They thickened and lengthened the barrel and popped in a ramjet shell with extra propellant and voila there is your 70 km (roughly 44 miles) range of fire. They are now working on a 1000 mile artillery piece. So stay tuned....
I just learned that Pratt & Whitney were developing a 16 inch scramjet shell for the Iowa class BB's that had a 400 nautical mile range. It's a shame they were pulled from service before those rounds were finished.
@@MrBurgerphone1014 For good reason, IMHO...considering how proliferate LRASMs are these days, and how much of a magnet those Iowa class would've become. What do you think?
@@MrBurgerphone1014 If you can accelerate the projectile to escape the earth gravity and have it fall back to earth then literally you can lob it at a very long distance. There is a history to that and it is called "the Supergun." A Canadian was helping Saddam Hussein to build such a weapon. Several had been built and the barrel is extremely long....and so on...
They have already achieved that goal with the M777 light weight titanium artillery piece firing the 155mm shells with extended barrels and new, improved shells.
With assisted ammo (BB, RAP & BBRA-VLAP) only. But they cause a lot of wear to the barrel, I think 58 cal will allow unassisted projectiles to achieve longer ranged i.e. 70 kms
@@SR-be5hr Yes, they extended the barrel length by 6 feet and thickened the barrel to handle more propellant in the rounds and that has already been achieved at the Yuma Proving Ground. Nammo has also made a ramjet round that contains solid fuel that would ignite once the round leaves the barrel to accelerate the round toward its target and the range is at around 100km or more depending on how much solid fuel is packed into the shell.
I really hope they installed efficient auto loader system. Plus they need to develop an ammo carrier platform that can automatically supply 155mm shells like what South Korea did for their K9 SPH.
Man, I use to drive this thing. I don't see any improvement other than it has a longer gun. I was in the US Army from 1983-1986. I was in Field Artillery.
Just an observation but in video and in description you give diameter in calibres (agreed correct) but could you give mm, length of barrel etc or is there a reason?
I am a huge fan of ling range weaponry by cannon. When flexable and functional i see fields of fire from shore that can make life hell on incomming subs by laying down fields of simultaneous rounds impacting at one time or byrsting in the air against evasive rockets or rockets in general or fields of destruction on the battle field that destroy battalions of mechanized units in a single pass. All timed and cordinated from one pisition but fired from dispersed positions. This new tech can wioe out vast areas in one simultanious smack. I hope it goes well. To that end 1000 miles out the target. Pulse explosive munitions maybe the way.
@@Battery-kf4vu Depending on the version but Hellfire missile and Excaliber 155mm round cost roughly around $70,000-$100,000 per round but Hellfire missile can travel out to around 4-5miles but the artillery round can travel out from 15 miles to 44 miles and even longer with solid fuel round.
This us awesome but we need more missiles. Thousands and Thousands of long range land and sea based missiles to take out enemy SAM sites and Air Bases to open up Bombing Missions
Bombing missions are the most expensive way to get payload on target. Only more expensive option is carrier based. Land based missiles: Yes. Everything else: Pretty much: No. Long range fires is all about $$$/Ammo tonnage = higher number of targets eliminated for lowest cost.
