Self-Propelled Artillery Systems:
rounding up who's putting the rounds up

But it is strange when the US looks ready to cancel Crusader that Europe is opting for such a heavy system as PZH2000 [pictured left]. After all, Crusader is a bit of a beast when it comes to weight, including as standard an ammo re-supply vehicle without which it has operating difficulties. A key reason for binning Crusader is its failure to match US Army aspirations to be a rapid-reaction, mobile and agile force. So if this is the case with Crusader, what of a 55-tonne PZH 2000?

Of course, Germany has declared its PZH2000s as a critical part of its rapid reaction forces, although this must be more symbolic than factual. Can a 55-tonne armoured vehicle ever be part of truly rapidly-reacting forces? PZH2000 follows a line of US Army enthusiasm – mechanisation in order to reduce crew numbers, using an ammunition feed system that would be far from unrecognisable in a ship.

It is indeed rapid firing and can sustain fire for lengthy periods. But, again, what of the wait? 155mm ammunition imposes its own enormous burden on logistics – but what is the impact of such a heavy gun system? Crusader has been tagged with the label that it is a backwards-looking system with regard to capabilities and operations.

Effectively, at least according to those determined to kill Crusader, it is a Cold War-style weapons system, and not a "transformational system" – the terminology denoting a key capability for a future US Army. Considering the waiting period, the ammunition feed technology and the PZH2000's size and the cost why should none of the US views on Crusader apply to it? At face value, PZH2000 looks as if it is, in its own way, the "Euro Crusader." Is PZH2000 a European technological land systems last gasp – an entity that should have either entered service a decade ago or never? On this, time alone will tell.

Defence Analysis is (possibly mistakenly) bemused by the fate of two systems in the export market: BAES's AS90 and Denel's G6. The AS90 turret sold in Poland – but that was it. It has often been praised during contests and has even been selected (Kuwait) only to lose politically, and has always received flattering comments.

But that was all. Is it, yet again, that AS90 [pictured left] is a peculiarly British system? An SP artillery piece closely tailored to Royal Artillery use but which somehow doesn't gel with other users? It has a funded upgrade plan for fitting of a 52-calibre barrel, and the ammunition – if and when it finally works – should confer on it a range equal to any other 52-calibre 155mm system.

The G6, too, after a few initial successes, has lagged. Despite being exceptionally low priced and with an ammunition line that receives global praise, it has not cut the mustard. Is this because it is too heavy? (It is undoubtedly strangely weighty for a wheeled vehicle). Or is it because the standard crew for the weapon is six or more men?

There has to be a major question as to whether artillery technology is on a cusp, on the verge of major technological advances which might persuade would-be purchasers to wait rather then to buy immediately. The US appears sure that many future indirect fire roles currently undertaken by artillery pieces will be covered either by exotic land-based missile systems, or by the air-dropped Joint Direct Attack Munition.

There had been a belief that liquid chemical propellant electro-thermally energised guns were in close prospect. But there is ample evidence that modern, advanced 52-calibre 155mm artillery still has a role for the foreseeable future. Or at least, the other options are still too risky to be considered in the short term. But arguably, conventional self-propelled tube artillery might be facing its demise. If the US Army's views on the future outlook become the widely accepted gospel then lightweight smart systems, often powered shells, will come on stream by the end of this decade.

• Digitisation and Bandwidth - DISAPPEARING IN FRONT OF YOUR VERY EYES
• US Marine Corps Lessons from Afghanistan - APPLICATION OF THE BEST IN COMMON SENSE
• US Defence Modernisation - DON'T MESS WITH DONNY!
• British Army Heavy Support Vehicles Programme - ANOTHER REQUIREMENT; ANOTHER BURDEN?
• Defence Procurement Agency Reform - A NEW BROOM?
• National Audit Office Report on Repairs - ROOM FOR SERIOUS IMPROVEMENT
• Defence Programme Economics - IF IT'S WORTH DOING WELL
• International Collaboration - DODGY LOGIC?
• LAV Protection - MORE CHICKEN WIRE?
• Land Mines - GOODBYE TO INDISCRIMINATE WEAPONS?
• Precision Guided Bombs - A MATTER OF ACCURACY
• UK NLAW Programme and European Industrial Politics - THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE?
• European Missile Market - MIXED SIGNALS
• Vehicle Propulsion Technologies - NO MILEAGE IN WAITING
• Future Rapid Effects System - NOW FOR THE BEST TRICK
• Naval Air Defence Systems - DE-SKINNING THE ONION
• Future Support Helicopter Requirements - ONLY TOWARDS THE HEAVY?
• US Export Partnering Policy - NOT GETTING THE IDEA
• US, JAS-39 Gripen, and Central Europe - FORGETTING TESTED TRUTHS
• DEFENCE INDUSTRY NEWS
• DEFENCE DIVERSITY

REF XQQDA XQQEE XQQMA XQQAS XQQLD