AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Alternatively, besides the obvious fact that the AS-90 is cheaper as we already have it in service, what does the AS-90 have with regards to capability that the Boxer/RCH 155 doesn't? I believe I already mentioned above that I believe the latter would be capable of providing support to both the Ai and Mech Infantry Brigades. Agreed that the original proposal was to find a platform or system to provide artillery support to the "Strike" Brigades, but if it is found to be more capable that the AS-90 as it is now serious consideration must be taken of having a fleet of common platforms compared to investing in the AS-90 which is already over 25 years old and has not received any major upgrades during that time.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Looks like AS-90 has arrived in Ukraine....albeit in the rather superior Polish Krab version...
If you think about it a lot of UK developed/derived artillery in Ukraine now...M777, Krab, FH-70, L118 soon and MLRS soon..(it was a co-development).
If you think about it a lot of UK developed/derived artillery in Ukraine now...M777, Krab, FH-70, L118 soon and MLRS soon..(it was a co-development).
- These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
- leonard
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Of the Polish developed FCS on Krabs it is noteworthy that it was developed to handle mixed arty formations at all levels
... so now we can send the residual of our fleet, over the 44 that will be modernised, 'as is'. And ask the US to send plenty of rockets for them - as the larder for our own stocked munitions is rather bare.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
I wonder if those Krabs are on loan as teh Poiish Army needs as many as it can get. Still pissed off teh US is holding back and deliveries of HIMARS or M270s to Ukraine for fear some of the rockets may land in Russian Territory. Bloody stupid advice the US President is being given.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
I presume they have a 'hot' production line.
The MoD has mentioned (only in passing) that upgrading AS90s is one option... so we could source some 'stuff' for our existing hulls?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Wells this all seems to confirm what was said in the Command Paper, that only one of the Light BCTs would be Motorised, the other remaining a collection of Light Role Infantry Battalions together with a Cavalry Regiment equipped with Jackals.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
It's only ATACMS that they're holding back on. HIMARS and M30 are on the way. Although M270 is better in many ways its a maintenance nightmare in comparison.Lord Jim wrote: ↑31 May 2022, 05:41 I wonder if those Krabs are on loan as teh Poiish Army needs as many as it can get. Still pissed off teh US is holding back and deliveries of HIMARS or M270s to Ukraine for fear some of the rockets may land in Russian Territory. Bloody stupid advice the US President is being given.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Yes heard that this morning. I just hope they get the number they need, and this is not dozens but three figures worth. 1 HIMARS has a good chance of taking out a Russian Artillery battery if the latter's location is known and UAS surveillance is available. At present Russia can concentrate its artillery to maximise the effect of its generally basic HE ammunition on a given area. Thins should make it easier for HIMARS Batteries to have a major effect rapidly, forcing the Russian Artillery to be far more wide dispersed and both Battery and Regimental level. The HIMARS though could still be engaged by Russian "Smerch" MLRS which have similar range and have the Russian equivalent of GPS. But the HIMARS os highly mobile and can be rapidly reloaded by even one crew member if needed.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
I do think w should be running actual trails on vehicles that are possible replacements for the AS-90 already. I also think we need to retain all three Regiments currently equipped with AS-90 and re equip all three. One each would be permanently allocated to each Heavy BCT and one would be available to either support one or both Light BCTs or provide even greater support to an active Heavy BCT on operations.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Things in a war time moves very quickly and this news confirms it.
- These users liked the author leonard for the post (total 2):
- wargame_insomniac • Lord Jim
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Maybe we should look further at the Frab as a replacement for the AS-90. With a new Hull and modifying the existing AS-90 turrets, could it be a less costly idea and better the simply upgrading the AS-90 with the modified turret which would obviously be the cheapest option? The latter is still in the running for our new 155mm SP Gun by the way.
Going down the tracked route, whilst it would provide the Heavy BCTs with a better organic Deep Strike capability, it would mean the Light BCTs together with out two high readiness BCT/Regiments would be reliant on the 105mm Light Gun moving forward. Whether these will be good enough in a future conflict we will have to wair and see as well as hope we haven't got things wrong for the sake of our military personnel.
Going down the tracked route, whilst it would provide the Heavy BCTs with a better organic Deep Strike capability, it would mean the Light BCTs together with out two high readiness BCT/Regiments would be reliant on the 105mm Light Gun moving forward. Whether these will be good enough in a future conflict we will have to wair and see as well as hope we haven't got things wrong for the sake of our military personnel.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Just because it is upgrade it does not mean it will be cheap. CR3 upgrade will cost some 1.3 billion, so basically over 8 million per vehicle, almost the price of the new tank. Everything depends on requirements and extension of upgrades. For example if autoloader is one of requirement, it would not be cheap.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
The position I was taking was adopting the Krab and upgrading our existing AS-90 turrets to the same standard as the Polish ones. I see this as a cheaper alternative to buying new platforms as only the minimum amount of upgrades would be carried out. Yes this will mean it will not meet all of the Army's aspirations, but they have already downgraded them once so who knows.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Krab is one option but everything depends on Army final requirements for new 155mm platform. One of the original requirements was high rate of fire over several minutes. Krab does not currently provide this, while platforms like PzH 2000 or K9A2 does, but still bellow original plan. So everything is option until requirements are out. If there is requirement for adding autoloader to Krab, it will take time and it will rise the cost. Not adding autoloader would decrease the cost but it would be one of very few new platforms that does not have this capability and could make it inferior to other systems like Koalitsiya-SV. Even US is planing to put autoloader to theirs M109 and M1299. So maybe a new vehicle wold be much better option as price might be similar.Lord Jim wrote: ↑04 Jun 2022, 14:42 The position I was taking was adopting the Krab and upgrading our existing AS-90 turrets to the same standard as the Polish ones. I see this as a cheaper alternative to buying new platforms as only the minimum amount of upgrades would be carried out. Yes this will mean it will not meet all of the Army's aspirations, but they have already downgraded them once so who knows.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Should the a British requirement include 60 Cal gun?
