Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

RunningStrong wrote:The cheaper alternative to a fully guided shell is one that automatically adjusts for length, reducing the length of the "zone".
You mean 1D CCF like Spacido?

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

Lord Jim wrote: GPS type rounds tough ae becoming essential in Urban warfare these days as it is no longer acceptable for most armies to launch a barrage of "Dumb" shells for fear of causing civilian casualties. As for weight of fire, one thing is for certain we are not going to increase the number of guns we have anytime soon so to increase the weight of fire, each platform will have to shoot faster, a minimum of 10 rnds/min possibly.
As you say at the begining it depends very much of the circumstances. The target of 2% of GDP is not to provide for current types of conflicts but for the prospect of a major war in Europe, where there would be places which are or would be free of civilian population, and where large formations would have to be stopped.
We are indeed going to increase the number of guns because of this threat, unless of course the unitary cost of the gun is ridiculous.
10 rds/mn is indeed a good feature, but only a marginal benefit if you have let say 25% less guns as you could have had. Because once you fired you have to go and there needs yo be batteries in reserve for other missions, particularly as the increase in range means that there is the potential for many more missions.
Price matters !

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Voldemort wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:The cheaper alternative to a fully guided shell is one that automatically adjusts for length, reducing the length of the "zone".
You mean 1D CCF like Spacido?
Yes! Not seen that before (though I know of others that have been in development). Does anyone use it?

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

RunningStrong wrote:
Voldemort wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:The cheaper alternative to a fully guided shell is one that automatically adjusts for length, reducing the length of the "zone".
You mean 1D CCF like Spacido?
Yes! Not seen that before (though I know of others that have been in development). Does anyone use it?
I have no knowledge of that, not to say they're not but I just don't know.

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:All guides systems use a combination of GPS and inertial navigation, and later units are implementing seeker heads. No one is naive enough to think we'll always have GPS control.
Lord Jim wrote: One option that might be revisited of 155mm munitions is that of laser guidance, to allow precision fire as long as something has line of sight.
The new assets presumably will be allocated to bdes, whereas for the 227 the regular unit is termed "divisional fires" and the reserve unit "depth fires". As for the first quote, there is the difference between them that the regulars have also the optical seeker Exactors (having been originally designed to take out moving targets, MBTs, at range).
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 »

The (G)MLRS for the moment is our key long gun so to speak, and it is identifying and channelling opposition forces that will be one of the key roles of the Strike Brigades so that theses assets can be brought to bear. I do still think we should move towards HIMARs rather than the existing heavy platform for the same reasons we are probably moving to a wheeled SP155. We could also convert one of the current 105mm LG Regiment into a second GMLSR/HIMARS unit so that we have the same number of tubes for want of a better word.

Like everything else to do with relearning how to fight high intensity warfare, we have to give the troops the tools to do the job now as UORs won't work. In this sort of conflict you fight with what you bring to the party at the start, the Treasury won't like it, but send our troops without the tools, covering hardware, logistics and training, a lot will not be coming back. Of course we can just retreat to our side of the Channel if we do not want to spend the money

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:identifying and channelling opposition forces that will be one of the key roles of the Strike Brigades so that theses assets can be brought to bear.
A good way of putting the aspiration for a divisional-strength manoeuvre force.

However, we also need to recognise that (initially) the one (or two) Strike Bdes might be in the field alone ( or with allied forces - ref. the new Polish/Danish/ Brit divisional construct for the NE Europe theatre) and would need to be able to act on its own, too
- in that context the HIMARS idea is not a bad one (as the more complex parts of the solution needing supporting are already in service)
- but would take a look also at whatever the rocketry solution was that the makers of Boxer have already paraded (as a mockup; or was it a prototype?)
- in the trade-off of whether the standardise the weapon system or "the automotive platform for it" I would be inclined towards the former
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 do still think we should move towards HIMARs rather than the existing heavy platform for the same reasons we are probably moving to a wheeled SP155."

I agree, rockets should be on wheels, it makes sense, their range gives the choice to deploy anywhere. Himars is however more fitted for counterinsurgency because of the resupply time, therefore i would favor 12 rockets instead of 6.

"- but would take a look also at whatever the rocketry solution was that the makers of Boxer have already paraded (as a mockup; or was it a prototype?)"

GMLRS on Boxer is only a good idea if you are a Rheinmetall employee. Why go for a 2 million GBP chassis if you can put it on a 200.000 GBP one ?

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: Why go for a 2 million GBP chassis if you can put it on a 200.000 GBP one ?
Before dismissing the alternative,
A. BM-30 Smerch can fire twelve three-hundred-millimeter rockets to a maximum range of fifty-six miles [how much more is that than the 70-km sniper's range?].
B. Smerch is also unique in being able to launch a rocket-deployed unmanned aerial vehicle, the 9M534 reconnaissance drone.
C. Gary from google won't tell you this (because the information is not circulated; Ottawa and all that), but do calculate how many bomblets would just 12 rockets carry (some bomblets time delayed, perhaps also movement sensitive)
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)

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

If your content to put you ground based air defence system for deployed forces on a truck would you not be content to put your long range artillery on the same truck platform?