@@w8stral Missiles are good for high value stationary targets. However the concept has always been to destroy SAM systems with Stand off missiles/long range artillery which opens up a hole for strategic bombing runs or airdrop of airborne troops. There just aren't enough missiles to replace good old bombing. Although the Army has just plsced an order for 10,000 more GMLRS rockets this year.they acquired 8,000 last year and 6,000 the year prior. Clearly they are stockpiling rocket artillery. It's good that they are finally stocking up on LRASMs and JASSM. Now that INF Treaty is done they should buy Tomahawk land Missiles again
@@smithnwesson990 Depends what you mean by rocket artillery, and bombing. Now that everything is guided, bombing missions on paper seem valid ... until you factor in cost of the aircraft and its development compared to a simple missile which is vastly cheaper and you do not care if a few get intercepted. For instance take the A-10 which on paper can carry ~16,000lbs of ammo servicing a lot of targets, but the planners during cold war figured that the A-10 would last at best a week before they were all shot down and this was seen as the cheapest form of interdiction. Today, same interdiction range... How many sorties is this? Not many. For same cost how many missiles can you fire? A HUGE number. For same cost how many GMLRS can you fire? A greater number. For Artillery with Excaliber how many can you fire? A VASTLY greater number yet. If you wish to do the calculation then do energy required, cost of logistics and vulnerability of said logistics to get asset close to a theatre, and payload delivered. I grant, not straight forward task. The biggest cost is fuel and protecting fuel supply. For instance 1 gallon of kerosene/diesel in the theatre of war cost roughly $400......, but you can stand off and fire, cost drops to ~$20. The cheapest has been artillery fire for the last 100 years, but recently has lagged behind bombing IF, uh hem, IF you eliminate need for stealth etc. As soon as that is reinserted into the equation... not cheaper. As for your question why does everyone not make LONG fire artillery? Because they are not stupid as the rounds everyone has fired UP TO THIS POINT, have all been STUPID artillery rounds along with their pathetic precision, accuracy. Now that artillery rounds are guided, what they are aimed at they hit. But, 155mm artillery with half the insides full of guidance systems means they are once again, not all that good. Need higher amount of explosive which means bigger shells which means BIGGER guns, which just coincidentally also means 2X-->4X the range if not 10X-->100X the range depending on the artillery system in question. For instance large tube artillery where shell has a scramjet in it has effective range only limited by artillery size. For instance 1500nm delivering 200lbs of high explosive out of a 16" unmodified Mark 50 barrel on the Iowa class battleships, or 1000nm delivering 400lbs of high explosive arriving at ~mach 6. The problem with these shells is when it was calculated out in the late 70's and 80's, no guidance system could withstand being fired out the barrel. Today, that is not true. Why is 1500nm significant? Because 1500nm covers 80% of the earth's surface if fired from a ship at the coast line. Only a small part of central China/Russia/Asia would be off limits. While long range artillery fires is started from the ARMY, who actually NEEDS this is the NAVY, anyone's NAVY. The problem today is missile interception, not the cost of producing them and firing them.
I could be out of date myself, but my understanding of the rationale for not using auto-loaders had to do with avoiding the risk of malfunctions when they were really needed. If a malfunction were to occur, the only alternatives left would be to revert back to a manual loader, or have the gun out-of-action until a mechanic made the required repairs, not to mention the possibility that a part or parts may be required. All of these circumstantial considerations take time and put not only the gun at risk, but the gun crew, and ultimately the ground troops that are forward, that the gun is supposed to be supporting.
They thickened and lengthened the barrel and popped in a ramjet shell with extra propellant and voila there is your 70 km (roughly 44 miles) range of fire. They are now working on a 1000 mile artillery piece. So stay tuned....
I just learned that Pratt & Whitney were developing a 16 inch scramjet shell for the Iowa class BB's that had a 400 nautical mile range. It's a shame they were pulled from service before those rounds were finished.
@@MrBurgerphone1014 For good reason, IMHO...considering how proliferate LRASMs are these days, and how much of a magnet those Iowa class would've become. What do you think?
@@TheCoupe06 Just sayin, a full broadside of 16 inch scramjet rounds would be badass.
Army Sad...1000 Mike gun lol...
@@MrBurgerphone1014 If you can accelerate the projectile to escape the earth gravity and have it fall back to earth then literally you can lob it at a very long distance. There is a history to that and it is called "the Supergun." A Canadian was helping Saddam Hussein to build such a weapon. Several had been built and the barrel is extremely long....and so on...
How many freedom per minute?
yes
Silly boy ALL the freedoms!!!
They have already achieved that goal with the M777 light weight titanium artillery piece firing the 155mm shells with extended barrels and new, improved shells.
With assisted ammo (BB, RAP & BBRA-VLAP) only. But they cause a lot of wear to the barrel, I think 58 cal will allow unassisted projectiles to achieve longer ranged i.e. 70 kms
@@SR-be5hr Yes, they extended the barrel length by 6 feet and thickened the barrel to handle more propellant in the rounds and that has already been achieved at the Yuma Proving Ground.
Nammo has also made a ramjet round that contains solid fuel that would ignite once the round leaves the barrel to accelerate the round toward its target and the range is at around 100km or more depending on how much solid fuel is packed into the shell.
@@trankt54155 - It sounds a plausible solution.
