Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
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 guess you answered the question, then?
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)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I guess you answered the question, then?
Guess I did then. The original question just seemed a bit open ended. Any type of infantry battalion should have organic heavy mortars for firesupport, the type of chassis will change.

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 »

Voldemort wrote: The original question just seemed a bit open ended.
I looked back and agree; already when typing I knew that something went wrong when I put a comma before "that"
- but hey-ho, if I worried about that sort of thing, there would not be 10348 posts here
- and on substance we seem to agree
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)

js44
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 05 May 2015, 11:35

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by js44 »

Surprised no one has brought up the revised boxer rch 155 design shown the other day at dsei. I may be wrong though. Turret seems lower profile.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Caribbean »

Weren't they trying to knock around 75cm off the height?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

js44
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 05 May 2015, 11:35

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by js44 »

It looked lower, don't know if the amount of rounds carried or fire rate is any different. Had picture but can't post it. Was just a model they put on display.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Caribbean »

Another possible contender - a truck-mounted M777. Might be better than a towed version, possibly
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july_20 ... _2019.html
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

I know this is pretty far reached but light rocket launchers, like LAR-160? 26x 160mm prefragmented rockets, 12-45km range, all rockets in under 60 sec, ability to fire GPS guided rockets, reloading in 5 minutes.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3280.html

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Jake1992 »

The more I look in to it with out design a bespoke design our selfs the best option in the updated Box 155mm.

The updates to the design bring it down to 3.2m in hight ( same as a G6 ) to make it fully transportable by train

An improved rate of fire to 8 RPM from 6 ( still a bit low for me but not bad )

Has an increased load capacity to 40 round

Can arrive stop and start firing in 20 seconds

It’s only real down side is the cost, but if that is a limiting factory then maybe a split order of these and archer on the MAN chaise to bring that initial purchase cost down.

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 »

The interesting bit is what they have brought over, from improvements made to (G)MLRS:
"Late in 2003, Israel Military Industries announced that it had successfully completed flight tests for its trajectory correction system for the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control 227 mm MLRS rocket.

The design verification, conducted late in September 2003, for a range of 35 km, marked the end of a 10-year development contract to enhance the accuracy of the 227 mm MLRS rockets used by the Israel Defence Force. The system is now in production for the 227 mm MLRS used by the IDF.

According to Israel Military Industries, the trajectory correction system will reduce by 95 per cent the number of rockets required to neutralise a given target when compared to standard production unguided rockets. "
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 they can reduce the height of the Boxer 155mm SPG then it should become a serious contender. Remember with the Boxer what is being developed is a Mission Module not the whole vehicle, which would also include any stability items as well. It will be interesting to see if such a modified Boxer based system is put forward, for at the moment the MoD seem very interested in the MAN/Archer combination and the trend to lorry based platforms.

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

RCH 155 is way too expensive indeed, almost 9 million £ each. The RA will need to build up 52 Cal ammo stockpiles, including Excalibur, Bonus..
Plus GMLRS-ER will be necessary in reasonnable numbers, and that won't be cheap, and this type of ammunition has a limited shelf life. Artillery as a whole will need 100 km range CB radars if it is serious about high intensity warfare, and again these things cost around 50 million £ each (at least we already have Watchkeeper), plus accurate EW assets that can give accurate grids for the artillery....Artillery is way cheaper than air force, however we don't need just guns, the whole system is necessary and RCH or Archer look like fancy kit to me. They are no better protected than any other gun against 9M55k1 rockets for example than any GOAT, but at that price we will only be able to afford 60 at best.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:If they can reduce the height of the Boxer 155mm SPG then it should become a serious contender. Remember with the Boxer what is being developed is a Mission Module not the whole vehicle, which would also include any stability items as well. It will be interesting to see if such a modified Boxer based system is put forward, for at the moment the MoD seem very interested in the MAN/Archer combination and the trend to lorry based platforms.
The hight has been reduced from 3.5m to 3.2m, this allows it to be transportable by train with out any dismantling. It’ll now be the same hight as the G6.
Stal wrote:RCH 155 is way too expensive indeed, almost 9 million £ each.

Where did you get this price from as Iv not been able to find any prices for the 155mm any where let along it bring nearly 2.5 times the price of a standard Boxer.

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

Jake1992, I had the info at DSEI

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

Stal wrote:Jake1992, I had the info at DSEI
Holy shit! Norway bought 24 K9s and 6 K10s for 215 MUSD with option for 24 more K9s.

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 »

Voldemort wrote:Norway bought 24 K9s and 6 K10s for 215 MUSD
Did Finland get a sneaky volume discount ;) (though officially the deals were not "bundled")?
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)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Voldemort wrote:Norway bought 24 K9s and 6 K10s for 215 MUSD
Did Finland get a sneaky volume discount ;) (though officially the deals were not "bundled")?
The thing is Finland bought used ones and Norway new ones. 48 for 150M€, have to like.

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 »

Voldemort wrote:48 for 150M€, have to like
What :o ; three times as much as per v good Leo2s, per piece? (Ok, they were [a little] used, too.)
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)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Voldemort wrote:48 for 150M€, have to like
What :o ; three times as much as per v good Leo2s, per piece? (Ok, they were [a little] used, too.)
Yeah, about three times. At the time it was buyers market and Dutch wanted get rid of their Leos so they were cheap as dirt.

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

At least RCH is fully automated, unlike K9, and the Nowegians don't care about a high fuel consumption (probably between 4 to 5 litres per mile). It helps if you have oilrigs....

