Panzerhaubitze 2000 was effectively NATOs first attempt at a modern SP. It brought into play an L52 gun, an autoloader, and digital fire control.
All three are potential mechanical failpoints. The barrel has to deal with very high pressures and barrel erosion due to the more powerful charges needed to move the projectiles further down range. Autoloaders are mechanically complicated and prone to breakdown due to having to repeatedly, without fail, manage to handle at the same time heavy projectiles and lighter charges - all this in dirty and rough conditions. Digital fire control - well electronics built for small scale systems are generally not as robustly tested as large scale consumer goods and also have to deal with the rigours of travel and shock of firing.
PH2000 is old tech and built in low quantities <500. I wouldn't use it as a comparative standard. Newer gear is more reliable in most cases. I wouldn't put any stock in the barrel wear issues. It depends not only on who built the barrel, but its usage. Barrel wear isn't measured by rounds fired but EFCs fired. EFCs are dependent on range so how the gun is used makes a big difference. Projectiles make a difference too. Canada's experiences with Nextor's LG1 - same outfit that builds Caesar - isn't good. There were barrel issues and ammunition driving band issues which resulted in restrictions to the gun's use.
Autoloaders are a major issue as can be seen by the fact that the US still hasn't built a reliable one for the M109 (for that matter they don't have an M109 L52 barrel except in prototype state) Honestly, I've worked in 109 turrets and loading is perhaps the most complex job as it requires dealing with ever changing parameters of selecting projectiles, fuzes and charges and physically preparing them for firing and getting them to the chamber. Technology has helped to make this easier, but, quite frankly, there are things that a human is capable of doing that machines have problems in doing reliably. What may work on a ship has problems scaling down to a much lighter vehicle.
On top of that, it's much easier and faster to replace a tired or damaged human #4 in an M109 turret, that fixing a balky autoloader. Taking the human out of the chain is always a risky venture. The older A4+ versions of the M109 had very few sighting instruments that could fail. An Archer and RCH has a very complex digital/mechanical system with numerous fail points - as does the Caesar albeit slightly less so.
Quite frankly, the problems that I see with Caesar can be fixed with a heavier truck and an armour plated turret to contain the crew and up the number of ready rounds. Other wheeled systems like Archer and RCH have learned to deal with the weight burden. I don't care if it doesn't have an autoloader and that there is a crew in the turret to do the manual tasks of laying and loading the gun as they do now in the open. Adding an armoured limber vehicle is also a simple task. My view on Caesar is simply that leaving the crew exposed is a needlessly callous and irresponsible decision. Even something as simple as side plates as on old WW2 guns would be a step forward.
Re . I see nothing wrong with refurbished M109A7s as the chassis and automotives are brand new. There is nothing wrong with the turret and the electric drives are a great step forward. I see nothing wrong with not having an autoloader BUT I wouldn't consider buying an M109 unless there is a clear and built in upgrade path to an L52 barrel.
www.militaryaerospace.com
