Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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:3rd choice in fact, in my opinion.
Er, and the gold and silver medalists are...?
Stal wrote:I have no doubt about the reliability or Archer, but as a warfighting asset I think it has major flaws
In the original version (the gun itself being reliable) the known faults were
- fumes into the protected crew compartment
- not stable enough (recoil) to maintain accuracy over the (quick) MRSI cycle

At least the first one surely rectified, and as for the 2nd, surely there will be field trials
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 »

As I said earlier 1. CAESAR DK 2. RCH
And again price matters, if you want a gun for high intensity you need lots of ammo (dumb, and smart), plus rockets plus long range artillery compatible Istar. If you buy a gun with no budget left for the rest you will have the kit but you won't be ready for high intensity wafare. We need balanced procurement and a fit for purpose gun, if possible easily deployable.

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 »

I like number one, but the ammo handling system is a far cry from automated
- sure, just add more men (plus a limber) and sustained fire is a "go"

Number 2 is still a bit of a tabula rasa for me (I know where the gun system has been derived from, but it was optimised for one of the few 'armoured' howitzers around, so if you want to put armour around something you make it compact and minimise the number required in the crew)
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 »

I heard there is a fully automated shell resupply system but that the Danes were happy with a semi automated version

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Blackstone »

Ron5 wrote: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
Makes the Navy jealous?

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 »

That's a baby... compared to the real thing (autoloader and 14 rounds ROF):
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 »

"Makes the Navy jealous?"

It does, because it's the cost of a frigate :)
(And it doesn't float)

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 »

Do we have a timescale for this programme?

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Lord Jim wrote: How fact can a Caesar be reloaded by its crew?

As fast as the crew can haul the shells from the supply truck to the ammo magazine......so a few minutes at most, with 4-6 guys reloading.
The Man chassis is the 8x8 variant as is at least equal to the one used with the DK Caesar and the TATRA chassis of the Dana.
It would (almost) be if it was based on the RMMV SX chassis,.....instead though the Archer turret is placed on the HX 8x8 chassis, which is derived from MANs civilian line of construction vehicles,(meaning U-frame and leaf spring suspension) and as such has pretty hard limits to its off-road capabilities. https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/ ... /index.php
Unlike the Tatra chassis which off-road capability almost rivals that of 8x8 APCs like Piranha/AMV/Boxer etc
AS for time into and out of action, the Archer will be finished and moving on whist the Caesar if still readying for its first shot worst case, or in the middle of its fire mission.
That is an assertion that isnt backed up by facts.
Can Caesar beat 2 min for stopping, conducting a eight round fire mission and packing up and leaving?
No , but what it can do is deploy, fire six rounds and displace within that same 2 mins. And do it almost twice as many times as the Archer before needing resupply, OR alternatively conduct longer stationary fire missions.

Just to be clear, im not arguing that CAESAR 8x8 is a better artillery system than the ARCHER, but one which gives you 95% of the latters capability at less than 3/4 the cost.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I like number one, but the ammo handling system is a far cry from automated
1. The CAESAR in the video is a prototype and as such not representative of a finished production version.
2. Actually, as Stal notes, the CAESAR does come with fully automated shell handling, its just that for various reasons ( cost, more ammo capacity etc) we (DK) have chosen to forego the automatic ammunition magazine.
3. Of course it has semi-automatic loading of the charges, but then again so does far more expensive artillery systems like PZH2000 and K9

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Ron5 wrote: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
Oh idk....its:
1. Ugly as sin!
2. Big as a house, ie easy to spot easy to hit
3. No spade or supporting legs= knackered chassis and suspension. Will likely also mean less range and accuracy.
4. Very high COG = not good for anti roll over stability, compromising the otherwise excellent off-road capability of Boxer.
5. Price!......the basic Boxer APC costs around €4M , the PZH2000 €10M,ish !.....that means that even in the best case scenario the RCH 155 is going to be a horribly expensive system and probably end up being a lot closer to 10 than 4 million euros.

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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Just to be clear, im not arguing that CAESAR 8x8 is a better artillery system than the ARCHER, but one which gives you 95% of the latters capability at less than 3/4 the cost.
I agree with what you have said and I am pretty sure that the appropriate Truck Chassis would be chosen if Archer were actually selected, both for the Firing Units and the Limber platform. In my view both should be evaluated by the BA as part of the AS-90 replacement programme. Only by a direct comparison can the advantages verses cost of individual weapon systems be truly appreciated.

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 »

Well the Royal Artillery has lost one of its three AS-90 equipped Regiments (26 Regiment) and has had its GMLRS brought together into a single Regiment. So these three Regiments are going to have to provide Artillery support in future to the Army's Two Armoured Infantry and two Mechanised Brigades. To this we can add the two Light Regiments still equipped with the 105mm Light Gun as allocated to support 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault and the two Royal Artillery Air Defence Regiments, one to be equipped with Land Ceptor and the other Starstreak/LMM. A serious lack of investment here and besides the replacement of the AS-90, nothing bright on the horizon.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Gabriele »

Lord Jim wrote:Well the Royal Artillery has lost one of its three AS-90 equipped Regiments (26 Regiment) and has had its GMLRS brought together into a single Regiment. So these three Regiments are going to have to provide Artillery support in future to the Army's Two Armoured Infantry and two Mechanised Brigades. To this we can add the two Light Regiments still equipped with the 105mm Light Gun as allocated to support 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault and the two Royal Artillery Air Defence Regiments, one to be equipped with Land Ceptor and the other Starstreak/LMM. A serious lack of investment here and besides the replacement of the AS-90, nothing bright on the horizon.

