mr.fred wrote:Yes, support teams have to rest and rearm, but are they on the same cycle as the rifle companies?
Keep the support at a higher level and you can attach to lower level or come together for more concentrated effect Disperse the teams throughout the rifle companies and you can’t redeploy them en masse. You’ve locked yourself into an arrangement that may not be effective.
Lord Jim wrote: Of course those who want our next mobile gun to be as well protected as a MBT will not be happy or agree.
I start from the same point (of departure) but arrive at a very different thing:Lord Jim wrote:Another role the Royal Artillery will have regarding the Strike Brigades is providing air defence. The current Land Ceptor is not really going to be capable enough to provide cover for the brigade over the area it will operate
Aside from G6 [specifically], yes, the right thoughtVoldemort wrote:18-24x turreted 155mm, akin to G6. Artillery battalion with all the whistles and bells and first and foremost logistical battery!! You can forget all the fancy pancy CB radars and guided ammunition if this box isn't checked.
Lord Jim wrote:the Brigade gains at least one GMLRS Battery, which gives the Brigade the ability to effectively strike at enemy concentration identified by units form the Brigade as well as providing a capably counter battery capability, especially with the planned long range munitions being developed.
Quite!RetroSicotte wrote:The real issue is more having a platform that can engage fluidly at a tactical level over any terrain and not have windows when [potentially] you're taking counter-battery. One of the Nordic tests clearly showed why enclosed SPGs remain the apex of this.
RetroSicotte wrote:Lord Jim wrote: Of course those who want our next mobile gun to be as well protected as a MBT will not be happy or agree.Bit of a strawman, no-one has suggested that. Things like the AS-90 and Pzh2000 are not even moderately in the same universe as MBT level protected.The real issue is more having a platform that can engage fluidly at a tactical level over any terrain and not have windows when you're taking counter-battery. One of the Nordic tests clearly showed why enclosed SPGs remain the apex of this.
Lord Jim wrote:RetroSicotte wrote:Lord Jim wrote: Of course those who want our next mobile gun to be as well protected as a MBT will not be happy or agree.Bit of a strawman, no-one has suggested that. Things like the AS-90 and Pzh2000 are not even moderately in the same universe as MBT level protected.The real issue is more having a platform that can engage fluidly at a tactical level over any terrain and not have windows when you're taking counter-battery. One of the Nordic tests clearly showed why enclosed SPGs remain the apex of this.
I agree with the enclosed idea, but that doesn't automatically mean the use of traditional tracked SPGs. The Archer/MAN combination as shown in the article is enclosed and able to be operated without the crew leaving the vehicle. In addition it can be "Up armoured", to the same level the platform is able to be. However to support the Strike Brigades we need a platform that is highly mobile, able to come into and out of action quickly and also self deploy together with its support platforms. No tracked system ticks all those boxes. Platforms like the G-6 are too expensive though very capable and the Boxer 155mm SPG is too tall for certain situations.
The UK seems to be looking to purchase enough new platforms of at least two, possible three Regiments, which means that whatever platform is chosen will replace the AS-90 as well as equip those regiment(s) tasked with supporting the Mechanised Brigades. For the time being the 105mm LG will be used with 3 Cmdo and 16AA. This leave the Army's GMLRS, which needs to be supplanted by a systems able to match the strategic and tactical mobility of the Mechanised Brigades. The obvious s choice here would be an off the shelf by of between 20 and 30 HIMARS but again using the same platform as the SPG and logistics vehicles.
I have no problem with the Army tailoring its procurement towards supporting the Mechanised formations instead of the Armoured Infantry and the former are going to become the go to units for the service. We cannot afford to have a multitude of platforms optimised for both types of formations and this extends beyond Artillery.
Obviously my mention of protection being that of MBT level was a major exaggeration but I strongly disagree with the argument that only a tracked SPG will suffice for the AS-90 replacement.
Jake1992 wrote:
If Boxer is chosen could the module be adapted to also be mounted on a Ajax frame to allow higher levels of armour.
Lord Jim wrote:The Archer/MAN combination as shown in the article is enclosed and able to be operated without the crew leaving the vehicle. In addition it can be "Up armoured", to the same level the platform is able to be.
The obvious s choice here would be an off the shelf by of between 20 and 30 HIMARS but again using the same platform as the SPG and logistics vehicles.
Lord Jim wrote:Ok I am open to suggestions.
