The U.S. military is planning to deploy the new M109s with autoloader and longer barrel for better range (able to shoot over 100km) and rate of fire.PZH-2000 is an excellent system as well, my personal gripes are only with systems based on the M109 platform. Meaning the K-9, the T-155 and the M109A6.
They have poor designs from the ground up. Back when PA was purchasing hundreds of M109A2s and A5s the decision made sense given the reliance on American tech and that there were less of these new artillery guns on the market. They were still good guns then and are decent now especially given their large numbers, but Nowadays to me it makes little sense to purchase the systems based on those old designs as the basic issues with them cannot be fixed, the biggest being the ROF. Russian Cold War SP artillery can fire several times faster than the M109A5 and A6 at little accuracy cost and similar ranges. That’s why US is also working on its Next-Gen SP artillery. Germany, Scandinavian countries, France, Italy, UK, all of them retired the M109 for local artillery guns when possible.
Maybe that is what kept PA away from turkish T-155 as well. The range in these guns were very limited too until very recently, and that new ammo longer range ammo is only in American service so far. They have also started working on ramjet rounds to push the ranges upto 150KM. Chinese RAP rounds from 54 calibre PLZ-05 (maybe SH-15 can fire them too?) are already certified for 100KM ranges as well.
Regardless, the guns in their basic attributes are as good as any other, accuracy, range, mobility. The lack of a full auto-loader is what hampers remote firing capabilities as well, along with the inability to receive firing data remotely, however they do have data-links for other forms of data communication. When working in tandem with other Chinese systems, these will work great. It is interesting to see PA go for a wheeled design but it makes sense given the nearly 500 M109A5 systems are still relevant and don’t need replacing.