Quote History Quoted:
155mm tube artillery is a very different animal from rockets, with different uses, different missions, probably different danger-close limits, etc.
View Quote
Undoubtedly, but the bottom line is that we are 1) resourced constrained and 2) fires deficient in our line units.
Fires in MCO is an attrition/salvo fight, and we can't be assured that our air assets will be effective in reducing the capability of threat artillery systems like we've done for decades. Ground force unit designers cannot make the LRRPF52 assessment that we can F-35 strike all the things, for a variety of reasons.
So, we need massed fires (as opposed to precision strike, perhaps in conjunction with, more precisely) and we need them cheaper from a total cost perspective, less manpower intensive, and less logistics consumptive for starters. Honestly, I'd also be prepared to have these wheeled SP arty units in the Guard, which comes with more incentive for reduced costs at the potential impacts to mobility and protection.
Again, I'm not totally sold on the mobility/protection of a 109A6 (as the baseline SPA unit) vs. HIMARS vs. baseline CAESAR/G6 (G6 being my first choice, though it would need some serious re-engineering, I would imagine, but the concept is cool and I've been told the execution is solid.)