Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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: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.
That’s less than half with standard ammunition and slightly more than half (60%) for base bleed/rocket.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: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.
That’s less than half with standard ammunition and slightly more than half (60%) for base bleed/rocket.
And I thought the problem was we were outgunned...

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

I would say with all the things the army needs when it comes to artillery we need

1) more Air defence
2) 155mm Man based guns for Mechanised & Mobile brigade
3) A AS-90 replacement

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:1) more Air defence
2) 155mm Man based guns for Mechanised & Mobile brigade
3) A AS-90 replacement
The first two (n:o 2 being abt bde artillery and thus the question of being outgunned; counter-bttry) should be the priority.

AS-90 falls where the (tentative) 120 mm mortars would fall
- the latter with an infantry-based BG, and
- the former with an AI/ armoured BG
Both can move with the unit they support, and in the immediate vicinity, there are no delays with the chain of command. Never had anything to do with either, so let's take a more tried out (mundane?) example. The observer for the company's supporting mortars normally moving with the lead platoon. From contact 45 seconds to get the coordinates back to the fire position. Position cannot be prepared, assuming continuous movement. But from suitable point, to the next. First rounds on target in 2-3 minutes. This is with radios (ancient). Squad leaders (coming to the BA soon?**) have tablet-phone like devices on their sleeve. Tactical picture & comms all digital, avoiding voice comms (except within the platoon, who are in close vicinity anyway - as for triangulation).
- So all that needs to be done is to establish the differential between own position and the observed target.
- I think "press send" is still 4-eyes as you don't want to be in so much hurry that the bombs land on own position

With digitalisation a whole BG (at least if it is in AFVs) can be commanded with a virtual, shared situational awareness. Replicating the sensor-shooter pairing that first was done with navy vessels and BVAR missiles in the AF... at the time, hugely costly. Now, with digital radios all the way down to infantry, not anything out of the ordinary.
- gunlines were still observed in use by Russia in Ukraine (often shooting from across the "border")
- for reasons other than the ease of resupply that won't be necessary, nor the best practice anymore
- if you have 3-4 of 4-gun batteries, they can be distributed across a "front" of 40 km and range permitting, a good number of them shooting at a single target form dispersed positions... c-btry against a single gun position becomes much less worth the effort than against a traditional gunline, Thus pure range - relative to mobility, splinter protection, shoot-and-scoot speed and "weight" of resupply to fall in line with the dispersed ops - falls down in priorities when you think about which level formation be assigned what type of organic fire support

=========
**)I don't know the status of Morpheus (it is a huge programme and not single-sourced like the previous generation was). Industry does get briefed about what is coming/ required next: "The Land Environment Tactical Communication and Information Systems (LE TacCIS) Programme will be providing a briefing on the recent developments to the MORPHEUS Future Operating Model
- This brief will be delivered by Army Headquarters and the Defence Digital Battlefield and Tactical Communications & Information Systems (BATCIS) team"
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:That’s less than half with standard ammunition and slightly more than half (60%) for base bleed/rocket.
Maths was never my strong point :D

But my point still stands though. Ideally the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry will be equipped with a SP 120mm Mortar going forward. Disregarding the Brandt Rifled Mortar, if the Lighter formations ranging from Motorised in MRV(P) and 16 Air Assault we also equipped with 120mm Mortars it would make sense, so rather than replace the light guns they replace the 81mm at Battalion level. A SP variety in the MRV(P) phase 2 and a version either towed or carried but need setting up for the latter. Having a UCV towing a 120mm and also carrying the ammo and fire control equipment, that could all fit in a Chinook might be an interesting idea.

As for the Light Gun, well either we fly in Archers on C-17s or Atlas or we alternatively buy M777 155L52 when it becomes available.

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 »

I mentioned the ability to call in fire "instantly" within the tactical situation, and it then started to bother my mind why Morpheus ( a £3.2 bn project) has gone so quiet.

On another thread I picked up this first step in early 2017, after the announcement:
[quote]"General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited has been awarded a £330 million contract from the UK Ministry of Defence to design and develop the next-generation tactical communication and information system as the initial phase of the MORPHEUS programme. The system will be used to plan, deploy, manage and monitor communications and information for the Army. It will allow users to integrate new radios, applications and other system components faster and with greater ease.[end quote]

It turns out that the above EVO is just an integration architecture (+ associated services fro transition from old to new), and that the main contract was bid in the last qrtr of 2019... and then rebid in the summer of 2020
- no outcome (?)

Clansman 1976, Bowman 2005 (30! years in between), the newest (recyclable part of it, namely reused in Morpheus, BCIP5.6 BMS) fielded in 2017.

