UK Defence Forum

It looks like the old LIMAWS concept is still knocking around:

http://www.janes.com/article/64083/dvd- ... pt-vehicle

Was pretty surprised to see it featured on Janes, i can tell you. I thought it had been totally, irrevocably axed ages ago!

Interestingly, it is talked about here in the context of the new Strike Brigades. It would be one hell of an act of necromancy if something came out of it

As a side note, I always hate the Chris Foss videos on Janes because we get 99% of Foss flapping his arms & gums and very little of whatever he is discussing. On this video, another view of the vehicle e.g. from the rear, would have been most welcome. But no, we get a closeup of Foss's left ear instead. It's not Janes, other videos by other of their crews do a much better job.

Ron5 wrote:As a side note, I always hate the Chris Foss videos on Janes because we get 99% of Foss flapping his arms & gums and very little of whatever he is discussing. On this video, another view of the vehicle e.g. from the rear, would have been most welcome. But no, we get a closeup of Foss's left ear instead. It's not Janes, other videos by other of their crews do a much better job.

I quite agree... imagine if he retired, and we got a proper reporter instead!

Now, can someone remind me, was it the 777 version or the HIMARS version of the Supacat where the axles were not up to the job (when going x-country)?
- and further, is the wagon now under the arty piece a newer/ heftier model?

Have to say, I've always had a little soft spot for the M777 Portee. It's just a wonderfully unique little system that takes standard field guns + trailers and improves them in a simple, but resourceful way.

If you're going to buy M777 field guns, then the Portee transporter is a no-brainer.

Course he specified it's a 39 cal. I'm more intrigued by the US Army's 52 cal version.

http://www.janes.com/article/64091/uk-r ... -equipment

Explains why the "old soup" has been reheated.

-<>-<>-<>-

-<>-<>-<>-

If anyone wishes to see it in motion and operation:



Beware the comments section.

-<>-<>-<>-

yeap great idea M777 can be underslung under chinook but what about Merlin?

arfah wrote:Here's what we tried to tow it with

(Ignore the V22)

No APU has been built into it; most modern 155 MM's have it to change fire positions (abt 5 km/h speed) or just to get in and out of a prepared position.

looks interesting though last 155mm I heard the RA were trialing was CAESAR.

BTW i've seen a few on mvt circuit what happened to our FH70's as wikipedia has a few more operators on there than before like holland and lebanon

IMHO, if it works as advertised the Portee is a no brainer. Having 777s which can be flown by Chinook or moved around by Supacat HMT800 Portees either mounted or towed with ammunition just makes for an incredibly flexible artillery capability. Add Excalibur and you have precision effect into the bargain. Surely they're perfect for the new fangled Strike Brigades?!

Pymes75 wrote:Having 777s which can be flown by Chinook or moved around by Supacat HMT800 Portees

Yep that was the dream:

777s too expensive for what they do; before even considering the logistics (titanium parts over steel etc, for air-portability)

Supacat was not quite up to it in the trials: the axels coud not take the added weight

Therefore:
- the LG will stay (it is a good piece, and everything is right in its "special" uses)
- the Strike Bdes will get something (as in " the Strike XXX project)... how that will be retrofitted to the forever shrinking AS90 fleet is the question (...and the clue! as to what wil be chosen)

Bah. It isn't self propelled, it isn't an autocannon, and it isn't quite air mobile as it still takes two separate lifts, for the vehicle and for the gun. The Portee's only difference from a M777 and a good, lightweight towed vehicle is the ability to carry the gun up on the flatbed (at the expense of ammunition). I suppose mobility is somewhat improved by doing that, but i sincerely do not see any actual gain.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yep that was the dream:

777s too expensive for what they do; before even considering the logistics (titanium parts over steel etc, for air-portability)

Supacat was not quite up to it in the trials: the axels coud not take the added weight

Therefore:
- the LG will stay (it is a good piece, and everything is right in its "special" uses)
- the Strike Bdes will get something (as in " the Strike XXX project)... how that will be retrofitted to the forever shrinking AS90 fleet is the question (...and the clue! as to what wil be chosen)

Even if the party piece of the Portee system is not possible, the advantages of the 777 still remain with other vehicle options to tow them when they're not underslung Chinooks. For this reason I still think they are the most likely candidate for the Strike Brigade Medium Gun requirement. That, and the fact that three of our closest allies field them...

Gabriele could speak more to this than I, but perhaps this might have a place as the tow vehicle:



Gabriele noted on his blog that it was developed for the MoD during the OUVS trials. Don't know if it can handle a M777.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... chive.html

If a bushmaster variant finds a place in the MRV-P, there might be room for another.

Thanks for the link and to Gaby, too, a nice write up:
"developed specifically for the UK, by Thales in collaboration with the MOD. This is the Utility Dual Cab variant, which comes with a large cabin with four side-opening passenger doors and seating for 2 crew and up to 6 passengers, while still having at the back a 5 square meters payload bed for 3 tons capacity. This variant would be pretty much perfect as L118 Light Gun Towing vehicle, as it would be able to sit the whole gun crew under armor, tow the gun and carry at least one ammunition pallet. "
- yes, definitely for the LG
- 777 is a heavy piece, would that pax number suffice for full operation; and the rounds (all handling manual) are twice the size, each, compared to the 105 mm... not that many would travel on the back

The Bushmaster gun-tower carries 2 men more than the Portee, so yes, it would have enough men. It definitely can tow the M777 with absolute ease. It was towed even with the ATMP, it really isn't that difficult.
As for ammunition, the Portee carries 20 rounds in Portee mode and 71 if it tows the gun and uses the flatbed for ammo. Don't think the Bushmaster would do significantly worse than that.

I always liked the Denel 105mm turret on top of an 8 wheeler that was trialled in the US a few years ago. For the strike force.

Gabriele wrote:As for ammunition, the Portee carries 20 rounds in Portee mode

That is good for starters. The main course could be carried e.g. by Huskies that out of the mixed UOR bunch have the best mobility while still protecting the crew (with artillery resupply counter-btry is always something that one needs to take a view on; ie. being subjected to it... even if the fire box is 2 mls x 2 mls; more applicable to SPGs, though, so with Portee or just towed - even more of a consideration)

RA were impressed with CESAR its been to Larkhill a few times.

Couldn't they just scale light gun up to 155mm? copying the 25pdr they got it fairly right. It's an excellent design.

Upguning from 122 is quite popular; doubt it, though, that the strength could take it in a 105 to 155 (conversion)

marktigger wrote:Couldn't they just scale light gun up to 155mm? copying the 25pdr they got it fairly right. It's an excellent design.

What would be the advantage? You'd lose the ease of logistic support.
In any case, the M777 is the light 155mm gun-howitzer, why make another?

mr.fred wrote:

marktigger wrote:Couldn't they just scale light gun up to 155mm? copying the 25pdr they got it fairly right. It's an excellent design.

What would be the advantage? You'd lose the ease of logistic support.
In any case, the M777 is the light 155mm gun-howitzer, why make another?

possibly because there is something about it the Gunners don't like or they would be clamouring to buy it?