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 »

Was just reading what the £ 800 mln for artillery could buy (the rocketry sum was separate, and I believe will be spent sooner, too).

An improved S. Korean K9 (final assembly of the K-9 Vajra-T for the Indian army is carried out at the Larsen&Toubro plant in Telegaon).

$650 mln would buy a hundred, use the FX difference for the digitalised BMS kit.
- still leaves another £150 mln for whatever is needed around them

Say, 48 within the 2 Heavy BCTs
- still leaves the same number as division-level artillery
- and taken together, we will have (again) the 100-barrel DAG
+ some pretty capable rocketry to go with it

Wheeled? OK, make the other half wheeled, so it is either with such units or with the division - as moving it around it quicker (and easier)


Last Contracts:
Qnt Customer Value Add Date
(Close Date) Unit cost
100 for INDIA

$650.000.000

Apr 2017
(Nov 2020)

$6,500,00
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 »

I am putting this one here (rather than under US forces) as it looks like there is a lot of beefing up of the weapon system going on, PRIOR TO the ER rockets arriving (under a different budget to spend on them):

US DoD Contract Notice,
Washington, 26 March 2021: Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $2,765,714,054 hybrid (cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price) contract for Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) Alternative Warhead rocket pods, GMLRS Unitary Warhead rocket pods, Low-Cost Reduced Range Practice rocket pods, cybersecurity services, integrated product support and other services.
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 »

A two-year old open sources survey and analysis by
"Changing Character of War Centre"
Pembroke College, University of Oxford
With Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation (grant?)

has summarised in such away that we could pull our Rqrmnts Doc (I believe an RFI round has already been done and e.g. the RoF rqrmnt was subsequently modified so there would be in existence something that we could buy?) straight from the summary (of Russian sources):

"in the new combined-arms brigade, there are now two 152mm howitzer battalions and a 122mm MLRS battalion. Each motorized rifle battalion has a 120mm mortar battery.

Russian analysts have determined that future artillery systems and groupings of artillery and MLRS must provide for:

 automated command and control systems that interface with the combined arms formation’s command and control systems;
 an expanded number of artillery rounds and types including present-day ammunition and those under development;
 interface between current and future artillery reconnaissance assets including locking-on moving targets radar and
reconnaissance UAVs;
 the ability to destroy small moving targets with indirect fire;
 the capability to conduct flat trajectory and high-angle fires;
 the capability to conduct an “iterative fire strike”, whereby a single artillery piece can fire on a single target using rounds
with different charging packets-the result being that the target is hit simultaneously by several rounds;
 he ability to conduct “series fire”, whereby a single artillery piece can fire 12-15 rounds-per-minute at a single target on a
single trajectory with an identical propelling charge so that all the rounds fired during that minute will still be in the air as
the self-propelled artillery piece is changing its firing position;
 the development of unmanned self-propelled artillery pieces controlled by a manned command vehicle (or command-reload
vehicle) that supports weapon displacement, fire control and ammunition resupply;
 the development of self-propelled artillery pieces capable of firing on the move throughout the entire range of trajectories
within the sector of fire, and;
 providing a range of fire of at least 50 kilometers.xxvii
Russian battlefield simulations have demonstrated that artillery must be able to destroy enemy armored
companies and battalions at long-range in in order to guarantee mission success. Artillery must hinder the
enemy advance and frustrate the enemy deployment into attack lines in order to negate or frustrate the full
application of enemy combat power while reducing friendly casualties. Future Russian artillery composition
within combined arms tactical formations should be capable of:
 conducting reconnaissance-fire missions while on the move;
 conducting effective fire to the full depth of the formation’s zone of responsibility;
 accomplishing a high rate of effective fire using precision-guided as well as conventional munitions;
 quickly preparing for and conducting fire missions;
 conducting counter-battery maneuver, and;
 destroying crucial targets with high accuracy and to the required degree in armed conflicts of varying scale and intensity.xxviii
Precision fires have their place and quick destruction of high-threat targets is optimum for survival, but the
Russians have not abandoned their use of massed artillery. Massed artillery not only destroys-it produces
paralysis and psychic terror. "The experience of modern wars and armed conflicts shows that artillery is still the
god of war. Airstrikes cannot replace massed artillery fire. And the most effective way to protect your troops
from enemy artillery is to destroy that artillery with counter-battery fire, when enemy artillery positions are
detected and instantly suppressed."

The Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas [an open source
research organization of the U.S. Army] was suitably impressed with the depth of the work
- impressed enough to reprint it as a work of reference

Looking at the inevitably long list sources, they seem to stretch to 2017 and the one reference (xxvii) that has made it into the summary chapter looks like this (more like handbooks and manuals):
Боевой устав артиллерии Сухопутных войск
[Combat regulations for Ground Forces’ Artillery], Part I, Moscow; Voyenizdat, 2013; Боевое применение РВ и A.Учебник
[Combat application of Rocket Forces and Artillery-a Textbook], Moscow: Russian Federation Armed Forces Combined Arms
Academy Military and Scientific Center, 2014; and Примеры из опыта боевых действий артиллерии в ВОВ и Республике
Афганистан.Тематический сборник [Examples from artillery combat experience ...
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 »

I believe the 16X and a BG drawn from within the 3 Cdo would, at the most, each have 2 batteries of 6 LGs. Let's leave it at that.

But for BGs drawn from within the emerging Light BCTs it would be inconceivable to have no close support artillery at all? However, what ever vehicle would come with it should be close to what the BG otherwise rides in... so:


The good news is that further assets (held at the bde level) with more range and with a precision fire capability (AKA Exactor) could be mounted on the same class of vehicle - if that was to be preferred to the current trailer solution (the latter underslung-airportable, to get it to the dispersed BGs plenty quick - if and when needed).
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

I fear you may be having a conversation with yourself :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 »

Ron5 wrote:having a conversation with yourself
Artillery is a neglected Corps
- but no more, according to the trio of papers that have come out under the 'IR' label

Have a look (=read) at the third one, which is army specific - and then :roll: come back with a more informed ;) comment
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

The JLTV has already been seen with the spear 120mm mortar however it might be better off in the Eagle 6x6 or Bushmaster MR6

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:better off in the Eagle 6x6 or Bushmaster MR6
to my eye the Eagle looks roomier... as one will need three guys around/ behind the mortar, to achieve a smooth flow (which translates to RoF, though I guess that term is seldom used with other than breach-loaded mortars as it is so dependent on team experience)
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 »

Wouldn't the increased sized and load capacity of either the Eagle 6x6 or Bushmaster be an advantage thou with the one vehicle being able to carry the Mortar, Crew and more ready rounds. I can see this requiring two JLTVs to do the same.

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 »

This may be a bit heavy but it would do the job of replacing the AS-90, and have the mobility to support the various types of planned BCTs.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

But what would it offer over a MAN 8x8 Archer

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 »

Nothing at face value, but then we do not no the purchase or operating costs of either system but I believe both only need a maximum of three crew. Until we actually formally request bids form industry and companies reply either one can be said to be better than the other but I do think the DITA looks cools but Archer has teh better name. :)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

Archer is said to be about 4.5 million dollars per unit or 3.3 million pounds so for 800 million pounds we should be able to get 150 guns 80 round limbers and a service contact

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 with between twenty four and thirty six guns per Regiments that would cover it with spares to cover training, replacement and so on. We need a minimum of three Regiments with tubes and two of Rockets, ideally MAN/HIMARS, as the core of our field artillery going forward as well as the new munitions to be delivered by them.

Add a full Regiment of Extractor, two of Land Ceptor, one of SP Starstreak/LMM, two of SPAAGs and one of SAMP-T and you have the firepower side of the Artillery. Then you add the various UAVs starting with Watchkeeper and we are starting to make progress.

Alternatively the SP Starstreak/LMM and the SPAAGs could be allocated at Battalion/Regimental level with each having a Air Defence Company with eight SPAAGs and four SP Starstreak/LMM platforms, giving four fire teams of two of the former and one of the latter.

I am really hoping the announcement of improved Air Defence for the Army was not simply covering the introduction of Land Ceptor, only one Regiment with the current order. We need a far more comprehensive layered Air Defence network as we cannot automatically accept we will have air dominance or even superiority, something we have not had to face since the 1980s.

