XM2001, XM1203 and now XM1299. It seems the need to one up other people can be quite a detriment. If they just went for a L52 gun without any extra frills it would be in service by now, it might not be better than K-9 but at least it would exist.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
XM2001 was a victim of the peace dividend. The Army wanted it but with the Soviets out of business and the future forecast of wars being low intensity peace keeping the big 155mm 52 caliber gas turbine powered SPH was out. It died along with its new GT engine that was supposed to be a drop in upgrade for the Abrams.
It’s intended replacement?
XM1203 NLOS C. Which in a great power competition era wouldn’t have worked. NLOS C was part of the FCS family of manned vehicles it was supposed to be an automatic loading 25 ton, 155mm 38 caliber SPH.
Note that caliber because that means that it would still have come up on the short end of the range debate. Despite what a lot of media said of FCS it wasn’t meant for force on force applications it was meant for rapid deployment against poorly equipped forces particularly asymmetric in a show of force not use of force role. It was supposed to be backed by conventional armor if a great power competition came up.
So even if FCS had gone its course we would still be talking about something like the XM1299.
XM1299 was built on the suspension of the improved M109A7 155mm 39 caliber SPH. But it wasn’t just a long barrel A7. Atleast that wasn’t its end game.
It was also to be using an automatic loader originally developed for the XM1203. Though it would lack the magazine capacity of the K9A2 Thunder (roughly half) it offered much of the capabilities. Put a pin in this.
In 2023 BAE systems the Paladins manufacturer and Rhinemetall demonstrated an M109A7 with the L52 cannon from a German PzH2000. This isn’t actually the first time this has happened as far back as the 1990s mostly European militaries have looked into even done modifications to their M109 SPH with 47 and 52 caliber cannons.
So is this the end?
If you read carefully I just gave two potential upgrades to the M109A7. The 52 caliber gun and the automatic loader.
Alternatively the U.S. has been looking at wheeled SPH systems though I doubt that would be endgame as replacement for the M109A7. However the top options there are already 52 caliber guns. They have yet to move beyond just window shopping.
Finally AUSA shows have of late been attended by South Korea’s Hanwha defense with them even demonstrating that the lates K9A1 with US Army ammunition types and making no secret of their intentions for the American subsidiary of Hanwha to become an American military iron monger. Depending on how the XM30 rolls it may create an opening for an American Thunder variant in the later Half of the decade.
If they want a American product xm1299 is as good as it practically gets. Otherwise if they care about cost and capability k9a2 should be best.
Honestly it is a prevlige not many country have. US may buy any foriegn product thanks to allies, and request domestic production.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It’s not that simple. The U.S. has laws and regulations that prohibit widespread adoption of a foreign made product. A lot of countries do. As such adoption of the K9A2 would require licensing. Small number buys are fine but the US Army would require almost 600 units assuming a 1:1 replacement.
The good thing is US has strong influence over allies. It is like constellation class. US can be a partner and make k9a2 at home. Maybe import little to no foriegn parts. Production can even be American company. Maybe swap some parts to existing American parts.
The truth is the Crusader howitzer (XM2001) was not cancelled just because of the peace dividend. It was just a stupid project to begin with. It was supposed to operate with an ammunition supply vehicle connected to its back. This was mandatory because otherwise you couldn't carry enough ammo to sustain the increased fire rate or carry the cooling fluid for the main gun. So you basically had two MBT sized vehicles you had to transport and sustain. By using a gas guzzling turbine engine a lot of space was used just to carry fuel. This was supposed to replace the Paladin. But the Paladin was like half the weight of the Crusader and that's without the mandatory supply vehicle. The Crusader couldn't be air transported in any economic fashion. The Crusader was a boondoggle.
The Future Combat Systems howitzer (XM1203) was tested and claimed to be a success before the whole FCS got cancelled. But I read the program reports back then. The electrically primed gun was indeed tested in a test vehicle and supposedly worked fine. But it turns out this vehicle was neither finished nor could it carry any substantial amount of ammo in it. So you had a gun which seemingly worked (although it was never combat tested) in a vehicle chassis which was basically useless. The chassis was useless because FCS was meant to be transportable in a C-130 Hercules and this meant you had a howitzer with a gun and no space for ammo inside.
The latest howitzer program uses a gun which has an extremely expensive and hard to replace barrel that doesn't last more than a couple of shots. Another failure.
The Future Combat Systems howitzer (XM1203) was tested and claimed to be a success before the whole FCS got cancelled. But I read the program reports back then. The electrically primed gun was indeed tested in a test vehicle and supposedly worked fine. But it turns out this vehicle was neither finished nor could it carry any substantial amount of ammo in it. So you had a gun which seemingly worked (although it was never combat tested) in a vehicle chassis which was basically useless. The chassis was useless because FCS was meant to be transportable in a C-130 Hercules and this meant you had a howitzer with a gun and no space for ammo inside.
The latest howitzer program uses a gun which has an extremely expensive and hard to replace barrel that doesn't last more than a couple of shots. Another failure.
Last edited:
US Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment 2024.
According to the document, China has the opportunity to compete directly with the US and its allies and change the rules-based world order. At the same time, China's serious demographic and economic problems could make it an even more aggressive and unpredictable global actor.
Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine highlights that it remains a threat to the rules-based international order.
Iran will continue to be a regional threat, having a broader negative impact.
North Korea will expand its capabilities in the field of weapons of mass destruction, while being a destructive actor in the regional and global arena.
According to the document, China has the opportunity to compete directly with the US and its allies and change the rules-based world order. At the same time, China's serious demographic and economic problems could make it an even more aggressive and unpredictable global actor.
Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine highlights that it remains a threat to the rules-based international order.
Iran will continue to be a regional threat, having a broader negative impact.
North Korea will expand its capabilities in the field of weapons of mass destruction, while being a destructive actor in the regional and global arena.
Frankly I fail to see how these are bad things. Are we at the point where massive stimulus to boost economic growth is seen as a good thing now?
The Western media treats it as a good thing because it is exactly what they want China to do. And of course, you know that if they want China to do it, it can't be good for China.
US Intelligence Community OSINT Strategy 2024-2026
Includes four strategic areas of development:
1. Coordination of open source data collection and enhanced information sharing.
2. Establishing an integrated management of open source data collection.
3. Innovate OSINT to provide new capabilities.
4. Development of personnel and professional skills in conducting OSINT of a new generation.
Includes four strategic areas of development:
1. Coordination of open source data collection and enhanced information sharing.
2. Establishing an integrated management of open source data collection.
3. Innovate OSINT to provide new capabilities.
4. Development of personnel and professional skills in conducting OSINT of a new generation.