Paladin mentioned only mentioned due to range ,matches G-6 at 40 miles -70km, K-9 is 50km.
SP , thought this was a SPH like K-9
Bail out -3.3 x 60 = USD $ 198 million = R 3.3 Billion , not too sure.
Ideas, perhaps you are right. a lot of 'ideas' though is re hashed or development from old ideas. Hypersonic missiles, C-RAM like LEDS 150,
Good night,
I'll rely on Wikipedia for this one, if you all don't mind. If you find a source with more correct numbers, be sure to correct me.
G6-52 ER, or basically the good old G6-52 with a 25 liter chamber instead of the (IIRC) NATO standard 23 liter chamber, can fire special VLAP rounds out to 73km.
However, we don't know exactly how these compare to the HE-ER-BB rounds that are considered to be the benchmark for range, so we'll look at the HE-ER-BB round range for the 25 liter G6-52.
The range for that is 50km, versus the 41km achieved with NATO standard guns. That is, by all means, a very impressive feat.
However, this does not come without a cost.
Guns have something called pressure limits. Exceed the peak pressure for the gun, and you're either going to fire fewer rounds before getting a complete gun replacement, or you're going to fire at a much slower rate. The most likely of the two is actually a combination of both.
Firing a shell to its maximum range actually requires exceeding the gun's maximum pressure.
And while increasing the chamber's volume may enable it to withstand higher pressures, the peak pressure rating for the barrel itself doesn't change, meaning the barrel is now more prone to cracking and breaking.
For example, an APFSDS shell is vastly exceeding the maximum pressure rating for a tank's gun. So if the gun has a rating of 1,000 shots at EFC, then firing only APFSDS will cause it to crack at, say, 500 (made up number).
There is more or less a known standard not among armed forces, but within industry, about a ratios of gun parameters for the best balance of performance.
It seems that in recent years most of the developments have involved gun length increase, in both tanks and howitzers.
Maintaining the same chamber volume, I believe, there has been a steady increase from L23 all the way up to L52, after going through L39 and L45.
So, the G6-52 basically achieves greater range via a larger chamber, but it sacrifices a rate of fire for that, and increases maintenance costs and demands.
The M109A8 only lengthens the gun, to my knowledge, and only sacrifices recoil and stabilization management, two areas in which great advancements were made since the L52's arrival.
According to the sources I found, an M109A8 SPH can fire "conventional" rounds out to 50km, and "extended range" rounds out to 70km. Exactly what that means, I don't know. But the 70km figure was reached with an available iteration of a rocket assisted shell.
The end goal is to reach 120-130km.
But already when you're reaching ranges like 70km, the bottleneck stops being the range of your guns, and becomes the range of your sensor deployment.
Sure you can fire out to 100km, but can you routinely send drones 100km away AND maintain enough eyes on the surroundings of the maneuvering forces?
An additional factor is that in the eyes of the public, a VLAP that usually sacrifices warhead size for range, is a total wildcard. Two companies can make a round reaching 70km, but if one retained 50% of the warhead mass, and the other 70% of the warhead mass, then the latter is clearly superior.
An A8 is going to be AT LEAST as good as a G6-52ER, if not exceptionally better, AND it's made by a reliable ally and a reliable manufacturer.
I believe the only reason Australia really went for a K9 over a future A8 because they want to start procurement NOW, and the A8 is still a very high risk program, a factor to whom the ADF has deep aversion within the concept of the grand LAND program.
