Originally Posted by Ucar

Just to set the record straight...

The total requirement of TAF is 300 units. As of 2007 a reported 100+units were accepted. So currently the inventory holds less than 300 units.

As for its price, it would be very nice if you could provide some statistics and comparison of final unit prices with similar systems. Especially a comprehensive comparison with such similar systems as G-6 and PzH 2000 would be very informative. There were early reports that a T-155 would cost around 3,2 m USD per unit, however, I do not have access to current cost calculations now.

As for Australia's options to buy a new K-9 based howitzer from Turkey, the K-9 and K-10 systems are already offered to the Australian Army.

Raytheon Australia

Originally Posted by KHAN_HAN

Sn. Ucar, $3.2m is also the figures I have at hand. Also, I would like to clarify some assertions of yours:
(1) There is a widespread misconception that the Turkish T-155 Firtina is an exact replica of the K9. However, a close inspection will reveal that the T-155 is in fact so very heavily modified that it is considered a new platform (Similar, to the situation with the M60 Tank and Israel’s Merkava III). The only commonality between the T-155 and the K9 is actually the Turret! ASELSAN has redesigned several sections and has also added new and highly advanced electronic systems. One of the most obvious differences is the computation of firing commands using the NATO Armament Ballistic Kernel (NABK). An extensive list of the modifications was added in my previous post.
(2) Regarding the number of actual units in the Turkish Inventory, I would like to state that Wikipedia is apt to mislead. There are currently 290, T-155’s in the Turkish Inventory. Initially production started as 24 units per year at 1. Ordu Anabakim Merkez Komutanligi, however, this was increased to 100 units per year at the orders of Gen. Buyukanit. I believe the imminent threat from the PKK and the situation in Northern Iraq plays a major role in this.
It might be of interest to you: The SSM will tonight meet to discuss a further increase in production capacity of the T-155, inter alia. Another notable project which will be hopefully approved is the go-ahead for the launching of the Gokturk series SPY satellites. It is envisaged that the resolution will be 0.6m.

Originally Posted by Stan187

Just so we don't misunderstand you.. are you suggesting that Merkava Mk. 3 is a very heavily modified M-60?

Originally Posted by KHAN_HAN

My apoligies Stan187...my reference was to the Sabra MBT. I think having no sleep for 32 hours has had its toll on me... :-)

Originally Posted by KHAN_HAN

Sn. Ucar, $3.2m is also the figures I have at hand. Also, I would like to clarify some assertions of yours:
(1) There is a widespread misconception that the Turkish T-155 Firtina is an exact replica of the K9. However, a close inspection will reveal that the T-155 is in fact so very heavily modified that it is considered a new platform (Similar, to the situation with the M60 Tank and Sabre MBT). The only commonality between the T-155 and the K9 is actually the Turret! ASELSAN has redesigned several sections and has also added new and highly advanced electronic systems. One of the most obvious differences is the computation of firing commands using the NATO Armament Ballistic Kernel (NABK). An extensive list of the modifications was added in my previous post.
(2) Regarding the number of actual units in the Turkish Inventory, I would like to state that Wikipedia is apt to mislead. There are currently 290, T-155’s in the Turkish Inventory. Initially production started as 24 units per year at 1. Ordu Anabakim Merkez Komutanligi, however, this was increased to 100 units per year at the orders of Gen. Buyukanit. I believe the imminent threat from the PKK and the situation in Northern Iraq plays a major role in this.
It might be of interest to you: The SSM will tonight meet to discuss a further increase in production capacity of the T-155, inter alia. Another notable project which will be hopefully approved is the go-ahead for the launching of the Gokturk series SPY satellites. It is envisaged that the resolution will be 0.6m.

