Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... trike-role

Any potential for something like aster missile in a role over here.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by BlueD954 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
BlueD954 wrote:both AI and Strike Brigades
Sure, evident from the total, but no u-turn on who gets them first
... that was my inference (and only that).
- it was a harbinger for this that the OSD for AS90 was recently set to 2030 or was it 2032

EDIT:
"“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the expected out-of-service dates of AS-90s; and if he will make a statement on its replacement.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

The expected out-of-service date for the AS-90 is 2030."

In 2015 we had 117 of them, so the new number (116 mobile fires) is not a coincidence
Take a pick

1 RHA - to support AI brigade

19 RA - to support AI brigade

3 RHA - to support a Strike brigade

4 RA - to support a Strike brigade

Will the reserve units 103, 104, 105 RA receive guns or only when deployed?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

what's happening with the Light Gun any sign of a replacement yet?

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 »

Depends how you look at things. You could say any purchase of a wheeled 155mm system to support the Mechanised Brigade is a replacement for the 105mm LG as the latter is the only system currently available able to do that job without hamstringing the deplorability of the Brigades.

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:Depends how you look at things. You could say any purchase of a wheeled 155mm system to support the Mechanised Brigade is a replacement for the 105mm LG
Yes, and then you have the units that without the (potentially underslung) LGs to support them are down to 81mm mortars as for indirect fires.
- hurry at your peril :?:
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Depends how you look at things. You could say any purchase of a wheeled 155mm system to support the Mechanised Brigade is a replacement for the 105mm LG
Yes, and then you have the units that without the (potentially underslung) LGs to support them are down to 81mm mortars as for indirect fires.
- hurry at your peril :?:
I don't get why the M777 hasn't been purchased?

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 »

With all the titanium in it, isn't it still twice as heavy?
- take the gun (underslung) and leave the rounds behind, for a second trip
- and don't forget the grunts, you'll need more (just to turn the gun)

Shooting from the hip, but for about such reasons
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:down to 81mm mortars as for indirect fires
Perhaps we should be looking at towed/ portee 120mm mortars to beef up the indirect fires for airmobile and light role infantry. Apart from the current commando/ par etc artillery regimants, move all the rest of the light gun to reserve units (if they aren't there already).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:down to 81mm mortars as for indirect fires
Perhaps we should be looking at towed/ portee 120mm mortars to beef up the indirect fires for airmobile and light role infantry. Apart from the current commando/ para etc artillery regiments, move all the rest of the light guns to reserve units (if they aren't there already).

Or should we be reviving LIMAWS for the light gun :twisted:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote:Or should we be reviving LIMAWS for the light gun
Yep
The 777 made the axels break in x-country trials (LG might be OK)
But,
yes: mortars on ATV-like vehicles. We had this on some thread: The US solution (two vehicles) is a Chinook load. The one with the mortar only carries the first four! rounds
- four men in all
- but they do have satcom & xtras as the solution is for Rangers (akin to our SFSG)
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote:I don't get why the M777 hasn't been purchased?
Because a towed 155mm gun is a bad idea?
Particularly if you expect it (and its ammunition and crew) to be airmobile.

It gives you a slower rate of fire and larger minimum safety distance for a weapon that is supposed to be supporting light infantry. It might have greater range, but how far are you expecting your infantry to be from your artillery? Considering that after the initial insertion they are moving about on foot.

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 »

Give the Infantry 120mm Mortars, in one form or another depending on unit type and then stick to 155mm and GMLRS/HIMARS for the Royal Artillery.

What about the RM and Paras some may say, well the Viking can take a 120mm on its rear half and UGVs could carry a 120mm, requiring set up. If it has to be slung on the back why not drop down to 60mm, which in conjunction with medium charge 40mm grenades via a six shooter should give such a unit reasonable firepower. Money is being spent on new ammunition types for the 120mm whilst things have been static for 81mm. Even 60mm and 40mm Gren are evolving.

The latest version of the NEMO 120mm Turreted Mortar can now conduct fire missions on the move even across country, including MRSI. We need this system in the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Brigades as soon as their new platforms being to enter service. Would solve the Warrior Mortar Carrier height issues. Or just give everyone Boxer/NEMO combos.

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:the Viking can take a 120mm on its rear half
The only such I have seen is a 'photoshop'. Can be solved by lowering the plate to the ground, but this process eliminates many of the advantages.
Lord Jim wrote:Would solve the Warrior Mortar Carrier height issues
What's the issue? For CV90s the Swedes had to go from the open in back arrangement to the semi-turret that one can see on those now in-service vehicles
- the same; or something different?
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 »

If you stick a 120mm in the back of a warrior after cutting a hole in the roof you would have to raise the mortar every time you wanted to fire it. Either that or add extra height to the troop compartment area. The Swedish "Thor's Hammer" twin 120mm gets around this on the CV-90 by again raising the height by installing a semi rotating turret. Now I would be happy with the latter system as well as it is far cheaper than NEMO, still has a good rate of fire, and is simple to use and maintain.

