded in September and forms part of ongoing efforts to sustain and expand U.S. Army artillery capacity through incremental production and support over the coming years.
Makes sense to order 100 for the UK to replace the AS90?
Oh sorry – forgot we just assess, consider, review, cut, assess, consider, review, cut….
They got cut by Rachel in Accounts before they were purchased. She now sees that as the best strategy to save money. I believe the Treasury is drawing up a manual for the British Army to train its soldiers to throw sticks and stones. Apparently, it’s an easy skill that anyone (but the children of senior civil servants and MP’s) can learn. They won’t even have to fund the stores.
Problem is that it harms the environment. Taking stones out of their natural habit disturbs the ecosystem.
Don’t need these but we should hurry up and order some RCH-155s ASAP.
Is tracked not more adaptable than wheeled? How useful is wheeled in certain terrains only accessible using tracked?
I wonder how practical it would be to create a tracked Boxer chassis for RCH-155.
On second thoughts, you’re probably right and it’d be cheaper to order something already tracked. Rather not go through the fiasco of another Ajax!
👍
They’ve already built a tracked boxer chassis, a couple years ago now. The RCH155 gun was also mounted onto a ASCOD2 chassis years ago (the base of Ajax) so these options all exist[ed] if someone would simply pay for them. Ukraine has shown how quick you can go from drawing board to reality if you really want to. We also can sort of make boxer hulls in the UK unlike thia paladin or the ascod
Fair one, I didn’t know that they’d already done a tracked version.
That sounds much better than a Paladin or similar.
Tracked is a maintainance headache. RCH155 is manpower and supposedly maintainance light. Supposedly. Of course we will need some to find out. The new wheeled plattforms are almost as flexible as tracked mobility. If its really can operate with a crew of two, and fire on the move it’s a no brainer. If.
Oliver, I doubt that the 2-man crew is going to work out well. Unlike the RAF, the BA does not operate a shift system; no 8 hour days for those 2 guys. Have you ever cammed up a vehicle, maintained a 24hr radio watch, done 24hr stags, vehicle and gun maintenance, done mission planning, attended O Groups, done cooking, bombing up at replen etc etc with just 2 people? Let alone driving about and firing the gun. These 2 guys are going to be exhausted after 3 or 4 days.
Yeah, it’ll be a crew of two and then a force protection group or support group that is not on the vehicle.
Rmj, we have always had a mix of tracked and wheeled (towed) artillery. Nowadays the wheeled SPGs are prolific. We should have tracked, towed and wheeled SPG types. Then you have flexibility.
Makes no sense, the Paladin it 1960’s tech with only a 39 caliber barrel. Compared to modern European self propelled 155mm it’s a total joke. The US army would not last five minutes in an artillery dual with this stuff. It’s about as advanced at AS90 which we gave away exactly because it was not up to scratch.
Archer and RCH 155 both have a 52 caliber barrel.
The US desperately needs to move away from out dated systems like Paladin and M777 and purchase some of the latest European systems (as hard as that is for them because no gravy for the MIC)
If it’s good enough for the US army it’s good enough for us. With the just 14 Archers we’re scrapping a rusty barrel. Archers and RCH155s would struggle off road v’s tracked?
It’s literally not good enough for the US army, they have been trying to replace it for years. They have produced three systems since 1994 to replace it and had to cancel all three and now they are trying to stick a 52 caliber barrel on the M109.
It may surprise you to learn that a lot of the US army’s gear is pretty mediocre compared to the latest European stuff. Americans air and naval systems are top class and many are in a league of their own but its land systems are dated and trapped in the same MIC gravey train as the other services but without the same generous budgets.
RCH 155 is a far superior system and will be delivered before any orders for anything else could reach us.
Just curious how is the UK artillery park looking right now?… You talk really big and have essentially zero capability but keep up the blather
Grow up you troll and learn to have a nuanced conversation.
Tbf the MIC gravy train would push for development as well; more funding from the US government to develop a better system, more potential for export orders. The truth is it’s not the gravy train that is holding US fires back, it’s prioritisation, the Airforce and Navy are higher on the budget, and even the army, having not had to face credible hostile artillery since the 80s has seen Paladin and M777 as “good enough” to soldier on and shell insurgents, and put that money elsewhere.
Are you kidding?… Same crap everyday.
RMJ, Even recent M-109s arent that great. The Americans have never used best technology on their SPG – they were still usng hydraulic, rather than electric gun control until recently and they use old torsion bar suspension. Original M109 was a late 1940s design, and the A7 was designed in 2005-2006. A7 Paladin is worse in nearly every way to AS-90 even though the latter was never seriously upgraded. When fielded AS-90 could do burst fire of 3 rounds in less than 10s (true shoot and scoot); Paladin still cannot do that. AS-90 has better intense rate of fire and better sustained rate of fire. AS-90 has better range with the standard shell, better suspension thus better and faster cross-country ride, greater vehicle range, smaller frontal area, carries far more rounds, has better armour protection. AS-90 can be brought into action fully closed down; the barrel can be clamped and unclamped from within the vehicle. In-to and out-of action times are less than one minute.
If the Braveheart upgrade had been fielded in 2003, AS-90 would almost certainly be the best SPG in the world.
Thanks Graham – god note. I’d still take 100 Paladins over giving the RA crews endless PowerPoint decks to pretend they have artillery!!!
Genuine question – has the lack of artillery impacted RA personnel recruitment and retention?
I think it’s worth remembering that the RA hasn’t given up all it’s artillery. We tend to talk about our AS90’s being replaced by only 14 Archers but we also have MLRS, 105mm light guns, GBAD, Counter Battery Radar, STA patrols in the HAC, OP crews… SPG’s are high profile but a relatively small part of the RA.
Considering it’s available, within budget and works I don’t suppose there is a cats chance of us getting any…
Are these new build, or ‘remanufactures’ of existing hulls?
The A7 is on a new hull based on the Bradley IFV. All the A6 versions and before were on the same 1960 hulls that were remanufactured.