How much is made available to fund the re-equipment of the Ra and RHA will be a very clear sign as to how serious the Government and MoD are in the transformation of the Army.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

For me as I have said in the past we should be looking to have 3 Divisions each with 3 Brigades each with 3 Battalions with this in mind the Heavy and light Mechanised Battalions would be supported by Archer so Each division would get 54 guns allowing each Brigade 18 guns and each Battalion 6 guns even down to each Company 2 guns . The Air mobile Division would retain 54 x 105 guns to allow the same brake down.

As for HIMARS each of the mechanised Division should get 36 allowing each Brigade to get 12 and so on

add to this that each mechanised Battalion should have 9 120 mortar systems this would mean that each Division would have

54 x Archer guns
36 x HIMARS
81 x 120mm Mortars

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:add to this that each mechanised Battalion should have 9 120 mortar systems this would mean that each Division would have

54 x Archer guns
36 x HIMARS
81 x 120mm Mortars
Mortars bang on.

3 bdes can generate 3 BGs each = 9
6 gun batteries x 9 is yr number,
however to have 4 at the ready and 2 relocating... not the best combo for constantly moving

Add some;
take some GMLRS away from the indicated total, BUT
add Exactor or smaller caliber ' dumb' rocketry to support the BG level
- not every BG will need some of those, so divide (and conquer ;) ) any such unevenly between the BGs
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:however to have 4 at the ready and 2 relocating... not the best combo for constantly moving
well you could have 3 firing and 3 moving or 2 firing 2 moving and 2 reloading

Plus with both divisions having 54 guns that would be 108 guns and if we got 150 gun systems there would be enough for a reserve regiment of say 24 guns meaning each division could be given an extra 12 guns each plus spares

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 »

I think returning to the days of eight gun batteries for both Tube and Rocket artillery, especially if we introduce the HIMARS for the latter could be the way to go, operating in four pairs each with a reload vehicle. I believe these should be only allocated down to Battalion level, especially with today fire control, but each Company should have a Joint Fires element within its HQ. Of course this would also allow the Brigades or even Division's artillery to be brought down by the Joint Fires element within a single Company.

As for Mortars, I would like to see enough in each battalion to allow for each Platoon to be given a single Mortar if required, do as suggested above nine would suffice, with a supply platform held at Company level.

Where I differ from others is that although I can see the benefits of having three Divisions of three Brigades each, I cannot see us having more than one fighting Division, with both 1st and 6th Divisions being organised to deploy formations no bigger than a Brigade at most, an more usually the biggest being Battalion sized. As such, if needed its Artillery support would be drawn from units in 3rd Division.

As for 3rd Division, I would like to see it with three 32 gun Archer Regiments and two 32 launcher HIMARS Regiments. This would allow any Brigade deployed to be supported by at least three Archer Batteries and one HIMARS Battery, though ideally two of the latter would be allocated with one given the job of "Deep" strike using the larger, longer range rockets we may be purchasing at some point.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: be only allocated down to Battalion level, especially with today fire control, but each Company should have a Joint Fires element within its HQ.
Well, it is networked, roughly in this way
ArmChairCivvy wrote: Tactical Air Control Party, TACP, with an officer and SNCO and 2 signallers, which typically deploy at the company level, embedding with the unit's HQ element. Or if there are several companies engaging then an FAC as part of a Fire Support Team (FST) alongside Mortar Fire Controller(s) and Artillery Forward Observation Officer(s)
But what you say about a bde's allocation, I fully agree with. Perhaps, though, GMLRS could be supported (for local weight of fire) with something 'more primitive' so that it could exist 'organically' at a low level of... say, bn-based BG.
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:Where I differ from others is that although I can see the benefits of having three Divisions of three Brigades each, I cannot see us having more than one fighting Division,
We have 1.5 fighting division now with the 3rd and 16X as seen in Wessex Storm the 2 Para battle group is good to go

For me the core role of a Field division is to fight as one if needed and as said before for me the 1st should be made capable of this

Sorry fantasy button on

As said before if the UK were buy 750 Griffon and 250 Jaguar's cost 1 billion euros or 853,000 pounds this would allow 9 Battalions to look like

20 x Jaguar ( with 40mm and 2 x Javelins
60 x Griffon ( with RWS's fitted with 12.7mm , 30mm , 40mm GMG )
9 x Griffon 120mm mortar

and a Company BG

4 x Jaguar
16 x Griffon
3 x griffon 120 mortar
1 x Support group

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

So to follow on from above as said if we were to buy 150 Archer guns the there would be enough for 3 full time regiments and one reserve regiment with the 3rd getting 2 full time regiments and the 1st one allowing the reserves to back up were needed. with each regiment having 36 guns each brigade in the first could have 12 guns

