The DoD acquisition system trips over itself once again.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. One of the few bright lights in the Army’s acquisition of land combat vehicles has been the Palladin Integrated Management program, fielding the new M109A7 155mm self propelled howitzer. The original M109 was fielded in 1963, and has been routinely updated since. The currently fielded M109A6 has been…

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

One of the few bright lights in the Army’s acquisition of land combat vehicles has been the Palladin Integrated Management program, fielding the new M109A7 155mm self propelled howitzer.

The original M109 was fielded in 1963, and has been routinely updated since. The currently fielded M109A6 has been in service since 1994. The primary problem with the A6 model was its lack of mobility, and inability to keep pace with Abrams and Bradley units.

To address this, and to simplify logisitics, the PIM office worked with industry to rebuild the hull of the A6 to utilize the engine, transmission, suspension and tracks of the Bradley. The Field Artillery, and big Army in general, is delighted with the update, and have placed the A7 in limited production, and are seeking to sign a contract for full rate production.

But the DoD IG says not so fast.

The Paladin M109A7 PIM — the latest in America’s line of tracked artillery pieces — has an automated fire-suppression system known as an AFES. But during survivability tests, the AFES “did not protect the entire crew compartment” and that “howitzer crews are at increased fire risk” according to a report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General released in August.

Oil, lubricants and the heating system inside the Paladins are all potential fire hazards. And for obvious reasons, there is a risk of fire if the vehicles take a big enough blow. And that’s big trouble for the crews.

Well, now, that is a problem, isn’t it?

The Abrams and the Bradley have automatic fire suppression systems. Optical sensors in the troop compartment sense a fire, and automatically discharge fire bottles. The idea isn’t so much to extinguish the fire, but rather to suppress the fire long enough for the crews to get out. In my day, the agent was Halon. I have no idea what they use today.

So the DoD IG thinks the A7 shouldn’t be cleared for production until the AFES is up to what it believes is snuff.

The only  problem is, the fielded M109A6 doesn’t have an AFES system at all. And after over 20 years of hard use, the A6s are in desperate need of replacement.*

1-csosdgojxdbmbuirlllwmq

 

 

*In actuality, rebuild- the A7 is really a kit of components that A6s will be rebuilt using.

Tags:

Responses to “The DoD acquisition system trips over itself once again.”

  1. Esli

    Tanks and Brads are about all that use Halon still. It is the perfect system but too bad for the environment…. I didn’t know that Paladins don’t use Halon.

    Like

  2. timactual

    “inability to keep pace with Abrams and Bradley units.”
    How do they measure that? If my memory is correct, the road speed of a unit is significantly less than the max. speed of its component vehicles. Cross country even more so. Just how fast does the Arty. have to be to be to stay in range of the enemy?

    Like

  3. Esli

    Considering the artillery has to displace after nearly every mission to avoid counter-battery Fire, it’s not as simple as sitting static and moving. The maneuver units can advance pretty rapidly if not in contact and rapidly outpace the guns.

    Like

  4. timactual

    What is the tactical rate of march(?) (I must have missed that day at staff college) for units not in contact? I know it will vary with terrain, but I cannot imagine it would average much over 20 mph in anything but very flat, open, dry terrain.
    Even better, if you know an internet site I could go to to learn this and other exciting stuff I would be grateful.

    Like

  5. Raoul Duke

    Don’t get hung up on the speed aspect, guys.
    Think mobility: 675 hp in the new powerpack, vs. 440 in the old one, better suspension travel, better off-road capability.
    Also, consider how a common powerpack (engine,transmission, and final drive) between this system and the Brad would simplfy logistics and maintenance.

    Like

Leave a comment