The only other contract, to actually integrate something new has gone to Elbit (under a fifth of the overarching architecture contract, in contract value terms) and will produce, I suspect, a streamlined BMS under a new name : BA. Both acronyms stand for battle management
- so closing the loop here, to "calling fires".

When Morpheus was started, the target was 2023 and transition from Bowman done&dusted by 2028. By then many transceivers would be abt 25 years old (what did mobile phones look like 25 years ago?).
- but with the project still not (properly) off the blocks, I am sure that at least 5 more years will need to be added
= the 30 years, just like from Clansman to Bowman

Since the 2017 rollout, dismounted troops have had some rather nifty Toughpads as their EUDs, as opposed to all the other, much heavier End User Devices
- that was the question I posed in my post above; turned out to be over-sarcastic
- but the big picture looks less rosy than has been let out (how does net-centric warfare work without 'keeping up with the Joneses' with these types of facilities?).
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 »

How do the Russians handle things? They have control of UAVs down to Company level and even lower with direct communications back up the chain to everything from air support to indirect fire and so on. With SF this goes down to teams. I doubt they have cutting edge kit, like we are in theory trying to develop and procure, but they seem to have a very capable system in place.

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:How do the Russians handle things? They have control of UAVs down to Company level
Though Bn BGs are their basic building blocs, how do we know that their all-arms company is more than a myth?
- not seen any literature on it

@SW had found a 'fun' piece of our section level UAVs... straight from Australia
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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Maths was never my strong point
That might explain why you are always trying to foist ever heavier equipment and logistics onto the light forces.
But my point still stands though. Ideally the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry will be equipped with a SP 120mm Mortar going forward. Disregarding the Brandt Rifled Mortar, if the Lighter formations ranging from Motorised in MRV(P) and 16 Air Assault we also equipped with 120mm Mortars it would make sense, so rather than replace the light guns they replace the 81mm at Battalion level. A SP variety in the MRV(P) phase 2 and a version either towed or carried but need setting up for the latter. Having a UCV towing a 120mm and also carrying the ammo and fire control equipment, that could all fit in a Chinook might be an interesting idea.

As for the Light Gun, well either we fly in Archers on C-17s or Atlas or we alternatively buy M777 155L52 when it becomes available.
The logistics of artillery isn’t so much getting the ordnance there, it’s transporting the ammunition*. To feed the 155 guns or 120mm mortars you’ve got to ship the pallets of much heavier ammunition.
What is it that the 105m or 81mm mortars can’t do? If it’s engaging massed hostile armour then light forces are kind of the wrong tool for the job. If it’s killing small numbers of tanks or hostile artillery, the. that’s what the missile systems are for.
If anything there might be a case for switching the 81mm mortars for 60mm mortars for light forces, offsetting the range and target effect for much lighter weapon and ammunition.

*The same is true for AFVs, except then it’s ammunition and fuel, which is why airborne armour tends to be limited to a few light tanks. Save perhaps the Russians and their pragmatic approach to it.

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 »

On the subject of support formations, it needs to be borne in mind that the British method of artillery regiments or weapons company at battalion level doesn’t mean that these units trudge around en masse. The batteries and sections will be split up and assigned as the situation dictates. Likely as not the forward platoons of an infantry battalion will be accompanied by a Forward Observation Officer from the supporting artillery battery who can order his own battery to fire or request support from the whole of his regiment.
Similarly, the companies of a battalion will be assigned snipers, machine guns, mortars and anti-tank weapons from the battalion support company. Just because it’s not like that on the establishment charts doesn’t mean that’s not how it works in practice.

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 »

One of the key roles of the future precision fires is to cover the "Strike" Brigades against all threats including armour. At present we have no rounds or rockets for that matter that contain anti armour munitions. In fact the artillery rounds we use are only the most basic varieties that do not match up with what is going to be expected for the artillery in the future. At a bear minimum we need the Precision Guidance kit for our 155mm, turning any dumb round into a semi guided weapon.

The problem is that there are no cargo or precision rounds available to either the 105mm Light Gun nor the 81mm Mortar. In addition how we have operated in the past is not necessarily how we will operate in the future. 120mm Mortars assigned to Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Battalions would be self propelled with accompanying re supply vehicles so logistics is not a major issue. As for the light units, well these would be towed or portee weapons. If you are sending troops out on foot with no form of vehicular support what so ever then retaining a number of 81mm mortars would be the way to go and easily done.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

having found a image of a Man 8x8 fitted with 155mm Archer I have to say I like it and think it could work well with the Boxer equipped Mechanised and if we had some Bushmaster equipped Mobile infantry brigades. I still think the army needs to get its core capability sorted and with the extra money now put forward the army should be pushing ahead with

Challenger 3 upgrade
Warrior 2 upgrade
Boxer & Ajax into service
more Air-Defence ( including getting CAMM into service and then pushing CAMM ER
Man 8x8 with Archer gun system
at leased 2 x Brigades of the 1st Division into Bushmaster

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: The problem is that there are no cargo or precision rounds available to either the 105mm Light Gun nor the 81mm Mortar. .
That's not true. The 105mm has a course correction fuze (can't find on BAE website currently) which removes the PEr which is your source of error. It would give the light gun a first-round FFE capability which it sorely needs.

