AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)

[LordJim]

Current and planned GBAD are going to make life difficult in any high tempo future conflict, even for platforms such as the F-22 and F-35. Using GWI and GWII are very bad examples. In the first Iraq had a very large integrated GBAD but it was the one NATO had been training to fight against for years and the Coalition took it apart, much to the alarm of the USSR/CIS. As a result the CIS has invested very heavily in its double digit SAM systems and is now developing the third generation. The West ECM capability is in trouble facing these. In the Balkans if a SA-XX was detected it became a no go zone and those were first generation.

If you go back to the 1973 Arab/Israeli war you can see a comparison to where we are now with relative technologies. The Israelis relied on the Air Force to support their ground forces and had neglected the army's artillery capability. Faced with an effective and integrated GBAD they lost dozens of planes both trying to support the ground troops and conduct SEAD. Things only improved when the ground forces overran the enemy GBAD sites. And remember the Israelis had air superiority with regards to the Arab air forces.

The UK needs to update its artillery but then again it needs to update and re-equip almost the entire Army. The AS-90 needs a 52 cal. tube and improved munitions. The GMLRS also needs improved munitions with both area effect and longer range in addition to the GPS guided variety. The Lighter formations need something heavier than the 105mm Light Gun, be it the M777 or the TB 120mm Rifled Mortar as recently adopted by the USMC. Both have a far larger variety on munitions, the same if not greater range and are as transportable as the light Gun, though the weight of the ammunition for the M777 is greater you need less for the same effect. In addition its smart and sub munition options reduce the amount of shots needed to achieve the same effect.

We are not going to realise any of this with our current levels of spending though, so expect the AS-90 and the Light Gun to carry on as they are until their OSDs with little change, except new ammunition, but only when existing stocks reach the end of their shelf life. If in the mean time we get involved in a top tier conflict, the artillery is not going to be a nice place to serve, but then again any Army branch is going to be in trouble no matter how well trained and motivated the individual soldiers are.

[mr.fred]

If in the mean time we get involved in a top tier conflict, the artillery is not going to be a nice place to serve, but then again any Army branch is going to be in trouble no matter how well trained and motivated the individual soldiers are.

If we get involved in a top-tier conflict, no part of the armed forces involved would be a nice place to serve, regardless of the equipment available.
Also, if we buy equipment in lieu of training, things will go south faster than if the reverse is true.

though the weight of the ammunition for the M777 is greater you need less for the same effect

What "effect" are you after though? If you are counting fragments and lethal area, then perhaps. Number of shells to maintain suppression?

What does a 52 cal barrel bring to the table other than "it's 13 more". The range increase looks to be about 20% - how useful is that? Do we have the acquisition capability to make use of it?

[marktigger]

the studies the Israelis had after Yom Kippur also demonstrated that the minimum sized reound that was effective against a modern enemy was 155mm. 105mm was not effective against armoured troops (makes you wonder why we clung to Abbot and didn't replace it fully with M109's).

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[mr.fred]

the studies the Israelis had after Yom Kippur also demonstrated that the minimum sized reound that was effective against a modern enemy was 155mm. 105mm was not effective against armoured troops (makes you wonder why we clung to Abbot and didn't replace it fully with M109's).

Is that still true with modern ammunition?

[LordJim]

Probably more so with the availability of GPS guided and sub munition rounds for the 155mm. With the latter you still have the bomblet variety but you now also have the sensor fused munitions, with the latter being devastating against armoured formations. Against a single tank, well Excalibur deals with that.

As for range, well it has already been mentioned that most of our artillery is outranged buy potential opponents and any extra we can get but introducing a 52 Cal. weapon and Extended Range Base Bleed ammunition is a big bonus. Replacing the 105mm Light Gun with the French Rifled 120mm mortar gives you a lighter more compact weapon with roughly the same range but also harder hitting and again the use of smart munitions. Remember the 105mm LG uses unique ammunition which is why the US version has a different barrel to enable it to use standard US/NATO rounds. This knocks a fair bit off the range. I doubt we are going to go it alone and develop advanced ammunition for the 105 LG beyond meeting international safety protocols.

[RetroSicotte]

Forever confused by the 120mm mortar having the "same range" in notes. The L118 can hit up to 20km with extended range base bleed, I've never seen the 120mm mortar rated for anything above 13km. Is there some new mortar ammo I'm unaware of?

To maintain topic, have to wonder if contacting the Polish for the Krab turret might be a way forward...same turret for crew training, but with an L52 gun from elsewhere. Might be a heck of a lot cheaper than redoing the whole thing again.

[marktigger]

(makes you wonder why we clung to Abbot and didn't replace it fully with M109's).

Peace dividend, probably?

Nope this was all known in the 70's & 80's but there was never the budget to upgrade the field regiments. It was interesting when the Royal Artillery deployed on Op Granby there wasn't an Abbot in sight the field regiments deployed had M109a2's and the pla was the Abbots were to be replaced with AS90 and probably if the cold war hadn't finished the M109 would have been replaced to.

[marktigger]

Is that still true with modern ammunition?

YES because 155mm has a much better explosive yield but also there is a whole range of guided and sub munition rounds available and been available for a long time.

[marktigger]

the l118 is still one of the best guns on the market. The 120mm is good but our light guns are much better than the M119 due to the ballistics of the L118.

[mr.fred]

YES because 155mm has a much better explosive yield but also there is a whole range of guided and sub munition rounds available and been available for a long time.

I don't doubt that the 155mm is, shell-for-shell, more effective against armour.
The question, however, was "is the 105mm still ineffective against armour"

[marktigger]

was 105 ever effective against armour?
the israeli studies said not hence the reason they moved quickly to mainly 155mm but also 105 is outranged by guns like the D30

[RetroSicotte]

What kind of armour? Thats a massively broad speaking question, given the Israeli's had to deal with enormous columns of MBTs.

It's also worth bearing in mind that artillery impact is as much about concussive shock as anything, there's plenty of imagery of howitzers dropping or tilting 40-50 ton vehicles in WW2 going around. In this case, it's simple weight its hurling around.

105 may not do as much, but the real question is what scale of armour it and AS-90's 155 are effective individually against.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Talking about today's world, we could go to different stds, but then again we know that most of the fleets average decades as for their age.

So, for an MBT, short of a direct hit, you can cause a mobility kill, for a modern IFV yu might achieve that from 30 mtrs away, but to cause any serious damage the hit would have to be much closer than 15mtrs.

Artillery, against tanks: you really need homing rounds.... and there are plenty around, to purchase. There is even one (experimental, and for now cancelled) for the Abrams gun that can home in and do a top-kill at 17 km.

[mr.fred]

was 105 ever effective against armour?

Yes. In US service in WW2 for certain

the israeli studies said not hence the reason they moved quickly to mainly 155mm but also 105 is outranged by guns like the D30

The Israeli studies only pertain to ammunition and armour available to the Israelis and their adversaries at the time. That was over 40 years ago. Has anything changed?

[marktigger]

i would suggest 105 is to light for anti armour work. 155 gives heavier explosive yeild and more options like guided or submunition rounds

[marktigger]

Looking at the future i wonder how long it'll be before the RA goes back to M109 or AS90 fitted with the M284 155 gun from the M109.

[mr.fred]

i would suggest 105 is to light for anti armour work. 155 gives heavier explosive yeild and more options like guided or submunition rounds

Yes, but that still doesn't answer if modern 105mm is ineffective against armour, much less if it is ineffective on the modern battlefield.
You might argue that a 203mm gun would be more effective since it's explosive content is higher again and can carry more/bigger guided/submunitions to a greater distance. Since 203mm is clearly better in all aspects than 155mm, we should convert to 8" immediately rather than messing around with 6"?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Aside from the anti-armour aspect, adopting this one http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_201 ... 10163.html
could do away with the mantra that many armies have: "light mortars are a Coy-level weapon and the 120 mm is for Bns - or higher up".

Each bn strength BG could easily have their own arillery and do away with the 120mm mortars (exc. for MOUT for which they are better suited than any other piece):
"The 105mm cannon is fitted on a circular platform offering the possibility to fire on 360° with a range of 11,500 m with standard ammunition and 16,000 m with extended range artillery ammunition. It can be also used for direct fire with a maximum range of 2,000 m."

With our plentiful light infantry and limited helo lift capacity there is a strong case, too, for retaining the LG that can be deployed w/o a vehicle
- I am not quite sure I've caught the gist from the comments where the rounds for it come from these days, and whether the more special ones (than std NATO, used on the US version) are a dying breed?