RetroSicotte wrote:that sort of range, you really don't need to worry about "keeping up" as much, since they throw down huge bubbles of influence anyway. It's about weight of fire, and in that regard, HIMARS is objectively slow due to its constant reloading.
RetroSicotte wrote:Lord Jim wrote:Ok I am open to suggestions.
Under current status, the Strike Brigades are held to the Ajax's speed anyway. So an SPG the likes of the PzH, K9 and such like are matching the mobility. Yes, it's dumb that Ajax has been ball and chained to them, but that's what it is.
There is also the very viable argument that if the Strike Brigades are rushing ahead with their lighter elements, if they are in a situation where they NEED a 155mm gun desperately against a peer foe, then they are in over their head anyway and shouldn't be engaging, given the Strike Brigades have absolutely pathetic firepower. (Remember, their biggest gun without waiting for the 'tank speed' elements is a .50 cal!)
Ideally what the British Army requires for its 'big' things is:
- A proper SPG that can function at heavy conventional warfare against a peer foe firing back (PzH, K9, M109, AS-90 type)
- A light, truck based portee or mounted gun for light warfare with the Strike Brigades, likely a smaller number than the above (CAESAR, M777 Portee, Archer)
- GMLRS upgraded properly, bringing 2x modules per platform to the fight (M270)
I'm not a fan of HIMARS. It's mobile, but it has such little firepower by comparison. You're literally cutting your rocket artillery in half if you switch to them (more than half, given it's likely they won't get the same number of already too few platforms). With weapons at that sort of range, you really don't need to worry about "keeping up" as much, since they throw down huge bubbles of influence anyway. It's about weight of fire, and in that regard, HIMARS is objectively slow due to its constant reloading.
M777 Portee is likely the perfect solution for the 'light' end. It lets you buy much cheaper towed guns and move them on a cheap chassis, given their role isn't to be out in peer warfare anyway (ie - Like the Strike Brigades). They're for Mali type stuff. The heavier SPG would join the Ajax in the Strike Brigades to beef them up if fighting peer.
Lord Jim wrote:The weight of fire from a HIMARS battery on any given fire mission will not be much less than that of the heavy GMLRS.
Both, pls... could be for different types of formations.Lord Jim wrote:One suggestion is the Ajax "Screen" should be supported by either a variant of Ajax equipped with a NLOS type systems or again a simpler trailer mounted system towed behind a JLTV.
We have that, no? Joint Fires as in directing and coordinating all ground & air platforms called upon.Lord Jim wrote: Joint Fires integrated with the screen and mounted in Ajax variants
YepLord Jim wrote:The remaining two AS-90 Regiments would be re equipped with the Archer system. If these are mounted on a MAN platform together with their associated support vehicles, there will be drastically reduced support costs.
and how long would that, all 12, take??Lord Jim wrote: to remain in place whilst firing all twelve rockets
A v good point in favour of any such wheeled platform (as all the traked ones can do that, anyway, but they have other 'constraints')Lord Jim wrote: leave far quicker without the crew having to leave the vehicle
I guess you mean AI (or Strike, if wheeled)... not just any old infantry? Sure , they could be supported by assigning such (but not organic, as that would be a mismatch)Lord Jim wrote: putting 120mm SP Mortars into the Infantry Battalions
Why is the bias in one direction? Perhaps there will be no bias, and we will end up - after proper evaluation - with two different platforms... NATO has seen to compatibility in the 'ammo train' - working backwards from thereLord Jim wrote: any new equipment procurement programmes are going to be biased in this direction.
Archer??; how comeRetroSicotte wrote:less mobile in theatre,
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Archer??; how come
OK, may be, the first point is wrong, anyway: Is a meter of snow NOT soft terrain?RetroSicotte wrote:Less capable off-road in soft terrain (such as post counter battery...), inability to traverse dense areas (no neutral steer ability, longer turning circle), unable to simply crush obstacles, slower set up, slower pull down, slower relocation.
Oh, well: the 100 km/h speed is (not strategic) but intra-theatherRetroSicotte wrote:Its only mobility advantage is strategic redeployment, which against a peer force matters little
Lord Jim wrote:more likely allied formation would slot in behind the Brigade sooner.
Lord Jim wrote:The UK is working with a blank sheet of paper with the Strike Brigades, and is working to work out what support they will need and in what form.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I guess you mean AI (or Strike, if wheeled)... not just any old infantry? Sure , they could be supported by assigning such (but not organic, would be a mismatch)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest