Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:I think the best value for money is a comprehensive upgrade and regun of the AS90 platform, in addition to a MAN SV based platform.

The only future I can see for the light gun teams is to move to 120mm towed mortars with a range beyond what is available today.
On the first one I agree. The Poles now have the Braveheart turret on their in-service platform (never mind that the gun was changed, first to Nexter's and then again, to get to where they are now.

As for the second point, I would advocate the French model, having mixed batteries. Yes, they have gone for this partly bcz of "colonial wars" where artillery operate dispersed, over vast areas and therefore all flavours need to be on the menu "there and then" when needed. As LJ puts it, these rgmnts being mainly the support for 16X and 3 Cdo would not be in conflict with that thinking, rather the opposite.
Lord Jim wrote: These five Brigades are the Army's equivalent of the Royal Navy's Carrier Strike Group and their needs need to take priority over all other parts of the Army.
I agree; too much salami slicing has been going on. for too long.
- 5 bdes are being postulated; which 5?
- 2 Strike, 2 AI. 16X is so light on infantry that we would need to call in the "sailors" and add whatever 3 Cdo still retains at its bn level, in the way of them "not having gone back to sea" but retained their heavy weapons. There we have it (incidentally includes half of the Bde of Gurkhas ;) ) and instead of building new formations, getting the kit and getting it right.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:As for the Boxer's Mission Module system, it is proving to be a very reliable and effective capability, capable of being done in an field work shop. It take less than an hour to swap modules and can be done by non skilled personnel.
What evidence do we have of that?

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

"As for the Boxer's Mission Module system, it is proving to be a very reliable and effective capability"
I would be more prudent, RCH has never been deployed on operations. We know that the Dutch had much trouble with the PZH in Afghanistan, because the automation didn't work. At least in a PZH you have a back-up, but not in a RCH (nor Archer). And to mantain a system like that (highly automated) you have to recruit different mechanics. The manpower you save in gunners you will have to compensate with REME, and not just a few because again, who says it will work as effectively in ops as during demos ? Can we recruit these people, keep them ? With military kit, sophistication comes with a big risk (and cost), can we operate that when it is hard jammed ? ...... How sophisticated do we need a gun to be ?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Stal wrote:How sophisticated do we need a gun to be ?
A good point: about as sophisticated as K-9
- it has been designed for a conscript army
- do let me know on which points it falls behind (exc. for the loading automation, which has been argued for and against, above) any of its competition - leaving price aside. Heh-heh, we are climbing the ladder that reaches towards 'value'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

"about as sophisticated as K-9", good point, so why not buy K9 then ? It will be 40% cheaper and maybe 30% when fully automated.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:What evidence do we have of that?
Posted a video of it being done last year. Took less than half an hour in the base work shop but the system is designed to be resilient and to allow damaged modules to be easily swapped out in the field if needed.

I agree with the automation on the Boxer/155 could be an issue. At least on the Archer I believe there is a manual emergency option, cranking a bloody great handle or something like that.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:What evidence do we have of that?
Posted a video of it being done last year. Took less than half an hour in the base work shop but the system is designed to be resilient and to allow damaged modules to be easily swapped out in the field if needed.
So not proven, but demonstrated for the cameras.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:So not proven, but demonstrated for the cameras.
I suppose half a dozen large bolts and a few standard electrical connectors might be complicated for some, oh and a crane. Mind you the Germans are not really known for well thought out and designed Armoured Fighting vehicles are they. The Boxer/155 wouldn't be my first choice for a wheeled SPG to replace the British Army's existing platforms, but it could be in with a shout if enough emphasis is placed on commonality within the Strike Brigades during the test and evaluation phase of the programme. Modernising the AS-90s could be a wildcard but there seems to be a desire for a lighter platform with greater strategic mobility and so on.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Stal wrote:"about as sophisticated as K-9", good point, so why not buy K9 then ? It will be 40% cheaper and maybe 30% when fully automated.
Err, at the boot straps level it is British: the suspension has been licensed from the AS90 design ( the origins of it)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:So not proven, but demonstrated for the cameras.
I suppose half a dozen large bolts and a few standard electrical connectors might be complicated for some, oh and a crane. Mind you the Germans are not really known for well thought out and designed Armoured Fighting vehicles are they.
Ignoring the fact that chassis twist and distort over time. Not to mention a few simple electrical connections quickly grow if you're utilising data, discretes, RF, air ducting, hydraulics. Ignorance is bliss and all that. Show me an actual battle experienced chassis being swapped out from a battle damaged mission module and I'll believe the marketing gumph.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by jimthelad »

No Western army can match the Sov Bloc doctrine of Russia, PRC, or PRNoK with firepower overmatch and numbers I'm afraid. Even if we built the platforms and funded them, the manpower uplift would bankrupt any western power. Instead we need to deny them the target sets by mobility and concentration (I think the Army has it right in this regard) and put all our effort into counter battery/ area denial. This can be done from the air but organic overwatch using Brimstone on a manned or the TELEMIS units or Spike NLOS is the way forward.

