BAE Systems has signed an agreement with the U.S Army for M777 lightweight howitzer major structures, under an Undefinitised Contract Action (UCA), which is currently limited to $50 million.
This allows BAE Systems to start delivering on the program while finalising the details of the contract and its total value with the customer.
BAE Systems will work with its supply chain in the UK and the US to produce the major M777 titanium structures, which form the basis of the gun. The first major structures are due to be delivered in 2025.
“BAE Systems has seen an increase in interest from across Europe, Asia, and the Americas in the M777 gun system. This new contract creates the optimum conditions for a restart of M777 production in the UK, and presents an opportunity to new and existing users to join a new M777 production initiative and take advantage of the benefits from a hot production line and economies of scale.”
The U.S., as well as Canada and Australia, has donated M777s to Ukraine.
“This restart of production of the major structures for the U.S. Army’s M777s comes at a critical time, with howitzers deployed on operations in Ukraine. The U.S., as well as Canada and Australia, has donated M777s to Ukraine. We understand that they are performing well and we are very proud of our role in supporting our allies”, said John Borton, vice president and general manager of BAE Systems Weapons Systems UK, which manages the manufacture and assembly of the M777 lightweight howitzers.
“The M777 will remain at the forefront of artillery technology well into the future through the use of technical insertions, long-range precision guided munition developments, and flexible mobility options.”
Why we haven’t bought the M777 to replace or augment our wheeled 105mm Guns is beyond me! Cheap, Long Range, Standardised, Precise + British designed.
We would have to make significant modifications to the design for our armed forces, then modify them again with ongoing committee meetings. Then after three years of debate and million lost we can cancel the project or just opt for the original spec!
Yes the thought of buying an existing artillery system built in Britain and used by all our allies with out the proper 4 letter acronyms and several design studies would be too much the bare. 😀
It’s a microcosm really of why the land defence industry in this Country has retry much collapsed the incompetence involved is almost beyond comprehension but one presumes this past 30 years greatly influenced by the deluded assumption that World peace had been finalised and planned and coordinated production of anything that kills (or at least can’t be very visual uk promotional like planes and ships) is just bad taste or unecessary. Fact is this gun was designed for British forces and was the ultimate and advanced example of a long line of British World class artillery pieces esp by Vickers that stretches back to the final years of the war. So sad that we frittered away such capabilities and to the point we didn’t even exploit this gun itself thus probably issuing the death knell to future continuation of this long tradition of quality design and development. Maybe we can at least make the most of this opportunity to at least exploit and extend the life of this weapon. Hey with a little effort maybe it’s an opportunity to re commit to this very important military sector, though probably asking too much. .
When was the last time we bought a readily available British made piece kit without dithering for years and having meetings about whether we couldn’t change the wheels at a cost of £20 million each currently be manufactured in Iran? 😡
Archer springs to mind.
Despite being Swedish in origin, they are made by a subsidiary of BaE and the first 14 were secured d quickly.
Hopefully they go on to buy more.
I am surprised to see the use of Titanium in m777. Titanium can only be bought from Russia. What a strange choice for a gun aimed at Russian soldiers.
Second thing, losses on static artillery are 77 destroyed amoungst the 100 delivered. The price paid for the lack of mobility is significant.
Math wrote:
“”I am surprised to see the use of Titanium in m777. Titanium can only be bought from Russia.””
The largest reserves of ilmenite and rutile ore :
1) China
2) Australia
3) India
4) Brazil
5) Norway
6) Canada
7) South Africa
8) Mozambique
9) Madagascar
10) Ukraine
That said simply holding huge deposits doesn’t equate to production of the stuff but that said China still holds top spot, Russia producers around 25% of the worlds titanium , simply because it is more industrialized, But that said Japan produces more of the metal than Russia and the Japanese stuff is of a much higher quality.
Thanks for the infos, I didn’t know this. Btw, Happy new year!
Things have moved on a lot since the CIA had to buy Soviet titanium for the SR71
Yes the misunderstanding on Russia goes back to the large exploitation of Titanium by Russia in Soviet times when money for hi tech was always a priority whereas in the West it was used far more sparingly only where strictly necessary. The Russians a year ago boasted about this expertise was why they had successful hypersonic weapons while the US was struggling in tests. Rubbish of course US expertise in Titanium use while more focused has been of a very high level in all manner of projects and supply does not rely on Russia.
But yes I was surprised by its use on the barrels of the M777 when it was first advertised at the beginning of this war esp as I didn’t think Britain had great expertise in using it. But makes sense. Makes sense though as it was a design specifically focused on making a large calibre gun as light and thus manoeuvrable as possible while retaining and indeed expanding longevity. Adds cost but for very good reason and its design makes it very quick and easy to set up and scoot.
Hehehe, we know the same stories! Though I did not know about other mines…
Except the actual gun on the Archer is 100% Swedish and pretty old. It’s the FH77 which is slightly older than the FH70 we used to have. The M777 is a whole generation later.
British originally designed but I understand the rights were sold to the US, who have massively refined it. Which means would need to buy from the US and likely be built there, meaning would be unpopular with the daily mail / express crowd.
BAe might be British HQ but its a public listed company with a large portion of its shareholders being American.
The M777 is built in Barrow in Furness, with parts assembly in the US for American-bought howitzers only
Your point on plcs is asinine – the same is true of basically every publicly-traded company in the world. The regional distribution of the free float has zero consequence to anything
It has a consequence on how likely a firm will aim to profitter against a specific country. Shareholders tend to protest when it’s against their own country.
Any alternative weapon would be designed, developed and unless we can obtain a build licence produced abroad. So not clear where the problem would lie, the DM is sure going to be more objectionable about a wholly foreign system than a partly foreign system which in fact virtually everything we have now from Ajax, through T-26 right up to Typhoon will be. And of course Tempest will be too, it’s inevitable with projects these days and indeed to a degree was back in the war when we used Bofors, Brens, Oelikon and Hispano Suiza cannons on our ships and aircraft with origins elsewhere even when built here.
They have certainly demonstrated to be highly effective in the ukraine war, so would be surprised if the mod wasn’t exploring adding itself to the US order.
In the previous arrangement 30% of each gun including the barrel was made in the UK, and 70% plus final assembly in the US.
That has absolutely nothing to do with who the shareholders are, but the fact that the US army and marine corps ordered 1,200 guns, and the British army ordered 0.
BAE has made plenty of bad decisions, I can’t think of a single one that benefitted the US and harmed the UK because of its shareholders.
The reason you might think BAE is focussed on the American market (I don’t) would have more to do with the fact that the US spends a dozen times more on its military than the UK.
Top 5 shareholders in BAE, 3 are American and 2 are British
Most BAe shareholders are pretty quiet and smug at present 😉
Large parts of the chassis and mount are U.K. built but not the barrels.
The Titanium barrels by far the most complex part are built here, but certainly there is American IP involved in the guns (esp the software utilised) these days and thus a licence required for that. But either way much of the value of it will be built here and I suspect most hi tech systems we produce will have US software in it somewhere. .
Err no they aren’t in fact no heavy barrels are built anywhere in the UK these days. Why do you think the CR3 and T26 guns are being built in Germany and USA.
The barrels on the M777 are steel not Ti, and are manufactured in the USA at the Watervliet Aresenal NY.
Ti has many uses but gun barrels isn’t one of them, the weight savings are in the use of it in other parts of the mounting, recoil system etc.
No it is built and the rights owned by BAe, but across both sides of the pond.
I’d say it is because Defence Spending has been cut, in order to free up funds to attempt to buy a win in the next election.
Any chance of switching out our 105mm for m777s
I wonder if the RA has ever formally stated a requirement for a towed 155mm howitzer since the demise of FH70?
The LIMAWS(G) was developed for the army but not proceeded with on grounds of cost.
The combination of a UK designed and partly UK manufactured gun and a Supacat built vehicle looks an obvious choice to beef up our currently very limited artillery capability.
Thanks for the reminder about LIMAWS(G), a M777 howitzer porteed, (rather than towed) on a new variant Supacat 8×6. Gun had to be dismounted to fire.
Closest the RA came to getting M777, probably.
Morning Graham, I’ve often wondered what we are going to replace our 105mm guns with when we eventually put them out to pasture. Must be going on for some 50 odd yo by now, having had numerous upgrades over the course of time. Most certainly had value out of them.
A switch to M777 seems a simple solution notwithstanding the extra logistical considerations required, however, another unknown is why the British army never adopted a 120mm mortar like the rest of Nato? Its not really comparable to a 155mm howitzer I know, but, isn’t far off of what our LG provides our Lt Inf Battalions.
Read a pretty good article on modern mortars a few years ago over on UK Land Power site , written by a Scandinavian artillery officer, was an interesting piece for a ‘dark blue’ like myself. Just wondered whether this might be a better/alternative option to our LG?
If the UK doesn’t jump on board with orders, UK MOD are truly braindead.
That requires the Brain to be alive in the first place 🤷🏻
I believe a full lobotamy is part of the New Joiners process for the MoD.
Ever seen Severance?
You’ve got to wonder why our allies have purchased and the UK hasn’t considering its origin. And why hasn’t this been put on the back of a truck or put in a turret or even a naval mount? Talking of the latter I think one of UKs proposed new light gun designs to replace the 105mm is a 127mm, not sure if it uses the same naval type shell but the choice calibre is interesting and maybe crossdeckable. Funny how the next MBT calibre seems to be 130mm, why not a more standard 127mm? Pardon my ignorance on shells of any kind, as there’s probably a (good) reason for it.
Any new MBT cannon would be smoothbore, so it wouldn’t be the same calibre as any naval gun even if it had the same bore diameter.
It states UK production, I understood production moved to the US from Barrow in Furness and given planning applications for Barrow Island BAE site, is there even any room to produce this gun in Barrow?
I stand by to be corrected and informed.
Well if they can build parts of the pressure hulls for the Spanish S80+ subs they should be able to do so. Or come to think of it Warton build using Titanium and they may need some work.
My understanding was that all the titanium parts were manufactured in UK & steel parts etc, including barrels & final assembly in US. So production would need to restart in both UK & US to end up with a complete weapon.
The original batch were built at Bartow in Furness, but, those fabrication halls are going to be history, hence my question.
David
Please see correction to my comment to you which I sent to myself😕
Hi David
At this moment the M777 is project managed from BAE Barrow (the old Vickers Armaments site) with 30% production including titanium structures and recoil system The other 70% and final assembly in the USA
In the non too distant past the Indian order for M777 on the BAE site stated Barrow as one of the sites sourcing the M777
I am now going to check the % Barrow is providing as BAE are good at listing every production sites% input to an order on their website
Hope you are wrong about the future of this Barrow site but the trend to the USA is there but the management of the orders and production is from Barrow which should count
Apologies the Indian order was mostly subcontracted to Indian manufacturers. However the recent press release states about the recommencement of production at Barrow so maybe that is the real positive
I wonder where? There is planning permission for those old halls to come down and new infrastructure built to support sub building.
However, if Barrow are getting a % of the M777 gun, great news. Thanks stickers.
If there was ever a Weapon that can add mass to the fire support for the British Army that was flexible, powerful and cost effective then it’s the M777.
The only answer to why we have never bought these, that I can think of is that is doesn’t have tracks, isn’t self propelled and cost a fortune.
The budget is pretty well fixed and it will supply some MBT’s, some sort of SPG, modernised MLRS, Boxers and Ajax. And that’s about it !
So MOD and the Army would have to sacrifice something nice and shiny to buy these Guns.
I’m not Army but IMHO one of the lessons to be learnt from the Ukraine is the need for a larger reasonably well trained and equipped reserve that can add bulk to the regulars and do something’s quite well.
These have TA or Army reserve written all over them, it isn’t like we don’t have 1000’s of MAN. trucks to tow them.
Unfortunately no one in MOD or the Army will ever suggest it because the Politicians would just cut something else.
When we started using the L118 105mm it could be airlifted by a Puma or Sea King, nowadays we have Chinooks and they can shift an M777 so why not replace them. Standardise the ammunition would also save money.
Lose something nice and shiney, you say?
I give the Guards Division. Replaced by actors wearing Armani and Buck House and Wellington Barracks turned into a UK Disney Land, what’s not to like? Hotels, entertainment, nightly fireworks… bugger, I forgot Lancaster House and tother Palace.
All surrounded by parks. Americans and Chicoms would be lining up to pay through online bidding!
US still field the M119 (L119) 105mm gun as well as the M777. You can manhandle the 2t 105 easier than the 4t 155. You can also shift the 105 with a Blackhawk battlefield helicopter. The 155 shell weighs around 43kg so 5×105 or 2×155. There are pluses & minuses. I’d still keep some 105 capability around, even if it’s not in the front line units.
But the M777 gives you a massive uplift in capability and the 105 only has marginal benefits.
If your fighting a major power will the 105 even have enough range to be useful.
Depends on where you are fighting, who you are fighting & what did they bring. The alternative to a 105 is the 120mm mortar. Though the L118 outrages the L119 by a significant margin when it comes 105’s. If the mountains are high enough, even the chinook will struggle to support a 155.
Not saying not to shift to 155 in the main, but there may well be times when a 105 (or 120) is going to be the best option. Amongst the big military’s – US, India, Canada, Indonesia, South Korea, Iran all still have towed 105. Others such as France have towed 120 mortars.
