Not strange as mobility, to keep up with armoured BGs, not the range, was n:o 1 priority.Lord Jim wrote:AS-90 was actually one of the few successes in AFV procurement, but it should have been brought in as a 52cal weapon form the outset. Strange as the Army usually tries to future proof
mr.fred wrote:One (further) thing to consider regarding the 52cal ordnance:
The Polish don't use it.
They use the turret but the cannon comes from Nexter.
Number of reasons for that, I'm sure.
The Polish one, after a 20+ year project and third gun - even n:o 2 from Nexter was swapped out - is now in service... with the AS-90 suspension within a hull procured from Korea.mr.fred wrote:* gun handling, heat distortion, barrel harmonics, vehicle handling.. there are a lot of things that can go wrong with a longer barrel.
- worthy of note that the Turks are about to introduce their own, "improved" 155 mm piece based on that same hull. And their tank, with fire-on-the-move systems for it procured from Korea actually turned out to be quite good.
Lord Jim wrote: The AS-90 is also vulnerable as the submunitions contained in the cargo rounds now in production for the BM-21 will easily disable the vehicle. Hopefully the MoD and Government will wake up to this and realise that air support will not always be a certainty in any future conflict and that the deposed King of the battlefield needs to be reinstated and invested in
Agree with both contributers:Do both! An armoured BG will not be able to hide from peer's multi-layer ISTAR, so go for protection. For all more infantry-focussed formations go with the close support, stop-fire-move on type of system, like AMOS on wheels... with the exception of 16X/ 3 CDO that will need their support assets to be air-liftable, in one package, as per the belowmr.fred wrote:Regarding AS90 replacement, interleaving with wheels/tracks is the amount of protection you think you need. Do you minimise weight and aim to relocate or hide, or have enough armour (PzH2000) to resist likely counter-battery fire.
mr.fred wrote: L118 is 50 155mm shells (no charges) lighter than a standard M777. And you could carry both gun and tractor and ammunition on one helicopter. Useful if you don’t have US scale logistics support.
Well, my mix has them, but when you come with no longer-ranged artillery assets (16X/ 3 CDO, as per above), then the L118 has its place, as opposed to being replaced by towed mortars.Lord Jim wrote:better to replace the 105mm with 120mm rifles mortars that have even greater mobility then the L118.
... just a technical note: the RM specialty, 81 mm mortars on the back of BVs is the current max. The Finns wanted for their x-country Arctic brigades something heavier, with more reach (as artillery can't keep pace) and had to put their 120 mm mortars on a sturdier (but similar to the BV) platform.