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:We have 1.5 fighting division now with the 3rd and 16X as seen in Wessex Storm the 2 Para battle group is good to go

For me the core role of a Field division is to fight as one
I agree that a lot of the discussion comes across too pessimistic, because we discuss one scenario/ theatre at a time
- 3 Div, as it stands, certainly counts for one
- 16X has three manoeuvre units (that makes, surprisingly, a bde)
- but we also have, for a NATO context, 2 RM Cdos and were they to be used there would be other Light BGs (without the marine flank mobility) to deploy with them - now that Strike Bdes are not 'just around the corner'

So, a division and two brigades
... call it one and a half (more true than calling it two)

In the future formula, as @LJ has said, a lot of it is just moving things around and calling them something else
- 2 heavy+ recce/ deep strike... a division makes
- 16X under a new name, better formed and more supportable
- more Light BGs to go with either the above, or with the RM
... need not be a NATO context, but can be
Tempest414 wrote:a Company BG

4 x Jaguar
16 x Griffon
3 x griffon 120 mortar
1 x Support group
About right, rather than focussing on what to buy:
- 4 platoons with protected mobility
- 4 direct fire weapons (on the 'same-ish platform')
- 3 indirect fire weapons (to act as a battery) or, any one of them doing some bunker busting in direct fire -mode.. this is where a Griffon buy would let you down

The 4 direct fire variants can act as cavalry. together, securing and fighting on the flanks. Or, distributed, as fire support for/in each platoon
Tempest414 wrote:So to follow on from above as said if we were to buy 150 Archer guns
18 guns to support a bde
... 5 bdes fielded as per the above
90 working as attached; 60 as divisional artillery (find the right balance between them and longer ranged rocketry; a point much discussed but a matter of balance - not to mention cost effectiveness. Transformation costs money :!: Hence sometimes the best will have to make way for good enough)
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 »

From looking at the Command Paper, the emphasis is moving away from Division to the "Brigade Combat Teams". As stated these are to be self contained, all armed formations, differentiated by their "Weight". To me this means that our existing Division Headquarters are going to be transformed in to frameworks where is need two or more BCTs can be organised and controlled in a co-ordinated manner. Besides that they will each become the administrative hub for a number of BCTs. Whether each HQ will be tailored to a different geographical region such as Europe, Middle East and so I do not know, but that might be a route worth exploring.

But how will this affect the supporting arms. Will anything be held back at this level or will everything be assigned to the planned BCTs. This is going to be especially important when it comes to the Artillery Regiments in their various forms. Are some of the tasks currently being carried out by the Artillery going to be reallocated to other units types, SHORAD comes to mind with each Infantry and Armoured unit having an integral SHORAD Platoon/Troop. Are we going to revisit the idea of Artillery Regiments having more than one weapon system in their inventory. One option would be to allocate each Heavy and Light BCT an Artillery Regiment that contained three eight gun Batteries of Archer/MAN 155mm, and one Battery of eight HIMARS/MAN. For very light high readiness Units these could be replaced by the 105mm Light Gun and Extractor respecively. The latter is not an optimum solution, but these formations are going to have to rely more of fixed and rotary winged air support. In addition where as the Artillery Regiments attached to the Heavy BCTs could all be regular, those with the Light BCTs could be mainly made up of Reservist, with just one Battery of Archer/MAN being manner by Regulars. Of course depending on the emphasis on where the Army is to concentrate its attention, this could be flipped 180 degrees.

I may have got this wrong, but the idea at present seems to be the creation of;
2x Heavy BCTs.
2x Light BCTs.
1x Rapid Response BCT.
1x Ranger BCT.

On top of this we will still, in theory, have the Royal Marines being able to form a weakened BCT, but this is very dependant on whether the Army units currently designated to provide support for them being retained.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

Maybe some of these


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

This is what I said up thread that when talking about 16X or the RM if they are given 120 mm mortar =10km , 105mm gun with PGK's = 20km and Hero 120 = 40km this along with Javelin and Apache allows them highly mobile hard hitting kit from 2 to 40km's

Post Reply