Just read this article, very interesting. Humvee-Mounted Low-Recoil 105mm Howitzer To Make Combat Debut In Ukraine
3 Likes
Yes, the US Army had its eye on it for a long time along with the FMTV 155mm “Brutus.” So far, the US Army didn’t buy.
There was a demonstration and “Shoot out” in the US Army and then COVID hit and news of the testing results and interest kind of ceased.
1 Like
It is known as the Hawkeye Mobile Howitzer System. As noted above, the US Military has not bought it.
3 Likes
It is the same scenario because the 105mm Hawkeye HMMWV mobile howitzer requires one or two HMMWVs or FMTVs to haul the ammo and the gun crew, meaning a combo of 2-4 trucks to fire one gun in “Shoot-and-scoot” but it’s better than fixed positioned with towed howitzers for mobile infantry.
I advocated that the US Army keep the 155mm Future Combat System’s Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (FCS NLOS-Cannon) SPH with around 20+ rounds in an autoloader and under 30 tons. FCS NLOS-C uses a form of the M777 with the same shell firing range. But nope, the US Army canceled the entire FCS program when FCS NLOS-C was tested and worked! Now the US Army and USMC are both wondering about their towed M777s’ vulnerability to loitering munitions, UASs, and counter-battery fire.
FCS NLOS-C would have been a perfect SPH for US Airborne and Light Infantry. Now you have the 105mm M10 Booker Combat Vehicle and no SPH to go along with it.
3 Likes
Both these systems are quick and reliable. What the hell is the Army’s problem? They mounted 105’s in halftracks 80 years ago and it worked.
3 Likes
The NLOS-C 155mm was never intended to replace towed artillery in light divisions. It was supposed to replace the M109 SP howitzer. However, it was not better nor gave any more range than the M109A6 Paladin. It cut the crew to three, which made all the other non-firing tasks of a guncrew harder since you now had one less soldier to do them. The autoloader was problematic and not as reliable as advertised. Also, it was less survivable since everything was exposed and not inside a turret/hull. If the gun had to be loaded and fired manually, which is more common since crews usually do not fire from the ammo stored on the gun, but use ammo off an ammo carrier, it is less survivable for the smaller crew now as well.
It really had no advantages over the M109A6 and future M109A7. These are the reasons the US Army cancelled it.
Lack of armor on these truck-mounted systems, and they don’t last as long either since the trucks tend to wear out quicker than towed or SP systems is why the US Army has not jumped on the bandwagon for these. They also do not offer a longer range nor improved survivability. They are not really an improvement over towed guns. A good crew can fire and scoot in less than a minute.
The different vehicles that had 105mm guns scabbed onto them during WWII were not effective and did not work well. They were stopgap measures used until a dedicated 105mm or larger SP howitzer could be built. If you notice, post-WWII is when the US Army stated developing dedicated SP howitzers and have done so since then.
3 Likes
In my experience, Gino, DoD Public Affairs then to emphasize the positive and ignore the negative so I’m not disagreeing with you on your info. Still, I think the FCS NLOS-C had a place but no point in crying over milk not sold and drank.
Anyway, there was a massive “Shoot-off” competition with wheeled howitzers, both foreign and domestic during COVID times and the results were never really made public.
3 Likes
admittedly not having any real life experience…but one wonders, maybe it’s time to bring back an “ONTOs” type vehicle?! (Just thinking out loud)
LAC
1 Like
The earlier tested versions I saw had no turret. I guess later ones did/would have. Not sure that turret would offer any crew protection though as it is tiny and doesn’t look armored. I think it would have just kept dirt out of the autoloader.
4 Likes
True, I don’t know how the FCS NLOS-C works and if the turret has to line up to zero rotation to auto-reload the ammo after firing or can do so rotated at any angle.
It doesn’t look like FCS NLOS-C has any ammo turret bustle.
Nonetheless, the 155mm FCS footprint is small and if it worked better, it could have been a better option than the exposed 155mm Stryker SPH concept. Many public comments said that the Stryker chassis can’t support a 105mm tank destroyer cannon, let alone a 155mm howitzer.
The ironic thing is that if the US Army ever adopts the Stryker 155mm howitzer, then that half flatbed Stryker MSL chassis can mount the Boeing “Avenger” turret and have AIM-9 SAMs on the launch rails to bring back the Sidewinder as a SAM.
5 Likes
Perhaps someone can dig up a similar discussion from about five years ago on the archived Armorama.
1 Like
Indeed. Posted earlier - not that everyone is expected to read every thread.
One thing being left out the discussion - logisitcs. SPG’s burn an awful lot of fuel.
2 Likes
I saw something like this downrange at Camp Ripley MN. It had been used as a MG hard target. I believe the company that made it was from MN.
1 Like
There’s the Dragon Fire II self-loading mortar that the USMC tested and never adopted.
Kind of getting off topic here regarding Mobile Howitzers though…
2 Likes
Ken
2 Likes
It’s a Libyan Humvee armed with a 90-mm gun borrowed from a Panhard AML-90 armored car.
H.P.
1 Like
That gun looked familiar, thank you Frenchy. That would make an interesting model!
1 Like