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

" A. BM-30 Smerch can fire twelve three-hundred-millimeter rockets to a maximum range of fifty-six miles"

BM 30 is on a truck, not a Boxer-like chassis.
I suppose the millions of rubles saved make it possible to buy dozens of rockets.

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 »

"Question A. was in two parts"
ArmChairCivvy wrote:rockets to a maximum range of fifty-six miles [how much more is that than the 70-km sniper's range?]
... so the exam question needs to be read again:
Stal wrote:BM 30 is on a truck, not a Boxer-like chassis
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 was coming back to the thread : what best capability choices for the RA ?

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 »

Your argument about weight of fire (neglected for many years) is valid.

Counter-battery actions/ capabilities can determine who gets to do the first mentioned actions, so all aspects of this latter capability will need to be carefully considered: like immediate and persistent ability to respond (air is good, but does not always 'tick' those boxes), and not to be outmatched on range
- rate of fire has been mentioned, but MRSI has not. Obviously, as an opening salvo, the two are related (Archer ticks this box; how about the other alternatives?)
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 agree, MRSI is an important feature for high intensity warfare (less so for counter-insurgency) because it adds power to the first salvo. As far as I know most guns have it or declare they have it, or are getting there. I suppose it is not too hard to do it, it is software.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

Stal wrote:I agree, MRSI is an important feature for high intensity warfare (less so for counter-insurgency) because it adds power to the first salvo. As far as I know most guns have it or declare they have it, or are getting there. I suppose it is not too hard to do it, it is software.
No, it's not just software. Without hardware allowing it no software in the world can shoot MRSI.

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 reload time for HIMARS is not that much, less than it would take to rebomb most MLRS systems. it has the same system used by its big brother we currently use. If we mounted our HIMARS on the same MAN chassis the Army already uses and is also used by the Modular Archer we tick the commonality box as well.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

Yes Himars is quite fast to reload but in a high intensity scenario I'd rather have 12 rockets so that the resupply movements are done less often assuming there could be missions with more than 6 rockets.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:rate of fire has been mentioned, but MRSI has not. Obviously, as an opening salvo, the two are related (Archer ticks this box; how about the other alternatives?)
OK, the Danes got a good deal (abt e3 mln) for each of their improved CAESARs. If you want (semi-) autoloading giving you sustained 6 rpm, plus MRSI, and the normal 2 rpm with the manual back-up method
- and the high mobility of the same Tatra 8x8 chassis (check Paris-Dakar truck rallies)
- and. most importantly, a tank-like 4-man turret for protection, instead of the crew being fully exposed when in a firing position

,,, then here's the deal http://www.military-today.com/artillery/zuzana_2.jpg
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 »

Continuing the 'monologue'
- while the importance of long-ranged c-battery should not be forgotten
"the [US] Army’s development of a maneuverable[as in 'Iskander'] long-range precision fire missile, urging the service to look into design tools and additive manufacturing technologies that can be integrated into the production of a new LRPF in order to advance the capability and reduce cost.
[...]

While both sides of the aisle [House being the other] have cut funding for the PrSM TMRR program, Senate appropriators did dramatically increase funding for other LRPF efforts.

Senate appropriators injected $101.8 million in weapons and munitions advanced technology development for LRPF"
- there seems to be an effort to make sure that balance is retained (between tube and rocket artillery)
- the price of this effort further seems to be that accelerating the ISD for the 'new GMLRS' from 2027 to 2023 is getting unlikely
... meaning that the UK will have to decide about its own balance for the next ten years with what is available off-the-shelf
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:OK, the Danes got a good deal (abt e3 mln) for each of their improved CAESARs. If you want (semi-) autoloading giving you sustained 6 rpm, plus MRSI, and the normal 2 rpm with the manual back-up method- and the high mobility of the same Tatra 8x8 chassis (check Paris-Dakar truck rallies)- and. most importantly, a tank-like 4-man turret for protection, instead of the crew being fully exposed when in a firing position
But that is the 155mm version of the old Dana used by the Czechs and Poles. A good bit of kit, as far cheaper than the Russian 2S3 of the same vintage. I do not know if anyone bought the 155mm version, the Czechs are still using the Dana and the Poles are replacing it with the Krab.

Saying that the Tatra 8x8 used in the Danes improved Caesar is very good across country, but then again the current MAN 8x8 is also.

We do need to keep an eye on what is being developed on the other side of the pond regarding munitions and delivery systems though. We need to ensure that whatever system we adopt to replace the AS-90 will be compatible with these future developments, but in the meantime we need to adopt existing munitions like BONUS and even ATACMS for our tracked MLRS and ideally HIMARS.

On a side not it is interesting that all the Army's Air Defence assets have now been grouped together into 3rd Division. Given how things are getting hotter, I would like the remaining Rapier FSC being given back to he RAF Regiment and for them to have squadron dedicated once again to airfield defence. Make half of it full time for rapid deployment, say two batteries/Flights and the remained manned by the reserves to cover UK airfields especially those up north. This needs to be done as the single RA Regiment with Land Ceptor would be tied up protecting key locations for the Army in any future conflict whilst the Starstreak/LMM Regiment would be dispersed amongst units. The Rapier FSC is still an effective weapon system and not that old. It would be an ideal stop gap until either additional Land Ceptor systems or a totally new SBAD system are purchase to protect our airfield in the UK and RAF detachments deployed overseas.

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 »

A very good interview regarding the Archer/MAN combination and its capabilities;

Being able to be operated by as few as three crew, conduct a eight round fire mission and be gone before the first round impacts, and reloaded in five minutes. The video also covers the BvS10 and the Mjolner 120mm Mortar. Both of interest to the UK in my opinion.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

The DK Caesar looks good, with 36 ammo, better suited for high intensity warfare than the 6x6, and affordable.
The Zuzana puzzles me because it is higher than Caesar, longer, with a turret and yet weights the same, the turret must not be heavilly armoured. They both have the same good chassis.
Archer, lot said about it, does need a ressuply vehicle per gun, it is not the case for Caesar and i don't think so for Zuzana if it is like Dana, which means 100 resupply Man trucks for 100 Archers on Man...what is left to buy ammo ?

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 if you give each Archer its own Limber that is over 120 rounds available which can all be fired, including reloads in less than 30 min. How fact can a Caesar be reloaded by its crew? 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. 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. Can Caesar beat 2 min for stopping, conducting a eight round fire mission and packing up and leaving? As these limbers, well they to will be based on the MAN 8x8 or 6x6 of which the British Army already has 100s.

Numbers do not come into the British Army's requirements. It wants to re equip two/three field Regiments currently operating the AS-90. It does not intend to increase the number of Regiments nor replace the 105mm Light Gun in the two Regiments so equipped. As for ammo, the programme is for the purchase of a system which should include the desired ammo. Whether enough is purchased is a different matter, and I hope they are not using the expenditure rate of artillery shells in Afghanistan by the Army as part of the calculation for how much to buy. Mind you having one resupply vehicle per gun is not unheard of. The US Army did it decades ago with the M109.

I would say that after the unveiling of the Archer/MAN combination, this is probably the front runner, with the increased capability over most other truck based systems balancing the probable extra cost. But the advantage is that it is an off the shelf purchase, cleared for any munition class the British Army may choose to adopt, uses a common chassis which can be support by an existing supply chain, that the gun and FCS are proven. I would say the RCH155 Boxer is probably second, again with its commonality with the planned Boxer fleet and its support infrastructure and the UK jobs that programme brings. After that the field is wide open with many manufacturers now offering truck based 155mm systems.

This should only be the first part of a broader programme to bring the Royal Artillery up to date. This should include a replacement for the 105mm Light Gun and in my opinion, adopting a more deployable platform for the GMLRS. As mentioned previously in addition to new gun the Royal Artillery needs modern munitions for its guns and rockets, greater ISTAR assets to help identify targets, and greater numbers of GBADS to protect troops on the ground and vital infrastructure. WE need a weapon system in the same class as Patriot or ASTER(Land) to provide wide area defence against all types of aerial threat. The size of order for Land Ceptor needs to be increase by at least 50% as the single regiment currently planned is totally inadequate to meet the challenges it would face in a major conflict. Finally the Starstreak HVM/LMM launchers need to be transplanted onto a new chassis, either a Ajax variant of ideally a Boxer Mission Module, which would be the cheaper option.

Speaking of Ajax and Boxer, we should take a look at the cost effective under armour twin 120mm SP Mortar system by BAE/SAAB that is entering service with the Swedish Army. This would be a very useful addition to the Army's Armoured Infantry and planed Mechanise Battalions. Whether we would need variants of both chassis or could just use that of the Boxer in an interesting question.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

I have no doubt about the reliability or Archer, but as a warfighting asset I think it has major flaws. The main one is that you need a resupply vehicle, if it is destroyed, or not available etc you simply can't resupply from the ground, unlike Caesar and RCH. You have to resupply often with a rate of fire of 10 rds per minute, which reduces its readiness considerably. 21 rounds with the need to have a ressuply truck makes it difficilt to choose which ammo it will carry, and if per chance it is not the good ones for the new mission, you have to resupply once more ! The ammo truck is not really easy to hide and could indicate the proximity of Archers. I conclude from all this that this gun wouldn't be the best choice for high intensity warfare and CB scenarios. 3rd choice in fact, in my opinion.

Post Reply