Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

[marktigger]

the lessons from Ukraine on artillery could be far reaching. A good thing is it has brought the Army back to the need for artillery and air defence.
The realisation about the over reliance on air superiority has been a long time comming. But some things we did do proved some of the concepts were good. Standardised ammunition natures and stockpiles will have to be a lesson we never forget. Many of the planning assumptions about rates of use and rates of resupply (at all levels) will also need revising. But also how guns and missiles are supported and stocks of spares revised. And the inovations on locating and fire direction and control will be as important.

[jedibeeftrix]

not sure of the validity of this - but perhaps interesting if it's not nonsense:



anyone interpret what it is saying?

[mr.fred]

anyone interpret what it is saying?

Two battalions armoured/tracked recce.
One regular battalion wheeled recce, one reserve battalion wheeled recce
Two regiments Tracked Gun artillery
Two regular regiments rocket artillery, two reserve regiments rocket artillery
One battalion maintenance (REME)
One battalion's worth of assorted Signals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Join ... _Symbology

[sol]

Not sure if this is correct as 104th Regiment was supposed to provide individual reinforcements to 1st Regiment RHA and 19th Regiment RA. There is no news that it would convert to M270A2 but it is not impossible as FS review orbat is still not published.

[RunningStrong]

Not sure if this is correct as 104th Regiment was supposed to provide individual reinforcements to 1st Regiment RHA and 19th Regiment RA. There is no news that it would convert to M270A2 but it is not impossible as FS review orbat is still not published.

Providing individual support and not operating as a regiment is why they're not in the ORBAT. It's a somewhat sad position for a Reserve Regiment, TBH.

I believe it would make sense for 104RA to become an auto-loaded 155mm regiment. Ideally wheeled, but that depends on a much higher need. Training through simulators and ideally firing on Semnybridge where possible.

[sol]

I believe it would make sense for 104RA to become an auto-loaded 155mm regiment. Ideally wheeled, but that depends on a much higher need. Training through simulators and ideally firing on Semnybridge where possible.

I agree, 104th should be fully equipped 155mm reserve regiment. It is quite sad that only 2 out of 5 reserve regiments are planned to be fully equipped, with others mostly gun detachments or just crews. Not sure what newly formed 100th Regiment was supposed to do, maybe MLRS, with increased number of platforms.

[RunningStrong]

I believe it would make sense for 104RA to become an auto-loaded 155mm regiment. Ideally wheeled, but that depends on a much higher need. Training through simulators and ideally firing on Semnybridge where possible.

I agree, 104th should be fully equipped 155mm reserve regiment. It is quite sad that only 2 out of 5 reserve regiments are planned to be fully equipped, with others mostly gun detachments or just crews. Not sure what newly formed 100th Regiment was supposed to do, maybe MLRS, with increased number of platforms.

104RA can be a fully equipped light gun regiment, but doesn't have the personnel numbers and doesn't add value to 7RHA or 29 Regiment. Hence instead they will fill personnel on SPG regiments.

100RA replaces National Reserve Headquarters, Royal Artillery, which provided reservist opportunities for gunnery instructors (SMIGs) and Forward Air Controllers (FAC). It's been brought upto regiment strength as a national unit.

[Jackstar]

[NickC]

The NGAA will be totally compatible with existing Course Correction fuzes, hence accuracy will be ensured even when using RAP.

Speculating the Northrop Grumman US M1156 GPS Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) with its small canard aerodynamic fins allow it to steer the shell on to target, okay as long as GPS is not jammed or spoofed as easily done as the GPS signal very low power as dependent on the satellite solar array, nothing easy.

[RunningStrong]

Podcast, talks a lot about Artillery from training and the state of the army today.

But some of the proposals are:
- Remove close support from RA. Give 120mm mortars to MA
- Rebuild Artillery Regiments around deep strike capability (GMLRS, possibly L52/L60 guns)
- Rebuild Gun regiments around deep strike bty, air defence bty, decoy/deception bty
- Shift Watchkeeper to RAF. Give drones to everyone. Everyone.

[mr.fred]

- Remove close support from RA. Give 120mm mortars to MA

RA = Royal Artillery, MA = ?

[RunningStrong]

- Remove close support from RA. Give 120mm mortars to MA

RA = Royal Artillery, MA = ?

Manoeuvre Arm. That'll be the infantry/armour that the artillery are operating in support of.

[mr.fred]

Manoeuvre Arm. That'll be the infantry/armour that the artillery are operating in support of.

Thank you.