I really hope they installed efficient auto loader system. Plus they need to develop an ammo carrier platform that can automatically supply 155mm shells like what South Korea did for their K9 SPH.
"K9A2 thunder"
Thanks, Janes.
Man, I use to drive this thing. I don't see any improvement other than it has a longer gun. I was in the US Army from 1983-1986. I was in Field Artillery.
It’s been improved greatly, new engine, new chassis, etc.
It's not even the same gun at all....
Dude, we need to replace the m109 with something that has an auto loader
Just an observation but in video and in description you give diameter in calibres (agreed correct) but could you give mm, length of barrel etc or is there a reason?
try your own internet search....fkng whiner..are you a Russian troll?
@@danroley7850 thank you for not providing any meaningful feedback or discussion. Thank you for being so aggressive to a simple question. Seek help.
39 Calibre barrel is 39 x it's Bore diameter
I wonder if we can do more ourselves , usa by incorperating the pulsed explosive propulsion concept for extended range munitions.
I am a huge fan of ling range weaponry by cannon. When flexable and functional i see fields of fire from shore that can make life hell on incomming subs by laying down fields of simultaneous rounds impacting at one time or byrsting in the air against evasive rockets or rockets in general or fields of destruction on the battle field that destroy battalions of mechanized units in a single pass. All timed and cordinated from one pisition but fired from dispersed positions. This new tech can wioe out vast areas in one simultanious smack. I hope it goes well.
To that end 1000 miles out the target. Pulse explosive munitions maybe the way.
No bore evacuator?
Indeed! At 3:14 you can see 4 'dimples' on the barrel, like they filled in the bore evacuator holes.
@@CommandLineCowboy Pro'ly some fancy compressed air active purge system. Gotta upsell the gold plating!
I don't see a bore evacuator.
Thanks for Uploading.
True.
We all know why you inquired about ammunition costs. Are they still expecting the Army to buy $70,000 rounds?
The price would come down. Still longer range than the $68,000 Hellfire missile.
@@trankt54155 hellfire costs more than that
@@Battery-kf4vu Depending on the version but Hellfire missile and Excaliber 155mm round cost roughly around $70,000-$100,000 per round but Hellfire missile can travel out to around 4-5miles but the artillery round can travel out from 15 miles to 44 miles and even longer with solid fuel round.
@@trankt54155 Pretty sure even the basic hellfire costs around $110000. $60000 is more the cost of TOW-2A.
No. They will have some of the expensive rounds but the idea is to have a 30 to 40 mile range on standard Shells which would be a game changer
El blindaje proteja contra minas antitanques y misiles y armas químicas y biológicas
Pueda frentarse frente tanque t90
Its got sponsors like a race car....wtf...
But where are the racin' stripes? And don't they know red is faster and shoots farther?!?!
This us awesome but we need more missiles. Thousands and Thousands of long range land and sea based missiles to take out enemy SAM sites and Air Bases to open up Bombing Missions
Bombing missions are the most expensive way to get payload on target. Only more expensive option is carrier based. Land based missiles: Yes. Everything else: Pretty much: No. Long range fires is all about $$$/Ammo tonnage = higher number of targets eliminated for lowest cost.
@@w8stral true but bombing missions are necessary. However the US does need more rocket artillery
@@w8stral Missiles are good for high value stationary targets. However the concept has always been to destroy SAM systems with Stand off missiles/long range artillery which opens up a hole for strategic bombing runs or airdrop of airborne troops. There just aren't enough missiles to replace good old bombing. Although the Army has just plsced an order for 10,000 more GMLRS rockets this year.they acquired 8,000 last year and 6,000 the year prior. Clearly they are stockpiling rocket artillery. It's good that they are finally stocking up on LRASMs and JASSM. Now that INF Treaty is done they should buy Tomahawk land Missiles again
@@smithnwesson990 Depends what you mean by rocket artillery, and bombing. Now that everything is guided, bombing missions on paper seem valid ... until you factor in cost of the aircraft and its development compared to a simple missile which is vastly cheaper and you do not care if a few get intercepted. For instance take the A-10 which on paper can carry ~16,000lbs of ammo servicing a lot of targets, but the planners during cold war figured that the A-10 would last at best a week before they were all shot down and this was seen as the cheapest form of interdiction. Today, same interdiction range... How many sorties is this? Not many. For same cost how many missiles can you fire? A HUGE number. For same cost how many GMLRS can you fire? A greater number. For Artillery with Excaliber how many can you fire? A VASTLY greater number yet.