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:Challenger 3 upgrade
Warrior 2 upgrade
Boxer & Ajax into service
more Air-Defence ( including getting CAMM into service and then pushing CAMM ER
Man 8x8 with Archer gun system
All of those worthwhile, nuancing further
-GBAD plan actully says that once the Falklands btries are operational , work (funding?) will start with the same for the deployable division
- of the Archer, we will only need to buy enough for the Strike Bdes as the first step... and if the second of those will be 'long in coming' the guns for it can serve as :) the bde arty for the two AI bdes, and the AS90s can serve as :idea: 'BG assignable artillery' component
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 »

RunningStrong wrote:That's not true. The 105mm has a course correction fuze (can't find on BAE website currently) which removes the PEr which is your source of error. It would give the light gun a first-round FFE capability which it sorely needs.
I didn't know about that, so that is the equivalent of the precision guidance kit that is used on the 155mm then? Well that would be a stop gap, but I have to wonder why the British Army hasn't trialled it already.

Even so, the lack of cargo rounds, true precision options and the fact that both the 120mm and 155mm have a far greater impact put the 105mm into third place. The former may have a slower rate of fire long term but now and in the future it with be rounds per minute during shoot and scoot and with the speed an Archer can come into action fire eight rounds accurately and even a MRSI is in a different league, even if fewer are available. With the 120mm again the time to set up fire and be gone is less whilst delivering more payload onto the target.

The 105mm Light Gun is still a good reliable weapon system but is outclassed today, and has not been kept truly current. If the Army had invested in new ammunition, and maybe extending its range by utilising a longer barrel and so on since its entry into service it might be a more viable support weapon going forward, but even low tier opposition are likely to have artillery able to out range it and deliver a more telling blow.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

I think if we could get AS-90 upgraded and Archer equipped Man 8x8 plus better Air Defence supporting the Armoured Infantry , Mechanised Infantry and Protected Mobile Infantry we could afford to allow the 105mm to carry on with 16 AA and the RM for bit longer

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: we could afford to allow the 105mm to carry on with 16 AA and the RM for bit longer
We do not need any preconditions for doing that.

The question really is on the side, of all the other formations (even the good old 81 mm mortar is just the thing for those two brigades, or rather: the way they will need to be able to operate.
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)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:We do not need any preconditions for doing that.
No it is not a precondition it is a fact that the 105mm will have to go on with 16 AA and the RM as with the need for the AS-90 upgrade and a new mobile field gun to support the heavy formations means the light field gun replacement is some way down the list

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:That's not true. The 105mm has a course correction fuze (can't find on BAE website currently) which removes the PEr which is your source of error. It would give the light gun a first-round FFE capability which it sorely needs.
I didn't know about that, so that is the equivalent of the precision guidance kit that is used on the 155mm then? Well that would be a stop gap, but I have to wonder why the British Army hasn't trialled it already.
Not sure which precision kit you're referring to, but the 105 system self-adjusts for the variation in range (Probable Error Range i.e. falling long or short of the target) and not variations in direction (PEd). The PEr is several times that of PEd.

I believe it was trialled, but I suspect they'd just spent big on the multi function fuze and it was difficult to justify another spend.

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 precision guidance kit is a relatively cheap way to turn any 155mm round into a semi-precision one greatly increasing its accuracy. It basically looks like an enlarged fuse assembly, reducing the CEP of any round to less than 6m compared to roughly 260m for an unguided round at maximum range. It is cheap enough to be used far more readily than rounds like Excalibur and more like standard ones.

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: The PEr is several times that of PEd.
Not sure we even want to get rid of PEd
... as long as we use a battery to do the firing.