- Remove close support from RA. Give 120mm mortars to MA

Seems like a strange way of presenting it. Would the 120mm mortars be in addition to the 81mm mortars at battalion or in addition?
What would the RA be doing? Just counterbattery and interdiction? If the enemy gets within 5km of a manoeuvre unit the RA will down tools as it's not their job?
I can see a logic of increasing the range of RA as it means they can cover the same ground with fewer guns or more area with the same.
If it's a case of transferring resources from the RA to the manoeuvre units, I'd say don't. Keep the resources in the RA as this will allow more longer ranged weapons to transfer support between manoeuvre units.
If a manoeuvre unit is out of contact then so are its supporting mortars. An additional battery of RA guns will still be able to be in action.

- Rebuild Artillery Regiments around deep strike capability (GMLRS, possibly L52/L60 guns)
- Rebuild Gun regiments around deep strike bty, air defence bty, decoy/deception bty

More range etc for artillery is generally useful, but is it necessary to have every regiment try to do everything? Is a Regiment a deployable unit or do you deploy batteries to where you need them depending on the threat? These disparate batteries are going to be spread out in different places when deployed anyway.
It's analogous to should you have a weapons squad at platoon level, a weapons platoon at company level or weapons company at battalion level.

[Tempest414]

how dose this change if the Battalion support group has both 120mm mortars and Brimstone overwatch

[RunningStrong]

Seems like a strange way of presenting it. Would the 120mm mortars be in addition to the 81mm mortars at battalion or in addition?

In addition.

What would the RA be doing? Just counterbattery and interdiction? If the enemy gets within 5km of a manoeuvre unit the RA will down tools as it's not their job?

Fighting the deep battle with guns to 50km and Ground launched missiles out to 499km.

MA are fighting well within 5km of opposition. And they'd have 120mm mortars to punch to 12km.

I can see a logic of increasing the range of RA as it means they can cover the same ground with fewer guns or more area with the same.

The argument made is that the artillery is now so small compared to the MA that they are a long way off providing sufficient coverage. A change in guns doesn't fix that.

If it's a case of transferring resources from the RA to the manoeuvre units, I'd say don't. Keep the resources in the RA as this will allow more longer ranged weapons to transfer support between manoeuvre units.

No suggestions of making the RA smaller, or giving MA the light gun. Bin light gun entirely.

More range etc for artillery is generally useful, but is it necessary to have every regiment try to do everything?
Is a Regiment a deployable unit or do you deploy batteries to where you need them depending on the threat? These disparate batteries are going to be spread out in different places when deployed anyway.
It's analogous to should you have a weapons squad at platoon level, a weapons platoon at company level or weapons company at battalion level.

This is part of the problem. The RA (mostly) trains and deploys at a battery level. The whole regiment structure is almost obsolete. And what's the point of deploying a rgt of guns without the air defence and counter battery (which isn't limited to fire) capability required to protect the guns?

If the bty are dispersed that doesn't remove the need for protection.

[mr.fred]

No suggestions of making the RA smaller, or giving MA the light gun. Bin light gun entirely.

When I said resources, I meant money and personnel.
If you bin the light gun, what are you doing with the money and personnel? Re-equipping with the long range guns and missiles?

Personally, I think that the light gun is still a pretty useful gun for light forces. Complaining that it doesn't cut the mustard in high intensity conflict is like complaining that a helicopter isn't a tank.

Fighting the deep battle with guns to 50km and Ground launched missiles out to 499km.

MA are fighting well within 5km of opposition. And they'd have 120mm mortars to punch to 12km.

12km is it now?
As for artillery shooting to 50km, as anyone who has been to a sale knows, "up to" a value includes any value below that.
I can get that artillery might focus on counterbattery and interdiction missions, but the idea of "removing close support" from their roles entirely seems bonkers. If it had been put as "reducing the need for long range artillery to perform close support by increasing the orgainc capability to provide supporting artillery" that makes more sense. The RA still performs close support if needed, and their longer range means that you can concentrate more firepower at any given point across the front.

This is part of the problem. The RA (mostly) trains and deploys at a battery level. The whole regiment structure is almost obsolete. And what's the point of deploying a rgt of guns without the air defence and counter battery (which isn't limited to fire) capability required to protect the guns?

The regiment structure has been more of a recruiting and training function for the infantry for a while, why not make it such for the artillery?
Infantry, armour, artillery and logistics in a deployed brigade all get formed from separate sub units, so why should artillery need to be integrated combined units when a) they are deployed as subunits anyway and b) no other unit or sub unit is integrated as such within a regiment?

[RunningStrong]

When I said resources, I meant money and personnel.
If you bin the light gun, what are you doing with the money and personnel? Re-equipping with the long range guns and missiles?

I thought point two made that abundantly clear?