With regards to a 120mm on a Viking, I was basing my assumptions on the fact that Singapore has mounted a soft recoil 120mm on the back of the Warthog or the vehicle it was based on. Even is a spade had to be lowered, this does not take that long a time, allowing the platform to still "Shoot and scoot".

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:after cutting a hole in the roof you would have to raise the mortar every time you wanted to fire it. Either that or add extra height to the troop compartment area. The Swedish "Thor's Hammer" twin 120mm gets around this on the CV-90 by again raising the height by installing a semi rotating turret.
Yes, we are talking about the same thing then.
- cut the hole, raise and lower ( v slow)
- half way house (no one has tried this yet?): use a breach-loaded mortar - they normally come in turrets, obviously more ergonomic
- the Swedish one (with twin setup RoF is pretty good) is loaded with an assisting rail, so the guys doing it do not have their heads/ ears anywhere near the end of the mortar barrel when rounds go off in quick succession

The Warthogs are heftier (so is the Finnish Sisu Nasu, some have 120 mm mortars) than the Vikings. We replaced the latter with the Warthogs in A-stan (they could carry more up-armouring; absobing mortar recoil was not a consideration)
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

As it’s being discussed in the Warrior thread, what are the requirements for artillery for the different brigade types envisioned? Can we cover it with one or two types, or do we have to have more?

Armoured
High firepower, high protection, good tactical mobility
My take on the ideal: AS90 and MLRS (with appropriate upgrades/substitutions)

Mechanised
High firepower, some protection, good tactical and strategic mobility
My take on the ideal: 155 on boxer or a protected truck and MLRS lite (on a truck, I forget the name)

Motorised
excellent strategic mobility, can compromise on firepower and protection to attain this
My take on the ideal: Gun on a Truck, possibly 155mm, MLRS lite

Light
Mobility and low strain on logistics is paramount, other factors can be compromised.
105 light gun, towed, with Spike NLOS in support.

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 good way looking at it, and here: no contest
mr.fred wrote:Light
Mobility and low strain on logistics is paramount, other factors can be compromised.
105 light gun, towed, with Spike NLOS in support.
As for armoured vs. SPG I think the only contender in the armoured class is the SPz (K) 2000 or whatever accronym it goes under
mr.fred wrote: Armoured
High firepower, high protection, good tactical mobility
mr.fred wrote:Mechanised
High firepower, some protection, good tactical and strategic mobility
My take on the ideal: 155 on boxer or a protected truck and MLRS lite (on a truck, I forget the name)
Yep
- if AI Bdes are 'mechanised' as opposed to armoured, then AS90 will fill in here, very nicely, indeed
mr.fred wrote:Motorised
excellent strategic mobility, can compromise on firepower and protection to attain this
My take on the ideal: Gun on a Truck, possibly 155mm,
This would be the 'original' Nexter 6x6, now (with the 8x8 coming along for the units assigned for 'hi-intensity' warfare) relegated to their 'colonial' units
- the Saudis did one better, and had theirs on Unimog platforms
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: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

I know I have put a lot of gun types on my post in the warrior thread for me if we were to clean up the RA/ RHA from a gun point of view I would likely go for AS-90 with a 155mm gun for the Armoured Brigades and something like Archer 155mm for the mechanised and Mobile protected Brigades and 105mm for 16 AA and the RM.

I would also like to see the Regiment's attached to the Brigades with each regiment having 2 x gun batteries , 1 x Air Defences Battery , 1 x MLRS Battery ( when with the Armoured brigade )

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 would go lighter with the Archer/MAN 8x8 protected being assigned to both Armoured Infantry and Mechanised. Its rapid rate of fire and ability to very effectively shoot and scoot would give it some survivability. If a battery comes under sustained artillery fire using Bomblets of sensor fused munitions no exiting SP platform is capable of surviving, even the German PzHbs 2000. But he Archer is more mobile and cheaper to operate and maintain as well as train crews for. Driving a truck is easier than a heavy tracked vehicle, especially on roads.

For lighter forces a SP or towed 120mm Mortar would cover the requirements, being even lighter and more transportable than the 105mm Light Gun but except of range far more effective. There are vehicles that can tow a 120mm Mortar that can also fit inside a Chinook with it. For heavier fire support again it would fall to the Archer and HIMARS unless funding were available to equip a Regiment with the M777A2 or the L55 version under development. This could easily be towed and supported by both Viking and whatever ends up being the MRV(P) phase 2.

I would replace GMLRS with HIMARS as again it is far more strategically mobile. Yes it carrier half the load but I would increase the size of Batteries and equip both the Regular and Reserve Regiments with it. At present the Reserve Regiment as non modified MLRS. This would allow sufficient vehicles to provide support to all types of Brigade.

Of interest the USMC has now fired HIMARS at land targets from the deck of a moving ship with very good results.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:For lighter forces a SP or towed 120mm Mortar would cover the requirements, being even lighter and more transportable than the 105mm Light Gun but except of range far more effective.
Given how range is often described as the most vital statistic of an artillery piece around here I’m surprised you’d be so willing to halve the range of the primary ordnance.

