The US Army knows it has artillery problems. Now, it just needs to find a fix.
As it readies for possible future large-scale combat operations, the Army is looking to plug these gaps.
A general told BI the Army wants new cannons that will increase the range of fire.
Satellite images of eastern Ukraine show pockmarked battlefields left scarred by relentless artillery fire. The craters are a constant reminder that these deadly cannons still play a crucial role in modern warfare.
The US Army is watching this conflict closely as it prepares for potential large-scale combat operations overseas. The importance of artillery isn't new to it, though.
The military knows the value of being able to lob a shell or rocket down range, but it also knows it needs to step up its game. Russia and China are both stepping up theirs.
A general looking into this matter said that there are three areas where Army artillery faces serious capability gaps. He added that the hunt for artillery solutions to bridge these shortcomings is already underway.
"We saw some capability gaps against adversaries in two different theaters as we projected forward into 2030 - 2035," Brig. Gen. Rory Crooks, director of the Army Futures Command long-range precision fires cross-functional team, told Business Insider in a recent interview.
The first deficit is range. Army artillery doesn't have the necessary reach compared to US adversaries. "You provide enemy sanctuary, in some cases, when the enemy has a range overmatch," Crooks explained.
Then there is capacity. The US doesn't have enough artillery systems to match the enemy. Simply put, he said, "we're out-gunned."
And lastly, there are survivability concerns. Although some US rivals are divesting of their towed artillery systems, the US Army isn't.
Typically, when soldiers fire their artillery cannons at enemy positions, they want to disperse immediately before the anticipated counter-battery fire — a tactic known as shoot-and-scoot. Towed artillery pieces like the M777 are slower and more difficult to relocate quickly compared to the self-propelled systems, which are mounted on tracked vehicles. That diminishes survivability.
"Those three problems — range, capacity, and survivability based on mobility — are really hard to overcome individually," Crooks said, adding that "collectively, they're very hard to overcome and put us at risk for mission success moving forward."
In recent years, the Army has sought to extend the reach of its guns. One such effort, the Strategic Long Range Cannon, was intended to fire projectiles some 1,000 nautical miles away, but Congress halted funding for the research in 2022.
Another Army initiative, the 58-caliber Extended Range Cannon Artillery, or ERCA, began in 2018 with the aim of extending the range of artillery fire from 18 to 43 miles.
The weapon — a 30-foot gun tube mounted on the chassis of an M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer — concluded the prototyping stage but did not end up moving into production due to problems observed during live-fire testing. The Army canceled the ERCA program last year, shifting focus to the new Self-Propelled Howitzer Modernization effort.
A Congressional Research Service report published in early February said a study of new conventional fires concluded last year found the Army should focus its efforts on "more autonomous artillery systems with greater range and improved mobility."
It also said that even though the Army ultimately canceled the ERCA program, starting again on its hunt for artillery solutions, "a recently conducted tactical fires study validated the capability gap that the ERCA sought to fill. Observations from Ukraine reinforce the critical role of mobile cannon artillery."
Moving forward, Crooks said that the Army is going to take the success it had with the ammunition work for ERCA and partner that with guns available on the market. He said the service is already looking into allied and partner capabilities.
The Army is specifically eyeing self-propelled howitzers with 52-caliber gun tubes. It is a middle ground between the larger 58-caliber ERCA and the smaller 39-caliber M777 towed howitzer.
"The work that we're doing with introducing, potentially, modernized platforms that are 52-caliber in length, along with the ammunition work that we did that started with ERCA, we think we'll be able to address the requirement that we needed from the ERCA platform and prototyping effort," Crooks said.
Last fall, the Army announced that it had awarded contracts to five vendors for the Self-Propelled Howitzer Modernization effort. The $4 million contracts went to American Rheinmetall Vehicles, BAE BOFORS, Hanwha Defense USA, General Dynamics Land Systems, and Elbit Systems USA.
The next step is getting prototype artillery systems out to Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, where the systems will be put through a series of firing tests. The service could make a decision on its new cannon as early as next year.
But finding a suitable and available 52-caliber gun is just one piece of the puzzle as the Army looks to overcome its range, capacity, and survivability deficits, Crooks said.
The Army also needs to continue the ammunition innovation that was started under the ERCA program, such as the XM1155 sub-caliber projectile developed for the ERCA's 155 mm XM907E2 58-caliber cannon, and scale up its one-way attack drones so these explosive-packed weapons can be used in lieu of traditional artillery rounds.
Artillery is just one element of combined-arms warfare, but as Army leaders continue to closely watch Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that strong cannons will be needed to achieve success in future large-scale combat operations.
"I think what we're seeing is when you don't have adequate artillery to achieve local fire superiority, then that battle devolves quickly to attritional warfare — static warfare," Crooks said. And that's not the kind of war the US military was built to fight.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