Personally, I think that the light gun is still a pretty useful gun for light forces. Complaining that it doesn't cut the mustard in high intensity conflict is like complaining that a helicopter isn't a tank.

Why is it useful for light forces? Wtf has a helicopter and tank got to do with it.

12km is it now?
As for artillery shooting to 50km, as anyone who has been to a sale knows, "up to" a value includes any value below that.

Can you get to your point? L118 is upto 17km, but we all know that includes any value below that (!?).

L52 and L60 are already shooting beyond 50km, but you can fixate on that whilst you trying and make a meaningful point (?).

The regiment structure has been more of a recruiting and training function for the infantry for a while, why not make it such for the artillery?

And has that been successful? No.

Infantry, armour, artillery and logistics in a deployed brigade all get formed from separate sub units, so why should artillery need to be integrated combined units when a) they are deployed as subunits anyway and b) no other unit or sub unit is integrated as such within a regiment?

You've named several different Corps, whilst I'm discussing capabilities that all exist under one Corps...

Why would we be sending an artillery Bty into a medium -high intensity conflict without air defence, STA and counter battery? So why bring together several regiments when you could deploy units from a single regiment with each Bty committing troop level forces if necessary.

[mr.fred]

Why is it useful for light forces? Wtf has a helicopter and tank got to do with it.

Because it's airportable and has a decent range.
A helicopter can be used for jobs a tank does, but if you put one in place of the other neither will fare very well. Different systems for different jobs.

Can you get to your point? L118 is upto 17km, but we all know that includes any value below that (!?).

Each time someone suggests replacing L118 with a 120mm mortar, the range of the mortar seems to creep up a bit. The maximum range of the mortar using all sorts of specialised ammunition is compared against the basic 105mm ammunition, rather than a direct comparison. where either the mortar should be quote 8km or the light gun should be quoting 21km.

L52 and L60 are already shooting beyond 50km, but you can fixate on that whilst you trying and make a meaningful point (?).

Just using your numbers, but really the exact maximum range isn't really important for the point I'm trying to make. Targets are going to be detected at all sorts of ranges and artillery will engage them at all sorts of ranges within their maximum firing range, whatever that might be.
The way "- Remove close support from RA. Give 120mm mortars to MA" comes across is that the artillery will not fire at targets within close support range, whatever that is, from the manoeuvre units. Personally, I'd expect the artillery to provide support regardless of where the targets are that need to be engaged. So the quoted proposition is strange to me. I have proposed an alternate wording, that I believe makes more sense, above.

However, there remains the question of where the resource comes from to provide the additional 120mm mortars.

You've named several different Corps, whilst I'm discussing capabilities that all exist under one Corps...

Yet units and sub units from those Corps come together perfectly well to provide a combined arms capability.
If you have a unit that consists of disparate capabilities that have different training needs, does it make sense to combine them into one?Especially when the current deployment technique seems to be to pick available sub-units to provide the capability needed in any given theatre.

Why would we be sending an artillery Bty into a medium -high intensity conflict without air defence, STA and counter battery?

Why would we send an air defence battery into a low intensity conflict where the opposition doesn't have aircraft? Just because you would tend to deploy all those assets into a theatre that needs them doesn't mean that they have to be from the same administrative formation. Is your mix going to be appropriate every time, or would the ability to deploy more air defence, or more rocket artillery be useful?

[RunningStrong]

L118 doesn't hit 21km.

120mm mortar is helicopter carried.

Did I suggest sending air defence into a low intensity conflict? Why would we send deep fires into a low intensity conflict?

Can you at least discuss in good spirit, instead of being misleading?

[mr.fred]

L118 doesn't hit 21km.

Not with regular ammunition, but the base-bleed ER shell would go over 20km (wiki cites 20.6km, Janes "over 20km") Maybe not quite 21km, but still, compare like with like.

120mm mortar is helicopter carried.

And has about half the range of the light gun.

Did I suggest sending air defence into a low intensity conflict? Why would we send deep fires into a low intensity conflict?

It's implied by making the administrative formation the same as the deployable formation.
Would you rely on just 120mm mortars in a low intensity conflict? We certainly made heavy use of GMLRS in Afghanistan and many other nations took 155mm pieces. The longer range and more precise artillery is, the better it is suited to such conflicts
You'll note that I didn't suggest not sending Air Defence into a high intensity conflict. I was questioning the need for the air defence to be from the same regiment.

Can you at least discuss in good spirit, instead of being misleading?

Where do you feel I have been misleading? How are you discerning good spirit from bad? I would maintain that I am discussing in good spirit but clearly I have upset you in some fashion that I can't identify from this side.