If we want a single gun to do a pinpoint target, then
A. it will most likely not be a 105mm piece, and
B. those rounds (Excalibur etc) cost a pretty penny

Considering that there is (?) wide agreement that LG is for formations where having 155 mm pieces would, at times, find it difficult to keep up, also
(C. we have better, and more deployable ways of doing that)

Going back to these types of formations, whether or not they have the means to pinpoint a target that is at range from arty assets (would that make it about 10 km as those assets are in the back and move - forward, or otherwise - when needed and that makes them unavailable).
- so we come back to 120 mm vs (the current) 81 mm mortars
- the latter can move right with the infantry, and are immediately available
- the 120 are a bit more cumbersome, but have the range to compensate for that

Any infantry unit (even a two-man recon) can lase a target; and we can order the applicable round for that TODAY
,,, would still recommend buying - in a lock, stock and barrel type of deal - both the ordnance and the rounds for it from the USMC, who are doing away with their 'good as new' kit
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 »

Lord Jim wrote:One of the key roles of the future precision fires is to cover the "Strike" Brigades against all threats including armour. At present we have no rounds or rockets for that matter that contain anti armour munitions. In fact the artillery rounds we use are only the most basic varieties that do not match up with what is going to be expected for the artillery in the future. At a bear minimum we need the Precision Guidance kit for our 155mm, turning any dumb round into a semi guided weapon.
Decided to read back, thru the page, as we are talking - often in the same breath - of all formations (heavy-ish =AI; medium (soon to appear); light (a default) and truly light (airlanded-airborne-air assault, as well as the RM minus their Vikings)

The above, quoted point is well made. What is Bonus today was originally designed for MLRS (greater range) against armour starting to mass. When the cargo round (of other types) fell out of (political) favour, the application became artillery.
- it also works the other way
- unitary warheads we have, Bonus we could add (to artillery first)
But: armour does not mass on its own. We don't even have the AW for GMLRS, to attack the semi-hard formations some way behind the MBTs that Bonus (err, with its lesser range) could deal with

It would be rude to say: Hello :!: is anybody thinking. I am sure the army is
- but rather, time and time again (at least over the last dozen years or so) all related initiatives, as for funding, have either been A. killed, B. put on a back-burner, or C. (thus) have withered on the vine :thumbdown:
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)

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote: The PEr is several times that of PEd.
Not sure we even want to get rid of PEd
... as long as we use a battery to do the firing.

If we want a single gun to do a pinpoint target, then
A. it will most likely not be a 105mm piece, and
B. those rounds (Excalibur etc) cost a pretty penny
It's not about precision, it's about an effective first round FFE. The traditional rules of adjustment are redundant in a rapid moving, high counter-battery environment. Combine that with increasing availability of LRF detection devices, you really want to be able to drop rounds reliably onto the grid first time without being concerned about zone/PEr.

That's what a relatively simple, affordable PEr device gives you.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: Going back to these types of formations, whether or not they have the means to pinpoint a target that is at range from arty assets (would that make it about 10 km as those assets are in the back and move - forward, or otherwise - when needed and that makes them unavailable).
- so we come back to 120 mm vs (the current) 81 mm mortars
- the latter can move right with the infantry, and are immediately available
- the 120 are a bit more cumbersome, but have the range to compensate for that
Assuming overhead fire, perpendicular to the line of battle. Which is a poor assumption. Range isn't just about how deep you can fire.

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:a rapid moving, high counter-battery environment. Combine that with increasing availability of LRF detection devices, you really want to be able to drop rounds reliably onto the grid first time
I agree that we should plan for that kind of environment so let's spend some money for protected shoot and scoot assets that have the mobility to keep up with the formation(s) engaging
- a single AMOS (say, Boxer) vehicle can do the initial burst of a LG battery: with its maximum rate of fire of 24 rounds per minute, thanks to the automatic ammunition handling system.
those assets are in the back and move - forward, or otherwise - when needed and that makes them unavailable
Quite 3D, except that helicopter lift isn't often applicable. In short, move to where needed, plenty quick (8x8 isn't bad for that) and under protection (quite a good thing on a dispersed battlefield)
- assuming a totally distributed "battle" - not quite a melee, as fighting from some distance has great advantages - the 360 degree field of fire, without moving the vehicle, is a plus.
- and then you just do the first 4 in <8 sec, or do the 'battery equivalent' MRSI 2 × 8... and scoot :)
While one can do 'area effect' on the move, for pinpoint targets all it takes (for the availability that I was referring to, as for more traditional assets like LG/ towed mortars) is to stop and fire in 30 secs; thereafter move in 10 secs
... not just for distributed, but 8-) fluid battle? Takes some dosh, though
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)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

I think we need to be clear here gun systems like

As-90 155mm
Man 8x8 Archer 155mm
Boxer / Ajax 105 to 155mm

All equal working with Armoured Infantry to Protected Mobile Infantry

105mm LG

equals working with 16AA and RM as the systems above can't be air-lifted by helicopter this being said if these units could use Hero 120 with its 40km range and 1 hour loiter time at company level as a recon / pin point strike asset for every thing else 81mm mortar and 105mm

Post Reply