The thing that terrifies all infantry and armour to a lesser extent is massed artillery. Lighter units have to dig in and fix position and armour has to dipserse. Deny the opposition the use of massed fires and the freedom to deploy these, taking out tanks becomes a relatively simple affair. All effort should be made to disrupt the support indirect elements 10-15km behind the enemies FLOT. Disrupt this and most echelon commanders would baulk about pushing home an attack in the face of western ATGM/armour.

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:is
My point was : saying "as sophisticated as K9" isn't an operational requirement, it might be a goal of you are part of Artec joint venture, but no operational requirement.
That said, i agree, RCH is much better than K9, without a shadow of a doubt (except that it has yet to be put to test by forces). Another concern, you might have read the AFPRB, and it constantly stresses the difficulties to recruit and retain mechanical engineers, this is why I don't think it would be very wise to go for systems which are perhaps more sophisticated than necessary and which we might struggle to maintain, Acher included.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Jake1992 »

We keep going over what is best but the truth is there are very limited options for us, we need a wheeled based platform to keep up with strike so what choices do we have ?

1 - Boxer RCH 155mm
- gives us the mobility need, good levels of protection, commonality
- potential problem if no manual fire option, need for more engineers, possibly expensive

2 - A GOAT
- cheapest option, can keep up with strike, possible commonality
- not great levels of protection, not as good off road, potentially needs more engineers

3 - Split set up of AS90 upgrade and GOAT
- gives the best of both worlds to an extent, could be a cheaper option depending of upgrade costs
- strike could still be some what limited off road, still possible increase in engineers, strike has low levels of protection

So of the above options what is the best route ? What is the most likely ?

There is a fourth option of the G6 but very unlikely as it’s production line has ended.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

The whole point of the Boxer Mission Modules is that besides the three or four standard connectors for power and data, the modules are self contained, including things like hydraulics for example. I have not seen any public reports form the German Army regarding the Boxers they deployed operationally to Afghanistan. I am sure that people have seen the Boxer with and without the Mission module. The Module fits into a "Bathtub" at the rear of the vehicle with the rear of the "Bathtub", open. From what I have read any damage that is significant enough to prevent the removal and replacement of the module would also mean the whole vehicle was unrepairable. But battle damage is not the prime reason for the Modular system, that is to allow maximum flexibility within the fleet, and reduce the costs of upgrades and so on. Remember Most AFVs already are modular to a certain degree in that their power packs are modular contain both the power unit and transmission, to allow the whole unit to be replaced in one go and that operations is far more complicated that swapping out a Boxer Mission Module.

Anyhow this thread is supposed to be about artillery not the Boxer, its modularity was only brought up because of the 155mm Mission Module. Some people simply do not like innovation and will not accept anything until it has been battle tested. This is not a bad policy but it does leave one constantly playing catch up to the capabilities of others.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting video from DSEi. Talks about the Archer/MAN configuration from 2:38

The Rheinmetall Defence Canada UGV (11:53) would be an useful addition to say 16AA to carry its heavy weapon and ammunition, bring carried inside a Chinook. Sort of like an unmanned Bren Carrier for the 21st Century.

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Andy-M »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Stal wrote:"about as sophisticated as K-9", good point, so why not buy K9 then ? It will be 40% cheaper and maybe 30% when fully automated.
Err, at the boot straps level it is British: the suspension has been licensed from the AS90 design ( the origins of it)
why not go a step further and buy the Polish 155mm Krab Howitzer, it uses the K-9 chassis and the AS90 turret, with a german gun, they're just starting production for the Polish army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

https://www.defence24.com/series-manufa ... med-forces

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Another video from DSEI 2019, this time from Jane's, about the Modular Archer Artillery System. The Campaign continues. :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Andy-M wrote:and the AS90 turret
yes, the Braveheart version that we never bought.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

If we are buying specifically for the Strike Bdes (and potentially for others, like AI), then a couple of things don't seem to come to surface (yes the normal: high ROF, both precision and mass of fire, the latter by adding the limber for rapid replenishment, they are all good and they are there).
- but dispersion and then concentration are key parts of the doctrine
- supporting elements may not move as fast, but will need to be able to support at all stages
- hence range + precision+ targeting, all these elements will need to come together