Aren’t the Americans re committing to 105mm in at least one of their programmes? Remember reading it some mths back so can’t remember the details, but it did surprise me as all I have heard is the 105mm calibre is as good as dead. From what I hear the Ukranians seem to like the 105mm as it’s so light and movable in their conditions.
Could that be the Booker light weight tank ?
Yes. The Booker (Don’t call it a tank even though it is) Armored Fighting vehicle is equipped with the M35 US developed 105mm M35 tank gun.
The 105 in the M10 Booker is 105x617mmR, it’s the same calibre as the 105mm cannon used in later variants of the Centurion MBT, it has no calibre commonality with either the L118 or M119 cannons.
Is a towed lightweight howitzer (I e., M777) a viable asset, in terms of mobility, on a battlefield such as the UKR? Have read contradictory assessments. Comparison often appears to be between towed artillery and SPGs, but if a combatant is resource constrained, perhaps the correct framing of comparison should be between towed artillery and a catapult?
A lot seem to have been lost since they were donated.
Wonder if procuring Archer as an interim solution shows they really want something either shoot and scoot / mobility capability.
Just seen a video (Russian soldier) driving along the road parallel to the Dnipro near Kherson where virtually anything that moved had been hit by drones the road was littered with wrecks and indeed as he sped along filming he was hit by a drone too, though survived. It’s difficult to know the survivability of almost anything in some areas of the front line. Outdoor need some figures between towed and self propelled to determine their relative survivability balanced against cost and flexibility.
From what I have heard, they find the M777 easier to hide & they often dig them in making them harder for drones & Lancet munitions to hit. It appears Russian counter battery fire by tube artillery is not good. Systems like Caesar are too big to hide & too easy to take out if discovered. Would not be surprised if Ukraine places orders for M777 now production has restarted.
Somewhat O/T, saw a piece on X(Twitter) last night about an article in the Telegraph, saying that despite currently being in refit, HMS Argyle wont be put into service again as we don’t have enough crew to man her? Not sure if that is accurate or not, but either way doesnt make good reading or indeed not good news.
Should of course say HMS Argyll, would like to think that I would get the spelling of our WS names correct occasionally, being ex Navy!!!🤔
If they just spent money on refitting Argyll, giving it 4 or 5 more years of life, it would be lunacy of the highest order to decommission it. If it’s down to lack of people, why not spend 9 months or so turning into a ASW frigate with the gear from Westminster (and the Westminster’s refit budget), so we get another ASW frigate of which we are short, rather than a GP frigate. We can hope to train more people in the interim, maybe reserves. I say this despite being mindful of the need for a GP frigate in the Red Sea at the moment. More Captas, less Capita.
Unless they plan on selling it off at a bargain basement price. In the middle of a frigate numbers dip. They really couldn’t be that stupid, could they?
Oh yes they could!
Hi Jon,
still waiting to see if this is actually true or not, so far the noise from the MOD/RN in response is deafening, or not as the case may be!! Rather telling dont you think?
Not entirely sure why we couldn’t combine the elements of both crews to form one crew, and as you say get some years of service out of her?
The other issue which is also somewhat unclear, is how many more people and when are they required by, to start fleshing out the two crews that will eventually form both Glasgows and Venturers ships companies. I imagine that both ships will require their full complement of sailors some 6-12 months prior to leaving the dockyard to start trials. Perhaps someone like @ Gunbuster might be able to shed more light on the subject.
It may well be that with the state of both frigates and not so much the money(although obviously still an issue), it is more the time it will take to get the hull back in service that is ultimately driving this decision. Couldn’t really have come at a worse time I know, we are starting to reap the rewards of years of poor fiscal policy and a lax attitude to all things defence. All those capabilities that we are meant to be getting in the future, are really required now are they not! 2027 onwards is looking a tad too late!
On a peace time footing we have crew shortages but the main thing is to start building up ships we can use for wartime.
Ships sitting alongside still serve a useful function even if they don’t have crews.
My thought entirely. Better to have ships for crews to go to than crews and no ships to put them on. In war that position is only emphasised.
Jim, as good as that might be, and we have done so in the past I know, but I dont think we now have the money for it. Especially as we are close (<2yrs) to getting 2 new warships into service. Its a classic ‘between a rock and a hard case’ scenario, not an easy call, either one will attract much criticism. Its a situation we should never have found ourselves in, but here we are!
Well done bae (again) As ever ‘strengthening’ its dominance/monopoly/control and ownership of the defence industry.