[Tempest414]

As I said before for me I would change the infantry Battalion maneuver group to have a 120mm mortar platoon and a Brimstone overwatch platoon and then give each rifle company 2 x 60mm mortars this would allow the infantry to fight from 100 meters to 30 Km's in turn allowing the Artillery to get on with the deep fight and if needed backing up units as needed

If we take a Light Mech battalion it should have IMO

Infantry weapons working from 0 to 800 meters
company support group = 12.7mm , 40mm GMG , javelin , 60mm mortar working from 1 to 3 Km's
Battalion maneuver group = 120mm mortar , Brimstone working from 3 to 30 km's

Artillery = 155mm and M270A2 working from 20 to 500 km's

[RunningStrong]

Not with regular ammunition, but the base-bleed ER shell would go over 20km (wiki cites 20.6km, Janes "over 20km") Maybe not quite 21km, but still, compare like with like.

Base bleed range isn't a free lunch.

So... You're not comparing like with like then. Why not!?

And has about half the range of the light gun.

Good thing it's not intended to out-range a light gun then...

It's implied by making the administrative formation the same as the deployable formation.

Artillery units of all sorts have deployed as infantry in low intensity conflicts. You ARE aware of basic British military history!?!

Would you rely on just 120mm mortars in a low intensity conflict?

The need for indirect fires in low intensity conflicts is almost non-existant...

We certainly made heavy use of GMLRS in Afghanistan and many other nations took 155mm pieces. The longer range and more precise artillery is, the better it is suited to such conflicts

We definitely didn't make heavy use of GMLRS or Heavy Artillery in Afghanistan! This just beggars belief that in the current day you'd consider what artillery we sent to Afghanistan to be heavy. FFS, at one point a single gun on a hill was considered an valuable asset.

Where do you feel I have been misleading? How are you discerning good spirit from bad? I would maintain that I am discussing in good spirit but clearly I have upset you in some fashion that I can't identify from this side.

Forgive me, I misunderstood your ignorance of the topic at hand.

[mr.fred]

Base bleed range isn't a free lunch.

So... You're not comparing like with like then. Why not!?

Rocket assist (12km) vs base bleed (20km) or plain ballistic (8km) vs plain ballistic (17km). You're the one comparing rocket assist with plain.

Good thing it's not intended to out-range a light gun then...

Head-to-head duels isn't the only reason range is useful.

Artillery units of all sorts have deployed as infantry in low intensity conflicts. You ARE aware of basic British military history!?!

AAA units have deployed as infantry in high intensity conflicts as well. Doesn't stop it being a bit of a waste of training. I guess it depends on what kind of air defence you have in mind, but I'm sure if it was some kind of all-arms close protection for the guns and missiles you'd have said that.

The need for indirect fires in low intensity conflicts is almost non-existant...

And yet, very common.

We definitely didn't make heavy use of GMLRS or Heavy Artillery in Afghanistan! This just beggars belief that in the current day you'd consider what artillery we sent to Afghanistan to be heavy. FFS, at one point a single gun on a hill was considered an valuable asset.

Heavy relative to the conditions, perhaps. I don't mean to suggest heavy relative to Ukrainian use. Yet it was there (at some cost) and it was used.

Forgive me, I misunderstood your ignorance of the topic at hand.

Is this discussing in good spirit?

[RunningStrong]

Rocket assist (12km) vs base bleed (20km) or plain ballistic (8km) vs plain ballistic (17km). You're the one comparing rocket assist with plain.

Um no, you've made the comparison. I told you the range of 120mm Mortar in relation to MA requirements... It's the great thing about forums, read back...

I have spoken genetically about 120mm mortar. I have spoken specifically about L118.

Got it?

AAA units have deployed as infantry in high intensity conflicts as well.

Do you repeatedly go off on bizarre tangents!?!!!

And yet, very common.

Please, bless us with your knowledge of such common examples.

Heavy relative to the conditions, perhaps

Nope. Not heavy, not in the slightest. Back in your box.

[mr.fred]

Um no, you've made the comparison. I told you the range of 120mm Mortar in relation to MA requirements... It's the great thing about forums, read back...

You brought up the range for both, giving an assisted range for one and a unassisted one for the other. If you didn't mean for that to be a comparison, it didn't come across that way.

Do you repeatedly go off on bizarre tangents!?!!!

They're always related. You should cut back on the use of so many exclamation points. It's not good for you.

Please, bless us with your knowledge of such common examples.

It's the great thing about forums. Read back.

Nope. Not heavy, not in the slightest. Back in your box.

I tell you what. I'll concede that the use wasn't heavy. It doesn't affect my point anyway.
You try to carry on the discussion without aggressive language.