K9 may not be as fast as the truck based Archer, but for brigade level support the Finns seem to have put together a package of an unknown number of counter-battery radars (from IAI) and they are also the first customer of Nammo’s ER-HE ammunition - giving a 40+ km range
- yes, the Americans are going for 50+ but they are adding another 2.5 mtrs to the M777barrel
- so no auto-loading gimmicks, so as to save money for the bits that never come cheap (radars/ other ISR and specialised rounds)
... where do we go from here? Archer is BAE, get the BAE Braveheart turrets, but for the number of units required there is no justification to fit anything else than what the Poles have already done... both parts, the gun and the turret would thus add weight; will the old chassis cope? Just get a std K9 + Archer combo
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Can we afford two different artillery platforms? Archer for me does tick all the boxes
High Mobility
High ROF (12 rnd/min)
Range 40Km (greater with ER ammo)
Compatible with all current Smart and cargo rounds.
Protection for crew when in action - Automatic with 20+ rnd mag
Rapid reload 5 min from tender on same platform.
Radar and other support vehicles on the same platform
Low maintenance and support costs.
Why is such a platform not suitable to support the AI Brigades? We are only looking at two Regiments worth of new equipment plus training and attrition stocks. Is it worth buying one Regiment of one type and one of the other?

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:If we are buying specifically for the Strike Bdes (and potentially for others, like AI), then a couple of things don't seem to come to surface (yes the normal: high ROF, both precision and mass of fire, the latter by adding the limber for rapid replenishment, they are all good and they are there).
- but dispersion and then concentration are key parts of the doctrine
- supporting elements may not move as fast, but will need to be able to support at all stages
- hence range + precision+ targeting, all these elements will need to come together

K9 may not be as fast as the truck based Archer, but for brigade level support the Finns seem to have put together a package of an unknown number of counter-battery radars (from IAI) and they are also the first customer of Nammo’s ER-HE ammunition - giving a 40+ km range
- yes, the Americans are going for 50+ but they are adding another 2.5 mtrs to the M777barrel
- so no auto-loading gimmicks, so as to save money for the bits that never come cheap (radars/ other ISR and specialised rounds)
... where do we go from here? Archer is BAE, get the BAE Braveheart turrets, but for the number of units required there is no justification to fit anything else than what the Poles have already done... both parts, the gun and the turret would thus add weight; will the old chassis cope? Just get a std K9 + Archer combo
At no point has it been revealed and is very unlikely that it will be revealed how the radars will be used or what kind of formation will receive them.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Voldemort wrote:what kind of formation
I was projecting the choices into the BA army context:
- bns/ BGs don't have organic artillery (attaching and so on; yes, I know)
- we don't have divisions (and DAG was done away with a long time ago)... so in the BA context brigade-level (rolling off the 1 Artllery Bde barracks; a peace-time construct, that one) is self evident

We (driven by input from the Defence Committee) aspire to a division capable of manoeuvre warfare (all this kit discussion being conditioned by that ultimate aim; until it might be changed again :) )
- the Finns don't have divisions either... but I hear they have a Corps?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Voldemort wrote:what kind of formation
I was projecting the choices into the BA army context:
- bns/ BGs don't have organic artillery (attaching and so on; yes, I know)
- we don't have divisions (and DAG was done away with a long time ago)... so in the BA context brigade-level (rolling off the 1 Artllery Bde barracks; a peace-time construct, that one) is self evident

We (driven by input from the Defence Committee) aspire to a division capable of manoeuvre warfare (all this kit discussion being conditioned by that ultimate aim; until it might be changed again :) )
- the Finns don't have divisions either... but I hear they have a Corps?
Since divisions were dropped in 50s there have been brigades, military districts and corps'. Wikipedia suggest that a corps could have brigades, battlegroups and supporting battalions. This information has no source. Virtually no information about army corps and military district composition exists in public realm.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Voldemort wrote:Wikipedia suggest that a corps could have brigades, battlegroups and supporting battalions.
i.e. everything and anything, as Wiki often does
Voldemort wrote: Virtually no information about army corps [...] composition exists in public realm.
Asked a Finnish contact to use his google (optimised for the country & language) and he pointed to the KOSKI08 exercise which focussed on leading a counterattack by a corps, across a wide (or rather: deep) area. Even though the Corps composition was reported on, there were no aspects of artillery, specifically, covered. And, anyway, it would be the newer aspects, ie. the use of more mobile/ protected artillery that would be of interest for this forum.
- the British contingent in Estonia/ more widely in the Baltic countries might benefit from any case studies (though the GMLRS originally to be shipped with the 'trip wire' were left at home, as Putin protested that they would be too close to his parade grounds :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

Puzzled by why the Boxer RCH155 isn't everyone's favorite for the BA requirement.

Chassis commonality - check
Protection - check
Tactical mobility - check
Strategic mobility - check
High UK content - check
Shoot & scoot - check


What's not to like?

Image

Post Reply