Sweden's "Archer" artillery system

[Slater]

Interesting. A fully automated 155mm gun on a modified dump truck chassis:

http://www.baesystems.com/en/article/bae-systems-delivers-archer-artillery-system-to-sweden

[7.62NATO]

.......

[caporider]

They'll need more than that to stop the Ruskies. A NATO membership may be in Sweden's future.

Membership in NATO circa 1986 might have helped; now, not so much...

[7.62NATO]

.......

[NC_DAVE]

Please like to those blue hat clowns will down anything productive.

[crusader377]

Interesting. A fully automated 155mm gun on a modified dump truck chassis:

http://www.baesystems.com/en/article/bae-systems-delivers-archer-artillery-system-to-sweden

The sad thing is that Sweden along with dozens of other countries have managed to modernize their artillery cost effectively while the U.S. Army is stuck with the M109A6 Paladin which although modernized is still on a 50 year old chassis and whose gun is outranged and rate of fire is a generation behind competing systems.

[caporider]

I disagree. Not joining NATO seals their fate, which is that of Crimea.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/575336/sweden-thinking-joining-nato--russia-threatening-military-response

NATO is a paper tiger without US muscle, and the US will not engage in a direct confrontation with Russia. When push came to shove, NATO (read: United States) basically told Georgia to pound sand even though Georgia had gone pretty far along the path to full membership. And when our current POTUS drew a "line in the sand" on Syria's use of chemical weapons -- then blinked -- that told me all I need to know about how far he will go to check Putin's Russia. Sweden will not be allowed to join NATO under his watch. Simple as that.

Like I said, the NATO of today is not the same NATO that stood watch on the Fulda Gap during the '80s.

[Slater]

The Crusader system was supposed to be the Army's next-generation artillery weapon but it went the way of the dodo over a decade ago. As the below video shows, it would have been a significant step forward in firepower over the M109A6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjcHqqema0

[crusader377]

The Crusader system was supposed to be the Army's next-generation artillery weapon but it went the way of the dodo over a decade ago. As the below video shows, it would have been a significant step forward in firepower over the M109A6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjcHqqema0

I was a FA Officer and I spoke with individuals who were on the Crusader project. Basically a single Crusader had the firepower equivalent to an entire battery of M109A6. Even after the Crusader was cancelled the U.S. could have bought an off the shelf solution such as the German PzH 2000 which probably would have been a 80% solution at half the cost.

[Slater]

It would appear that the Army sees the current M109A7 (which uses Bradley components, as I understand it) as adequate to the task. At this rate we'll see M109A8, M109A9, etc. I take it that MLRS is regarded as an effective supplement to tube artillery?

[Eurodriver]

Artillery is pretty pointless if the enemy has air superiority.

[caporider]

Artillery is pretty pointless if the enemy has air superiority.

Isn't the whole point of a system like this "shoot and scoot?" I also wonder if the Russians have a decent FAC capability to direct aircraft onto mobile targets like this.

ETA: It will be interesting to see how effective Russian aircraft are striking ground targets in Syria.

[Moose-Knuckle]

A NATO membership may be in Sweden's future.

Native Swedes will soon be bred out and then they will join the global caliphate.

[crusader377]

It would appear that the Army sees the current M109A7 (which uses Bradley components, as I understand it) as adequate to the task. At this rate we'll see M109A8, M109A9, etc. I take it that MLRS is regarded as an effective supplement to tube artillery?

I think the M109A7 is a positive step but even that system falls short against several competing SPH systems. It does improve the mobility of the system as well as maintainability but really doesn't do anything to extend the range or rate of fire.

MLRS is more of a counter battery weapon and also for the deep fight which it is a very capable system. It doesn't have any capability though for fire support for troops in contact.

[crusader377]

Isn't the whole point of a system like this "shoot and scoot?" I also wonder if the Russians have a decent FAC capability to direct aircraft onto mobile targets like this.

ETA: It will be interesting to see how effective Russian aircraft are striking ground targets in Syria.

Probably the biggest threat for artillery is counter battery fire and that is really what drives the speed of a shoot and scoot mission.