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Voldemort »

Stal wrote:At least RCH is fully automated, unlike K9, and the Nowegians don't care about a high fuel consumption (probably between 4 to 5 litres per mile). It helps if you have oilrigs....
Is it "automatically" better or maybe it's just a preference? Pun intended.

Stal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Sep 2019, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Stal »

:) well, as far as I am concerned, these systems are too expensive and their life cycle cost is prohibitive. My preference goes to truck-mounted 155s (GOAT doesn't sound great and probably comes from supporters of armoured and tracked artillery) if possible with automated shell loading (...here we go again... ) but no more because in a high intensity scenario we would need numbers, and in low intensity scenarios we would need deployable systems.

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

I don't believe the British Army will be buying an off-the-shelf system anytime soon. The current platforms have a not-insignificant Bowman fit in addition to the other UK Specifications (BV amongst others...) that are very hard compromises.

I think there is definitely value in a wheeled 155 in addition to a tracked platform, but I'm positively unconvinced that a Boxer module is the answer (because I'm largely skeptical of the Boxer module system in general).

I think the best value for money is a comprehensive upgrade and regun of the AS90 platform, in addition to a MAN SV based platform.

The only future I can see for the light gun teams is to move to 120mm towed mortars with a range beyond what is available today.

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 »

To support the Strike Brigades, the British Army really need a wheeled artillery system(s). It is not just their ability to self deploy but also the lower logistical foot print that matters. To be honest against a country like Russia, tube artillery in its current performance guise is going to struggle unless it is able to conduct fire missions rapidly and move on before attracting the attention of the Bad Guys. Current range mean they will have to operate relative further forward that we would like and there for be at more risk, but that is simply the way things are until the next generation of weapons and munitions appear with much greater range.

There is going to have to be a much greater investment in Artillery in the coming years as the British Army is currently underwhelmingly prepared to fight a high intensity conflict against anybody. Our reliance on "Flying" artillery has left us in a similar position to which the Israelis found themselves in 1973, with inadequate artillery support for its forces due to the success they had had in 1967, which led to the belief that conventional artillery was not needed as the Air Force had it covered. over a decade of conducting COIN operation in benign airspace has allowed us to totally neglect out Artillery arm except in very small specific areas in very limited numbers. It has however led to the development of an number of technologies that should allow the effectiveness of conventional artillery to be greatly increased.

We have to accept that we will not be able to conduct old style sustained bombardments with conventional "Dumb" munitions. Instead we are gong to have to conduct short sharp fire missions and we need to ensure we have to the tools to ensure these deliver the maximum effect. This means a move to the use of both smart and cargo rounds, with the latter containing sensor fused sub munition in lire of the old style bomblet munitions. This is made more important by the fact that we are never going to have the number of firing platforms we really need.

In addition the Royal Artillery, together with the Royal Signals is going to have to combat the oppositions capability to locate friendly forces, negate or reduce their ability to engage friendly forces, and of course facilitate our ability to make life very difficult for them, all at the same time. The capabilities to carry out these mission are starting to take shape, but like all aspects of the artillery arm substantial investment is going to be need to bring them up to a level that will be truly effective.

The one system we have that is already extremely effective and has further enhancements in the pipeline to increase its lethality is GMLRS. But unfortunately the Royal Artillery has few of these system as it only partially upgrades in fleet of launch platforms, the rest going into storage. There is a major problem though and that, like the AS-90 this is a heavy platform, unable to deploy without METs, and these would be all utilise simply to move the Strike Brigades two Ajax Regiments, even then requiring the hire/lease of numerous civilian platforms to enable just this. Also both these tracked platforms have a significant logistical tail without which they cannot operate effectively. The solution os rather simple and that is to move our launchers from the existing tracked chassis to a wheeled one, in the for of a HIMARS platform, in our case based on the ubiquitous MAN chassis. Yes this means each firing platforms has half the firepower of the tracked alternative, but then again if you lose one to enemy fire you lose half that firepower. We could also afford to have two Regiments so equipped in the regular Army against the single Regiment at present, and both would be far more mobile and flexible. These are few places a MAN 8x8 cannot go compared to the tracked GMLRS and it is far easier to support. A reload vehicle on the same platform carrying between two and four reloads should also be part of the Regiments together with an Engineering and recovery variant.

If the "Heavy Armour Mafia", get their way within the Army, the two Strike Brigades are going to be limited to being supported by the two 105mm Light Gun Regiments, but these are also assigned to the UKs Rapid Deployment formations 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault. They could try to rely on air support, but in any peer conflict the airspace above the battle is at beat going to be contested by enemy air and ground assets. Yes the Armoured Infantry Brigades with the heavy artillery units would eventually reach the theatre of operations, but by then it will probably be too late.

All of the above does point out one key fact. The Army needs to be given substantial additional resources if we are to have a service that can operate effectively in a peer conflict. All branches need new equipment and manpower. Some is already in the pipeline but far more is needed. Units need to be able to train far more and in larger formations up to and including Brigade level. Levels of spares and munitions need to be greatly increased. The Army needs reorganising so that its five combat Brigades are fully manned, equipped and trained and if this means removing some formations to release assets then so be it. These five Brigades are the Army's equivalent of the Royal Navy's Carrier Strike Group and their needs need to take priority over all other parts of the Army.

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 »

As for the Boxer's Mission Module system, it is proving to be a very reliable and effective capability, capable of being done in an field work shop. It take less than an hour to swap modules and can be done by non skilled personnel. IS the 155mm module the answer to the British Army's needs, we shall see, but it will be one of the more expensive though we would not be buying bespoke chassis but simply additional Boxer drive Chassis. Agreed one of these cost more than that of a MAN 8x8 truck but it does bring more to the table. You get what you pay for.

Post Reply