Personally, I think it must include it as a growth capability with 5-10 year plan to implement.
Personally, I think it must include it as a growth capability with 5-10 year plan to implement.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
No, if anything it should only include range and dispersion characteristics.
Maybe include consideration for growth of elevating mass, but then that counts against people using better materials and manufacturing technology to make a longer gun at the same weight in the future.
How many suppliers offer a 60 calibre barrel?Personally, I think it must include it as a growth capability with 5-10 year plan to implement.
If none do, then it’s a development risk that perhaps we shouldn’t be taking at the moment.
If only some, or 1, do then is it worth reducing the competition?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Which is also dependent on the rounds used, which is a seperate requirement again. It's pretty simple physics that L60 gives a better throw than L52 when using conventional rounds.
Rheinmetall have gone public on their development.mr.fred wrote: ↑04 Jun 2022, 19:32How many suppliers offer a 60 calibre barrel?RunningStrong wrote: ↑04 Jun 2022, 17:01 Personally, I think it must include it as a growth capability with 5-10 year plan to implement.
If none do, then it’s a development risk that perhaps we shouldn’t be taking at the moment.
If only some, or 1, do then is it worth reducing the competition?
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
That is true, not many are offering 69 cal barrel ... currently. There is proposal for K9A2, which is one of candidates for replacement of AS-90, for 58 cal gun but also plans for next generation, K9A3, which will have 58 cal by default. There are also plans for PzH 2000, also one of contenders if I am not wrong, with 60 cal gun. M1299 could be another option with its 58 cal gun although I am not sure if it is offered to Britain at all. So while there are not many currently present solution, there might be some in the near future. Even if Britain goes with 52 cal gun as first choice, option to upgrade to 58/60 cal eventually should be there.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
In that case while you write "should we have a requirement for a 60 calibre length gun", what you are really asking is "should we sole source this one to Rheinmetall?"
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Doesn't the Rheinmetall L60 test bed have a unique propellant chamber, and uses non NATO standard propellant charges?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Not at all. The requirement is clearly to have a capability that outranges the opposition capability.
Part of that capability is to have a big enough gun, L60 or quite rightly pointed out, an L58.
Given the constant failing of UK MoD to maintain upgrade cycles, then surely getting it right in the original baseline I'd critical.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
If the first is what you want, that is how it should be phrased:RunningStrong wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 15:03 Not at all. The requirement is clearly to have a capability that outranges the opposition capability.
Part of that capability is to have a big enough gun, L60 or quite rightly pointed out, an L58.
"The weapon will have an effective range of (defined in terms of dispersion at distances)"
And it should be given as a lower threshold and a higher objective to allow you to consider the trade-offs.
It holds true for any requirement. If you set the requirement as one that only one supplier can meet, then you aren't considering the trade-offs and you might as well ditch the rest of the requirements because you have painted yourself into a corner of which one you can choose.
As the L60 and L58 ordnance are both still developmental, you are falling into the same trap that has bedevilled land system procurement since the '90s. Demanding perfection when good enough is good enough and ending up choosing the obsolete by default.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
mr.fred wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 15:29If the first is what you want, that is how it should be phrased:RunningStrong wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 15:03 Not at all. The requirement is clearly to have a capability that outranges the opposition capability.
Part of that capability is to have a big enough gun, L60 or quite rightly pointed out, an L58.
"The weapon will have an effective range of (defined in terms of dispersion at distances)"
That's an appalling attempt at writing a capability requirement.
The gun platform is only part of the capability. The ammunition is the other part. The platform requirement cannot be dependent on the ammunition. This is basic requirement writing.
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
Weapon System, if you prefer. On reflection, it would be sensible to further refine by adding a reference projectile.RunningStrong wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 16:40 That's an appalling attempt at writing a capability requirement.
The gun platform is only part of the capability. The ammunition is the other part. The platform requirement cannot be dependent on the ammunition. This is basic requirement writing.
I'd aver that it's an order of magnitude or two better than "the barrel shall be greater than 52 calibre lengths long"
Since barrel length doesn't necessarily confer capability and you've pre-selected only those suppliers offering it. On top of that if you pick the 60 calibre option then you've already constrained yourself to a charge system as well.
You have written a preferred solution, not a capability requirement.