The Mechanized Brigades will initially have the L118s of 4 RA and 3 RHA regiments.
Then, assuming the Mobile Fires Platform really happens (artillery programmes have a tendency to just disappear, in the British Army...), they will be the first units to receive it, ahead of 1 RHA and 19 RA which have the AS90.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:will be the first units to receive it, ahead of 1 RHA and 19 RA which have the AS90
That was my understanding, too, but has there been a firm indication of the quantity to be (initially) purchased?
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Gabriele »

98 systems. I've seen a 135 thrown around as well, but i think until 4 regiments are the ambition, 98 are more than enough. And also more than challenging enough from a financial / programme schedule perspective.


Also, there are studies / design work ongoing for a "super lightweight gun" for the post-L118 era. Official news, but unfortunately no details on what is the status and final aim.


Land Precision Strike, currently semi-fullfilled by EXACTOR, aims to upgrade to a new system with a range of "at least" 60 km. In the interim, they are looking at putting EXACTOR on a vehicle and bring range from 25 to over 40 km.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Exactor 2 would be an ideal weapon system for both out Light Intervention units and as a Swingfire replacement in the Ajax equipped Recce Regiments, though in the latter I do not think we need to mount it on a Ajax Chassis at all, just use the same platform that is chosen for the unit providing support to 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault. I would in fact allocate Exactor 2 on a semi permanent basis to other formations at Brigade level and then assign it to lower level units as required. Two four launcher Batteries per Brigade would suffice. The Regimental HQ would be purely an administrative unit.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Dahedd »

What ever happened to the Warthogs we bought. Are they in decent storage or dumped somewhere to rot? Would they not make a good chassis to carry Exactor?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by whitelancer »

I don't see Exactor as a Swingfire replacement particularly not operated by the RA. Much better would be a version of Brimstone mounted in a similar arrangement as Swingfire on Striker but mounted on Ajax and/or Boxer with a double row arrangement with 10 to 12 ready to fire missiles. It could be used in either a direct fire or indirect mode with the ability to ripple fire against a large target array. Oh and it should be operated by either the RAC or the RAC and the Infantry, not the RA.

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 »

In an ideal world, yes Brimstone would be a good choice, there has already been a man in the loop capability developed though not in use at present and would require further investment to match the capabilities of Exactor 2 which is already in service. The weapon is proven and the Exactor 2 was developed with UK funding as an improved version of that operated by the Israelis and initial brought into service under a UOR but is now under the core. TD has a very good paper regarding this.

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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote: No spade or supporting legs= knackered chassis and suspension. Will likely also mean less range and accuracy.
That is surprising as one of the early defects of the Archer platform was legs too feeble to make full use of the MRSI capability designed in
Gabriele wrote: In the interim, they are looking at putting EXACTOR on a vehicle and bring range from 25 to over 40 km.
Finally shaking off the thinking conditioned by A-stan
whitelancer wrote: Much better would be a version of Brimstone mounted in a similar arrangement as Swingfire on Striker but mounted on Ajax and/or Boxer with a double row arrangement with 10 to 12 ready to fire missiles.
Agreed, as Exactor does not have the ripple fire feature (I see the latter as more of a c-btry weapon rather than what the Israelis built it for: long range engagement of tanks in a desert (where they can be easily observed as a formation and the optical seeker head does the picking of the eventual target... once the missile gets there first)
Lord Jim wrote: The weapon is proven and the Exactor 2 was developed with UK funding as an improved version of that operated by the Israelis
So how has it been improved? Hadn't heard of this one
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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote: No spade or supporting legs= knackered chassis and suspension. Will likely also mean less range and accuracy.
That is surprising as one of the early defects of the Archer platform was legs too feeble to make full use of the MRSI capability designed in
Gabriele wrote: In the interim, they are looking at putting EXACTOR on a vehicle and bring range from 25 to over 40 km.
Finally shaking off the thinking conditioned by A-stan
whitelancer wrote: Much better would be a version of Brimstone mounted in a similar arrangement as Swingfire on Striker but mounted on Ajax and/or Boxer with a double row arrangement with 10 to 12 ready to fire missiles.
Agreed, as Exactor does not have the ripple fire feature (I see the latter as more of a c-btry weapon rather than what the Israelis built it for: long range engagement of tanks in a desert (where they can be easily observed as a formation and the optical seeker head does the picking of the eventual target... once the missile gets there first)
Lord Jim wrote: The weapon is proven and the Exactor 2 was developed with UK funding as an improved version of that operated by the Israelis
So how has it been improved? Hadn't heard of this one
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:So how has it been improved? Hadn't heard of this one
Details are scarce, possible a revised missile, but it could be an alternative launcher, that's TD's best guess.

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 advantage with using Extractor as a Swingfire replacement is that a battery can provide anti-tank over watch overs a large area whilst being a fair distance behind the front. This allow the launch platform to be a less complicated one rather then mounted on Ajax or Boxer, though a mission module for the latter should be a fairly cost effective option if that route is chosen. A trailer possibly towed by a JLTV could be the most cost effective option though whilst being a practical option, whilst a version mounted on the next gen. Viking, as proposed as a Bv206 replacement, would be the best option for the Royal Marines.

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 item that should be on our shopping list for use by the Roya Artillery.

Post Reply