Pairing light gun with Spike NLOS gives a decent enough range with a reasonable logistics demand for both area and precision fire. 155mm and MLRS based systems are both more suited to heavier vehicle borne formations, IMO.
Lord Jim wrote:If a battery comes under sustained artillery fire using Bomblets of sensor fused munitions no exiting SP platform is capable of surviving,
Well that’s the worst case you’ve just described. There will be plenty of situations where the difference between an armoured SPG and an unarmoured one will tell. e.g. a momentary barrage of submunitions as the SPG leaves a firing position, or regular fragments from a prospective shoot, or small arms fire from an infiltrating unit*, or IED/mines.

*Much more likely in the kind of manoeuvre warfare proposed by the British Army

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 »

mr.fred wrote:surprised you’d be so willing to halve the range of the primary ordnance.

Pairing light gun with Spike NLOS gives a decent enough range with a reasonable logistics demand for both area and precision fire. 155mm and MLRS based systems are both more suited to heavier vehicle borne formations, IMO.
Agree with the logic, but let's put it against some "generic" hierarchies, like
– 60mm / 81mm mortars, used at company level
– 120mm mortars are used (mainly) at battalion level
– 155mm howitzers are used at brigade level.

81 mm you cannot distribute down to platoons, 60 mm we got rid of, so a company's support platoon should include the same number of CGs as is the number of platoons they support
- again, I will leave AT weapons outside scope, as you will need lots of them, at all levels if the threat is high

We don't have 120mm mortars, but ideally packing all that one of those needs onto a Coyote and towing the 500kg piece would not
A. cost much
B. compromise the mobility of the supported formation in any way, and
C. would help to avoid the temptation to distribute (longer-ranged) artillery pieces in too much of a penny-packet fashion

As for the bde level, we should have both tube (155 mm) and rocket artillery in every bde - and whether they come on wheels or tracks should follow the same logic as the supported formation does
- however, where airmobility is required/ valuable, then mr. fred's "Pairing light gun with Spike NLOS " should apply. And we have enough of them to meet that need.
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

with the use of drones airdefence now has to come back with the capability to deal effectivly with them. that will need a joint approach possibly using ESM combined with a direct attack and or some form of electronic attack. Possibly even with drones?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

Have to say this is why I would like to see Artillery regiments assigned to Brigades with 5 Batteries

2 x Gun Batteries = 6 guns each
1 x Air Defence battery = 8 units
1 x UAV battery = 6 units
1 x MLRS battery = 5 units

Armoured Brigades getting 155mm AS-90
Mechanised & Mobile Brigades getting 155mm on 8x8 Man trucks
16 AA and the RM getting 105mm

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:We don't have 120mm mortars, but ideally packing all that one of those needs onto a Coyote and towing the 500kg piece [would not...]
That would be for what we call Light Infantry. For others, with more armoured vehicles for protected movement (but not fighting in them, in the direct fire zone) this
https://s38.wheelsage.org/format/pictur ... _lav-m.jpg
is the Saudi take on the USMC LAV (which, the latter, have through the roof hatch firing, 81 mm mortars... and are amphibious).

I have to disappoint @LJ that this mortar is smooth bore (120mm), and despite having all the trappings for being amphibious (with exhaust arrangements etc) I am not sure if that capability has been retained
- carried rounds also go down from 99 (81 mm) to 40 (120mm)
- but the point is that here's a modern take with the same weight (or less) that our CVR(T) came out with, when some of them were modernised (as a stop gap)
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 »

mr.fred wrote:small arms fire from an infiltrating unit*
The Archer in its MAN based configuration can be armoured against small arms fire and to a certain amount shell splinters so that that covered.

As for the 120mm Brandt Rifled Mortar, its range is far more than half that of the 105mm LG, 8000m standard and 12500m with rocket assistance, as against 17250m standard and 21000m Base Bleed for the latter. But you have to consider that the 120mm would be allocated down to battalion level, giving each an assigned either 120mm Mortars able to fire considerable more types of ammunition than the Light Gun. You could also still have man packed 60mm Mortars at Company Level.

The Brigade would still have NLOS integral and be assigned heavier support from either or both an SP155mm and HIMARS. Not bad for a "Light Role Brigade", if it were properly supported.

The reason I do not see a future for the 105mm Light Gun if funding can be made available, is that it falls into a no mans land between 120mm Mortars and heavier artillery such as 155mm. It does not have the weight of fire of the former nor the range of the latter. Its ammunition has not been developed beyond basic types though it does have an extended range round. No money is being put into correcting this and as the ammunition is bespoke, we cannot use any 105mm ammunition developed by other countries. Well we could if we changed to the US version but that reduces the range of all types of ammunition by around a third. Most other nations are replacing their 105mm Light Guns with lightweight 155mm weapons such as the M777, and are will to accept its greater weight and that of its ammunition for its greater firepower and ability to use precision rounds.

Post Reply