Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

[ArmChairCivvy]

Good for bunker busting, too. How often is the 155 used in direct role for ranges of under a kilometer? The bang is about the same

[Lord Jim]

At present our guys (and Girls) are likely to call in a GMLRS strike against an enemy hardened position. Failing that an Apache firing a Hellfire will do the job, if we have the right version available like the Thermobaric one.

[ArmChairCivvy]

call in a GMLRS strike against an enemy hardened position

Sure, but it is a sad state of affairs if a single bunker that got in the way just because it existing came as a surprise would have to be dealt with by 'the request' going up all the way to 'divisional fires'

[mr.fred]

Sure, but it is a sad state of affairs if a single bunker that got in the way just because it existing came as a surprise would have to be dealt with by 'the request' going up all the way to 'divisional fires'

If you don’t have tanks or PGMs with your field artillery, there isn’t much else.

[jimthelad]

Bring back the WOMBAT!

[ArmChairCivvy]

If you don’t have tanks or PGMs with your field artillery, there isn’t much else.

RUSI (last year, Jack Watling) would see a divisional fires group
comprise a force comparable to:
• One battery of anti-tank guided weapons per battlegroup.
• One battery of 120-mm mortars per battlegroup.
• 72 155-mm 52-calibre howitzers with anti-armour area-effect munitions or DPICM.
• A regiment of MLRS with a compliment of sensor-fused sub-munition dispensing rockets, and LRPF.

So in this view (for the NATO-deployable division, capable of manoeuvre warfare) we would, interestingly, have that middle layer in the form of SP 120 mm mortars, which would not only put a premium on tactical mobility - keeping up with the BG they are allocated to support - but would also with the direct fire option bring the bunker busting capability with them.

No sign of LG? Never fear: as long as the requirement remains for fires to support bn-level ops in other types of formations to be liftable by helicopter, it will be around as other options are so few. We could buy the 70+ 155mm howitzers that the USMC is letting go, but that would narrow the lift options to Chinook.

[Ron5]

I doubt if Jack was referring to towed 155mm.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I doubt if Jack was referring to towed 155mm.

He clearly wasn't... I wonder what made you think that he was when he wasn't?

that middle layer in the form of SP 120 mm mortars, which would not only put a premium on tactical mobility - keeping up with the BG

No towed artillery of ANY kind

No sign of LG

and then I explained why it ( the LG) would still be around in other types of formations (and WHY the as such excellent US towed 155 mm will NOT be a replacement for it... or anything else, for that matter)

[Ron5]

I doubt if Jack was referring to towed 155mm.

He clearly wasn't... I wonder what made you think that he was when he wasn't?

that middle layer in the form of SP 120 mm mortars, which would not only put a premium on tactical mobility - keeping up with the BG

No towed artillery of ANY kind

No sign of LG

and then I explained why it ( the LG) would still be around in other types of formations (and WHY the as such excellent US towed 155 mm will NOT be a replacement for it... or anything else, for that matter)

I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing the USMC artillery for the divisional fires group.

[Lord Jim]

No sign of LG? Never fear: as long as the requirement remains for fires to support bn-level ops in other types of formations to be liftable by helicopter, it will be around as other options are so few. We could buy the 70+ 155mm howitzers that the USMC is letting go, but that would narrow the lift options to Chinook.

Problem is the LG can be out ranged by systems in widespread use that date form the 1060s. It will still be fine for operation like Afghanistan where the opposition didn't have that much to shoot back with, but anyone with D-30 12mm Gun/Howitzers or BM-21 MLRS, with out gun whatever battalion sized force we send. We would do better to double down on Extractor Mk2 or invest in G/L Brimstone to provide fire support, especially precision engagements, something the LG cannot do. If you want mass fire onto the opposition front line, then light weight 120mm Mortars or even the existing 81mm will do the job.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the 1060s

I live in the 1066 country, but this seems to be one more version of the story... and I hadn't heard it yet!
I share you conclusion about the mix of mortars ( man-luggable and otherwise), supported by the v portable Exactor for precision 'take-outs' needed at longer ranges.
But as for how we arrived at that shared conclusion, let's work on the below comparison:

anyone with D-30 12mm Gun/Howitzers [or BM-21 MLRS, with] out gun whatever battalion sized force we send

1.The UK version has a stated max range of 17,200 meters with HE-shells and charge “Super” (15,300 meters with charge number five),
- while the US has adopted the M1130 HE FRAG with base-bleed as their standard HE-round ;
- This South African Rheinmetall Denel Munitions developed round is capable of reaching out to 17,500 meters. Of interest here is to note that Denel offered to put their munitions arm into the UK (in order to face fewer problems with exports) and Rheinmetall took the stewardship for this part of Denel only after the UK turned the idea/offer down

2. Whereas the the 122 mm D-30 (or 2A18) has a range of 15.4 km
- which is where LG started from, sometime ago (see 15.3 km, above)

[RunningStrong]

No sign of LG? Never fear: as long as the requirement remains for fires to support bn-level ops in other types of formations to be liftable by helicopter, it will be around as other options are so few. We could buy the 70+ 155mm howitzers that the USMC is letting go, but that would narrow the lift options to Chinook.

Problem is the LG can be out ranged by systems in widespread use that date form the 1060s. It will still be fine for operation like Afghanistan where the opposition didn't have that much to shoot back with, but anyone with D-30 12mm Gun/Howitzers or BM-21 MLRS, with out gun whatever battalion sized force we send. We would do better to double down on Extractor Mk2 or invest in G/L Brimstone to provide fire support, especially precision engagements, something the LG cannot do. If you want mass fire onto the opposition front line, then light weight 120mm Mortars or even the existing 81mm will do the job.

The problem with precision fires in that they're... precise. You start using your LRF against a peer opposition and you'll give your location away very quickly. Sometimes the ability to eyeball a target and adjust onto target the traditional way has its benefits.

[BlueD954]

Mobile Fires Platfom - https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... s-platform

But nothing to replace L118?

[Lord Jim]

I still think as an interim option we should equip one Regiment with the BAe Archers mounted on the MAN chassis to provide support for the "Strike" Brigades as other more deployable formations. Ideally I would like this Regiment to have two Batteries each of eight Archers and four reload vehicles, and a third Battery with six HIMARS and three reload vehicles, with two Recovery Vehicles at Regimental Headquarters, all based on the MAN chassis. In addition we would also require a number of Joint Fires Modules for the planned Boxer fleet.

The Army can then wait to see what systems arrive on the scene later as a result of the on going research programmes on both sides of the Atlantic in both Weapon Systems and munitions. This would require a total of say twenty Archers, eight HIMARS, fifteen reload vehicles, two Recovery Vehicles and around six Boxer Joint Fires platforms, to allow additional platforms to cover maintenance etc..

We also need to select a 120mm Mortar system for the Boxer which could equip both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised units, saving to funding that would be required to also develop a Warrior Based platform, that is if we retain the latter. Replacing the existing SP 81mm mounted on the Bv206 used by the Royal Marines with a 120mm Mortar using the Viking Mk2 Chassis would also be a reasonable idea, as would using this platform as a basis for an Exactor launch vehicle. Their are a number of 120mm mortar systems that would meet this requirement already in service with other countries. Such platforms would also be ideal to provide a major upgrade in the support available to lighter formations like 16 Air Assault Brigade as both would be readily deployed via A400 and could be carried slung under a Chinook, in two halves.

We should be able to get these into service by 2025 when we will have the interim reorganisation of 3rd (UK) Division and the Royal Marines are completed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

That iiss blog article was nice, but focussed too much on weird&wonderful systems brought in from the naval world.

Like the Zumwalts gun (not entering service even on that rather sturdy platform) and the Russian 2006 prototype with a twin, naval gun arrangement giving a 16 rounds per minute rate of fire, which had been mixed up with the actual version (prototypes from 2012) with one gun and 8 rounds per minute... somehow it now has 16-20 quoted for its ROF.

Even the RA had picked the best of everything (but revised the rqrmnt after the initial round - call that 'market scanning' ).

LG forever - in units outlined upthread, for reasons also outlined.
- the nice thing is that the US has it for its elite divisions 10/82/101 (mountain, airborne, airmobile, respectively) and keep updating it with software (not sure if the same kit fits) from the newer, heavier field artillery piece... and the rounds (taking the original range from 13 and a half to 17 and a half, by 30%, is no mean feat) for the gun have not stood still, either

[ArmChairCivvy]

Replacing the existing SP 81mm mounted on the Bv206 used by the Royal Marines with a 120mm Mortar using the Viking Mk2 Chassis would also be a reasonable idea

Haven't been in the 'cockpit' and hence no idea if one or the other is steered with a wheel or levers.

A little bit of lateral thinking could change those levers (or if it is a wheel, add a joy stick to get the 3D control) and the powered connection between the front and back units could be used to 'lay' the mortar - target coordinates are relayed/ calculated digitally anyway, so alignment could be achieved simply by getting two dots to coincide on a screen... no tea breaks for the driver even while stationary

[Ron5]

No sign of LG? Never fear: as long as the requirement remains for fires to support bn-level ops in other types of formations to be liftable by helicopter, it will be around as other options are so few. We could buy the 70+ 155mm howitzers that the USMC is letting go, but that would narrow the lift options to Chinook.

Problem is the LG can be out ranged by systems in widespread use that date form the 1060s. It will still be fine for operation like Afghanistan where the opposition didn't have that much to shoot back with, but anyone with D-30 12mm Gun/Howitzers or BM-21 MLRS, with out gun whatever battalion sized force we send. We would do better to double down on Extractor Mk2 or invest in G/L Brimstone to provide fire support, especially precision engagements, something the LG cannot do. If you want mass fire onto the opposition front line, then light weight 120mm Mortars or even the existing 81mm will do the job.

I'm a bit puzzled. If the LG is no good because of range, how can a mortar be a substitute?

[Lord Jim]

The Mortars would be provide integral support for the troops, engaging the enemies lead elements rather then trying to engage those further back or trying to counter battery. Each Battalion would have eight SP Mortars like the Armoured Infantry do at present but with far greater capability and range. This is for our Light and Medium Forces. If we are limited on the vehicles that are to be sent then the 81mm would be used instead, being deployed by dismounts.

The LGs would be replaced by the Artillery Regiment equipped as I proposed, depending if the "Money Tree", shed any leaves.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What is clear by now is that Braveheart will not be arriving and the side profile as for how it was proposed did look so massive that one could easily question how much of the famed mobility would have been left had the new turret been adopted.

All of this begs the question why we have not seen a 'boxy' type of SPG with a hydro-pneumatic suspension (pioneered already in the 1960s on the Swedish S-tank). Combined with a digital computer with GPS and networked data management, it could automatically lay the gun. Therefore no expensive turret, as the final gun adjustments (other than vertically) would only need to work on a limited scale - AKA the German Stug that was meant as an assault gun to beef up infantry divisions (but mainly came to replace towed AT guns).
- should be cheaper to produce and operate
- and for the couple of dozen required by the RA... would obviously be stratospheric-ally expensive to develop

[mr.fred]

What is clear by now is that Braveheart will not be arriving and the side profile as for how it was proposed did look so massive that one could easily question how much of the famed mobility would have been left had the new turret been adopted.

New turret? I was under the impression that all that changed was the ordnance.
While the longer barrel looks ungainly, It’s not impossible.
52 calibre barrel
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/ph ... 1514049729
39 calibre barrel
https://arcaneafvs.com/as90/as90.JPG

All of this begs the question why we have not seen a 'boxy' type of SPG with a hydro-pneumatic suspension (pioneered already in the 1960s on the Swedish S-tank). Combined with a digital computer with GPS and networked data management, it could automatically lay the gun. Therefore no expensive turret, as the final gun adjustments (other than vertically) would only need to work on a limited scale - AKA the German Stug that was meant as an assault gun to beef up infantry divisions (but mainly came to replace towed AT guns).
- should be cheaper to produce and operate
- and for the couple of dozen required by the RA... would obviously be stratospheric-ally expensive to develop

Because turrets aren’t really expensive these days as physical items. it’s the servo controls and electronics gubbins that commonly go in them that raises the cost. Between a turret and a casemate the only real difference in cost is the roller bearing for the turret, and you see those on every crane in the land.

The closest thing you’ll see is a gun on a truck.

[ArmChairCivvy]

New turret?

You can observe it on the Polish SPG
- they swapped out the gun for a Nexter gun
- then they swapped out that one for the German one
- then they swapped the original chassis (mated to the Braveheart turret) for the one from Korea (K-9)

It looks like it is really... shimples, only took 20 years into service

[mr.fred]

You can observe it on the Polish SPG
- they swapped out the gun for a Nexter gun
- then they swapped out that one for the German one
- then they swapped the original chassis (mated to the Braveheart turret) for the one from Korea (K-9)

No.
As far as the vehicle is concerned The “Braveheart” was a change of ordnance from 39 to 52 calibre lengths. No turret change and no chassis change.

The Polish SPG (Krab) uses the same (or at least very similar to) turret from the AS90 on a different chassis and with a different gun.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the same (or at least very similar to) turret

say you

... and the Poles say:
"Noteworthy, even though Krab has its roots in the design of the upgraded AS-90 howitzer with a 52-calibre long barrel before it has reached its current form it also underwent thorough upgrades"

Another source: "The turret [...] a modified Braveheart with an automated loading system"

This yes/no/yes is rather beside the point I was making before the "all it takes is some ball bearings" argumentation sidetracked the discussion. So here are some sketches (before the result became the same as always: let's remanufacture some old stuff we already have)
A. max out the 109 design (ISD 1963)
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... gNegQIARBG

not
B. more compact and still accommodating an autoloader to give ROF of 8-12/ minute (the much vaunted Russian design entering service now does 8)

[mr.fred]

I’ll maintain my position that you cannot attain much if any cost savings by eschewing a turret, but you do introduce operational limitations, such as the need to rotate the whole vehicle to lay the gun on a target more than a few degrees off line.

[Ron5]

I'm wondering how long the 100km range German guns are going to be. Fitting them on a truck is going to be interesting as is 360 degree firing.