[marktigger]

i would suggest 105 is to light for anti armour work. 155 gives heavier explosive yeild and more options like guided or submunition rounds

Yes, but that still doesn't answer if modern 105mm is ineffective against armour, much less if it is ineffective on the modern battlefield.
You might argue that a 203mm gun would be more effective since it's explosive content is higher again and can carry more/bigger guided/submunitions to a greater distance. Since 203mm is clearly better in all aspects than 155mm, we should convert to 8" immediately rather than messing around with 6"?

I would suggest its fairly apparent that they aren't....or else AS90 would now be a museum exhibit and the Royal regiment would be solely equipped with L118's the Americans, Canadians etc wouldn't be buying M777's like they are going out of fashion!

[marktigger]

Aside from the anti-armour aspect, adopting this one http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_201 ... 10163.html
could do away with the mantra that many armies have: "light mortars are a Coy-level weapon and the 120 mm is for Bns - or higher up".

Each bn strength BG could easily have their own arillery and do away with the 120mm mortars (exc. for MOUT for which they are better suited than any other piece):
"The 105mm cannon is fitted on a circular platform offering the possibility to fire on 360° with a range of 11,500 m with standard ammunition and 16,000 m with extended range artillery ammunition. It can be also used for direct fire with a maximum range of 2,000 m."

With our plentiful light infantry and limited helo lift capacity there is a strong case, too, for retaining the LG that can be deployed w/o a vehicle
- I am not quite sure I've caught the gist from the comments where the rounds for it come from these days, and whether the more special ones (than std NATO, used on the US version) are a dying breed?

We have more Helicopter lift than many other nations! It could be improved if the AAC was allowed to replace the Lynx AH9 with a helicopter that could lift light gun like AW139.
120mm Mortar as a lightgun replacement......don't think so but wouldn't rule it out in either the infantry or Royal Artillery. The irish Artillery has a swiss 120mm on conventional Base plate and Bipod. I'm Sure Light role brigades might benefit with having a support infantry Bns like some the TA Bns were configured in the 90's with support instead of rifle companies but equipped with the heavier mortar, Heavy anti Tank, Heavy Machine guns, Automatic Grenade launcher and More assault pioneers?

[ArmChairCivvy]

We have more Helicopter lift than many other nations! It could be improved if the AAC was allowed to replace the Lynx AH9 with a helicopter that could lift light gun like AW139.

Everything is relative; no point quoting how many thoussands the Russians have (as we do not know how many could be operated), but we do not have a "jeep" service akin to the one the US possesses. And, even though we have fairly good numbers at the heavy end, you pointed out the gap in the "middle" straight away.

Just for perspective "The 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, has a mission to provide forcible entry capability through heliborne 'air assault' operations. Capable of inserting a 4,000 soldier combined arms task force, 150-kilometers into enemy terrain in one lift, and possessing 281 helicopters, including three battalions of Apache attack helicopters"

[mr.fred]

You miss the point again and again.
Is the modern 105mm INEFFECTIVE Vs. Armour? Not less effective. Not less popular. Not any one of a hundred metrics that don't pertain to the question. Has it no utility whatsoever vs. Armour?

Given modern ammunition with increased effectiveness from a unitary round, submunitions etc, a 105mm battery isn't going to be useless, and the smaller gun and ammunition will suit some forces more than a cumbersome 155mm.

Why do the USA go for 155mm? They like big guns, they have the logistics to support it and they believe in artillery destructive fires.
Why does Canada have 155mm? It's their primary artillery system, they have no SPGs or rocket systems.

[RetroSicotte]

The question is, you keep saying "against armour".

What kind of armour? Modern MBTs? Medium weight IFVs? Basic APCs?

What is the scope of your question to measure 105mm against?

This question is as broad as "Bullet resistant" between 9mm and 14.5mm.

[mr.fred]

The question is, you keep saying "against armour".

A question, true enough. Since the original statement was that 105mm was ineffective against armour, with no specifics, I was asking if it was still ineffective against that target set, on the basis that marktigger might know what the target set referenced by the Israelis was.

What kind of armour? Modern MBTs? Medium weight IFVs? Basic APCs?

I'd start with "whatever the targets the Israelis were engaging" but finer definition would be interesting too.

What is the scope of your question to measure 105mm against?

This question is as broad as "Bullet resistant" between 9mm and 14.5mm.

Well, yes. The original statement was that 105mm is ineffective, as in useless, against "armour" Which is vague and a poor point of evidence for why we should encumber light forces with 155mm ordnance. Going from the other end of the scale, what was the original measurement made of and against?