If you wish to do the calculation then do energy required, cost of logistics and vulnerability of said logistics to get asset close to a theatre, and payload delivered. I grant, not straight forward task. The biggest cost is fuel and protecting fuel supply. For instance 1 gallon of kerosene/diesel in the theatre of war cost roughly $400......, but you can stand off and fire, cost drops to ~$20. The cheapest has been artillery fire for the last 100 years, but recently has lagged behind bombing IF, uh hem, IF you eliminate need for stealth etc. As soon as that is reinserted into the equation... not cheaper.
As for your question why does everyone not make LONG fire artillery? Because they are not stupid as the rounds everyone has fired UP TO THIS POINT, have all been STUPID artillery rounds along with their pathetic precision, accuracy. Now that artillery rounds are guided, what they are aimed at they hit. But, 155mm artillery with half the insides full of guidance systems means they are once again, not all that good. Need higher amount of explosive which means bigger shells which means BIGGER guns, which just coincidentally also means 2X-->4X the range if not 10X-->100X the range depending on the artillery system in question. For instance large tube artillery where shell has a scramjet in it has effective range only limited by artillery size. For instance 1500nm delivering 200lbs of high explosive out of a 16" unmodified Mark 50 barrel on the Iowa class battleships, or 1000nm delivering 400lbs of high explosive arriving at ~mach 6. The problem with these shells is when it was calculated out in the late 70's and 80's, no guidance system could withstand being fired out the barrel. Today, that is not true. Why is 1500nm significant? Because 1500nm covers 80% of the earth's surface if fired from a ship at the coast line. Only a small part of central China/Russia/Asia would be off limits.
While long range artillery fires is started from the ARMY, who actually NEEDS this is the NAVY, anyone's NAVY.
The problem today is missile interception, not the cost of producing them and firing them.
30km range of fire they want double range so 30 miles
They doubled that to 70 km, which is roughly 44 miles..
trankt54155 that’s what they want. Currently it only shoots 18 miles if you add the difference it’s an additional 15 miles
1km = 0.62137 so 70km = 43.49 rounded is 44. Just for verification sake. 😗
@@r3gr3tfulfly3r5 nope check out their videos. They have already fired multiple rounds at 42 miles. They are trying to push it even further now.
Lots of 'fluff.' No detail equals 'no news'. Not really worth posting this interview.
are you gender confused?
So.....still no auto loader I see . Hmmmm kinda disappointing we are the only superpower left that doesn’t use auto loaders .
American muscle
I could be out of date myself, but my understanding of the rationale for not using auto-loaders had to do with avoiding the risk of malfunctions when they were really needed. If a malfunction were to occur, the only alternatives left would be to revert back to a manual loader, or have the gun out-of-action until a mechanic made the required repairs, not to mention the possibility that a part or parts may be required. All of these circumstantial considerations take time and put not only the gun at risk, but the gun crew, and ultimately the ground troops that are forward, that the gun is supposed to be supporting.
They are making it with an auto loader soon but theres a reason they stated away from them over time....MALFUNCTIONS. Humans don't malfunction
SmithN' Wesson lol idk I’ve seen a few privates malfunction!
@@ozzy7763 lol
Philippines can't buy
But they could buy lots of previous M-109s that would be plenty good for anything the AFP would need.
Bushmaster asusa
👎
Ww1 artillery had much better overall stats
Lol, thanks for the laugh mate.
...no sales to...Nigeria...none.
But I have several Princes lined up to buy them! Think of my commissions!!
Ancient stuff, Army Sad...
Seriously?
CNN fan?
lol
@@briancooper2112 Seriously ancient stuff. Improved segmented barrel design and prototype with +7000ft/s exit velocity was built over 30 years ago.
@@w8stral if it's ancient then why has no one field artillery that can reach out past 70km??
gun is riddikulus
Almost as good as decades old Russian guns 😝
So Russian guns today are worse than what they had decades ago. 😁
Umm Russia doesn't have Artilery that goes 70 pkus Km.
First