12 hours ago
Renaming of military bases stirs debate over Confederate ties
In 2023, amid a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases' names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Now, those same bases are reverting back to their original names, this time with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames — the Army found other service members with the same last names to honor. The move is stirring up conversation in and outside military circles. Skeptics wonder if the true intention is to undermine efforts to move away from Confederate associations, an issue that has long split people who favor preserving an aspect of southern heritage and those who want slavery-supporting revels stripped of valor. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, a civil rights group, said the latest renaming is a 'difference without a distinction.' The wiping away of names that were given by the Biden administration, many of which honored service members who were women or minorities, is the latest move by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to align with Trump's purging of all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of the Army responded to emailed requests for comment. Federal law now bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates, but the move restores names know by generations of soldiers. Following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, 11 southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America, to preserve slavery an institution that enslaved millions of African Americans. Their secession led to the Civil War, which the Confederates ultimately lost in 1865. By restoring the old names with soldiers or figures who were not Confederates, 'they are trying to be slick," Morial said. For example, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration, was the first to have its original name restored, in June. The Army found another American service member with the same last name, a World War II soldier. Hegseth signed an order restoring the name in February. 'By instead invoking the name of World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, Secretary Hegseth has not violated the letter of the law, but he has violated its spirit,' Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a statement opposing the defense secretary's 'cynical maneuver.' In March, Hegseth reversed the 2023 decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. The same name restoring process applied to the additional seven bases: Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. Last week, Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry announced that he was restoring the name of the state's largest National Guard training site. In a social media post announcing the name, Landry wrote that in Louisiana, 'we honor courage, not cancel it.' Attached was what seemed to be an AI-generated image of a headstone with the word 'Wokeism' on it. 'Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations,' Landry wrote. Bases aren't the only military assets being renamed. In late June, Hegseth announced that the USNS Harvey Milk would be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a killed gay rights activists who served during the Korean War. Morial said there are other ways to recognize unsung heroes instead of returning a base to a name that has long been associated with Confederate leaders. 'No county on Earth would name its military based after people that tried to overthrow the government,' Morial said. 'So, why are people holding on to these names?' Stacy Rosenberg, associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College, said she is concerned with the inefficiency of renaming bases. She said the cost of changing signages across seven bases could be used for something else that might have more impact. There is no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases. Rosenberg said it made sense to move away from Confederate heroes as namesakes but that the latest move seems like a way to appeal to Trump's political base. 'I think what we really need to consider is does whoever the base is named after have such a service record that warrants the honor of having their name associated with that base?' Rosenberg said. Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist at Betancourt Group and a United States Air Force Reservist said the ongoing renaming of military bases is a form of branding for what each administration views the military should represent. While she understands why people are upset about military bases reverting to a name associated with the Confederacy, Betancourt said that should not take away from the new namesake's heritage and legacy. 'It doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do,' Betancourt said. 'There's certainly heroes, especially African American and diverse heroes, that should be honored. I think this is a good way to do it.'


San Francisco Chronicle
13 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Renaming of military bases stirs debate over Confederate ties
In 2023, amid a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases' names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Now, those same bases are reverting back to their original names, this time with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames — the Army found other service members with the same last names to honor. The move is stirring up conversation in and outside military circles. Skeptics wonder if the true intention is to undermine efforts to move away from Confederate associations, an issue that has long split people who favor preserving an aspect of southern heritage and those who want slavery-supporting revels stripped of valor. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, a civil rights group, said the latest renaming is a 'difference without a distinction.' The wiping away of names that were given by the Biden administration, many of which honored service members who were women or minorities, is the latest move by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to align with Trump's purging of all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of the Army responded to emailed requests for comment. Federal law now bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates, but the move restores names know by generations of soldiers. Following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, 11 southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America, to preserve slavery an institution that enslaved millions of African Americans. Their secession led to the Civil War, which the Confederates ultimately lost in 1865. By restoring the old names with soldiers or figures who were not Confederates, 'they are trying to be slick," Morial said. For example, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration, was the first to have its original name restored, in June. The Army found another American service member with the same last name, a World War II soldier. Hegseth signed an order restoring the name in February. 'By instead invoking the name of World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, Secretary Hegseth has not violated the letter of the law, but he has violated its spirit,' Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a statement opposing the defense secretary's 'cynical maneuver.' In March, Hegseth reversed the 2023 decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. The same name restoring process applied to the additional seven bases: Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. Other name changes Last week, Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry announced that he was restoring the name of the state's largest National Guard training site. In a social media post announcing the name, Landry wrote that in Louisiana, 'we honor courage, not cancel it.' Attached was what seemed to be an AI-generated image of a headstone with the word 'Wokeism' on it. 'Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations,' Landry wrote. Bases aren't the only military assets being renamed. In late June, Hegseth announced that the USNS Harvey Milk would be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a killed gay rights activists who served during the Korean War. Morial said there are other ways to recognize unsung heroes instead of returning a base to a name that has long been associated with Confederate leaders. 'No county on Earth would name its military based after people that tried to overthrow the government,' Morial said. 'So, why are people holding on to these names?' Stacy Rosenberg, associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College, said she is concerned with the inefficiency of renaming bases. She said the cost of changing signages across seven bases could be used for something else that might have more impact. There is no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases. Rosenberg said it made sense to move away from Confederate heroes as namesakes but that the latest move seems like a way to appeal to Trump's political base. 'I think what we really need to consider is does whoever the base is named after have such a service record that warrants the honor of having their name associated with that base?' Rosenberg said. Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist at Betancourt Group and a United States Air Force Reservist said the ongoing renaming of military bases is a form of branding for what each administration views the military should represent. While she understands why people are upset about military bases reverting to a name associated with the Confederacy, Betancourt said that should not take away from the new namesake's heritage and legacy. 'It doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do,' Betancourt said. 'There's certainly heroes, especially African American and diverse heroes, that should be honored. I think this is a good way to do it.'


Washington Post
13 hours ago
- Washington Post
Renaming of military bases stirs debate over Confederate ties
In 2023, amid a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases' names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Now, those same bases are reverting back to their original names , this time with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames — the Army found other service members with the same last names to honor.