Originally Posted by Ucar

Dear Khan Han

1 - You will note by careful reading that I explicitly referred to the T-155 Firtina systems as a "K-9 based howitzer" not an exact copy. My apoligies I missed this...
2 - NABK is a fire support weapons systems software that computes trajectories using the modified point mass model standardised by STANAG 4355. NABK itself is a harmonization specified under STANAG 4537. Most modern NATO fire support sytems are being adopted to the system, and most modern fire support systems are compatible with NABK in their software architecture. Otherwise the chances of export to a NATO country are lowered. Thus, it is natural for a new SPH to be compatible with NABK. There are other systems such as PzH 2000 that are already using the system. Turkey did not invent it by itself, we are only one of many users of this software. 5 NATO nations have jointly developed the NABK. Turkey was one of these nations. It is currently the most advanced program in its field. Korean based K-9 do not use such software. NABK was just an example of one of the differences between the K-9 and T-1553 - In the list you provided, most of the functions that the T-155 will offer are already being offered by similar systems, i.e. PzH 2000, Primus, G-6 even to an extent M109A6. They are considered mandatory for any modern artillery system. The list you provided is listing T-155 capabilities, not specific modifications or comparisons with K-9. I was trying to make the point that Turkey can offer all these at a cheaper price. Furthermore, ALL the components mentioned are Turkish designed and made. 4 - The inventory figures I provided are public figures. On the board, discussions are only allowed if they are based on public figures. Providing unclassified data is strongly discouraged. So unless you can provide a source stating the current inventory of T-155 units as 290, the annual production as 100 per year as per orders of Gen.Buyukanit, then, these claims are eligible for fact checking. The figure 100+ commissioned units which I provided is not from wikipedia, but from UDI (Undersecratariat for Defence Industries) General Secretary Murad Bayar's interview published in Defence and Aerospace magazine. My source was also an "interview" with Mr. Bayar...given to one of the Turkish Defence forums. Obviously, one of these sources is misleading.
5 - Murad Bayar had announced in his previous interwievs that the primary contractors for the Gokturk project would be foreign, and Turkish subcontractors would provide support. As of today, they companies that were shortlisted are : TELESPAZIO (Italy), OHB (Germany), EADS ASTRIUM(UK). According to the SSM, one of the conditions of the tender is Technology transfer. It is intended that this technology transfer will aid future planned indegenous Satelite projects. 6 - There are no announcements about any discussions on increasing T-155 production capability in yesterdays UDI announcement. No there isn't, but then again several topics have been left for the upcomming SSIK meeting.

Having said all of these, here's a summary of my main points.

1 - T-155 is a modern SPH sytem based on South Korean K-9. Although there are modifications to the original system, it is not a completely new design. It represents the last step for Turkey before designing a completely domestic SPH system. I don't like the term "based" as it is apt to also mislead. Critical systems for the T-155 are Turkish designed and manufactured hence, it would be misleading to state that the T-155 is even based on the K-9. Also, Turkey will have no trouble in designing a completely domestic system as what is left to be designed is only the turret! Samsung Techwin has also stated that the T-155 design is significantly "different". 2 - TAF's initial preferrence was to design a system using PzH 2000 subsystems and components. Due to certain reservations, and Germany's general weapon delivery terms, this could not be realized. Thus, T-155 Firtina which is based on K-9 is a second choice as far as Turkish Armed Forces are concerned.
3 - K-9 and K-10 systems are already offered to Australia. In all likelyhood, provided that they are chosen for the Australian bid, they will be modified to suit Australia's specific requirements, in effect creating a "A-155 Storm" -another offshoot of K-9. There is no reason why Australia should buy T-155, when the option to buy a K-9 based system is already on the table.
4 - I agree with your evaluation that Australia's needs would most probably be met by a K-9 based system very effectively.

Originally Posted by KHAN_HAN

But aboveall I think there is consensus on the fact that the T-155 would be a cheaper alternative for the aussies...

Also, I draw you attention to the following video...the Turkish Land Forces Commander states that the T-155 is an original Turkish design ("özgün")!! Hence, I rather choose to believe first hand resources...
YouTube - T-155 Firtina 155mm L52 SP Howitser

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Towed pieces still have their place, especially in mountain warfare and air insert forces. A good towed battery can be set up in 10 minutes and their trucks can carry far more ordnance, less maintenance, and uses less fuel than an equivalent SPH battery. Most certainly, I do not want to support SPHs in a fire support base. That's way too much digging.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Can wheeled trucks really match the mobility of tracked SPGs in that sort of terrain?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I have a question for you.

Where do you see the need for mech war assets? For us Canuckians, obviously Europe and now Afghanistan but outside of the Korean War, your deployments have mostly been infantry centric and in the case of Vietnam, jungle warfare.

In which case, air insert seem to be the way to go, ie towed pieces. Truck mounted howitzers are great, if you have roads but come rock, mud, and big holes, they're next to useless.

SPHs are next to impossible in jungle. Your white paper stated that you need to sustain a brigade outside of Australia indefinitely but mostly infantry and engineers, at most mech infanteers. Very few mention of tanks and artillery. So, what is the operational picture?

Originally Posted by Pioneer

Seeing this first hand I do not know how we would have went moving towed artillery (L118 or M198’s) in those conditions if they were needed or deployed. Even our LAV’s were useless!!!

To the issue regarding tracked armour in jungle warfare.
Well the Australian’s proved tracked armour’s worth and capability in jungle warfare in WWII with their Matilda tanks!
In Vietnam the Australian deployed their Centurion tanks in jungle warfare with great success – often to the shock of the enemy, and the surprise of the Americans.
The American’s were surprised, because their tanks M47/M48 were not as efficient or capable as the Centurion in going through the thick jungles of Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You know. This gets to me. Because as of March/April in Canada, all vehicles are useless and I've seen enough Wehrmacht films to know that they've experienced the same. Once you get 1 foot mud, I don't care what you have, you're stuck.