Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 15 Jan 2023, 15:39 SIGMA (pictured) has a 2 person crew and the gun is fully automated.
I know, but the commented I quoted was suggesting a CAESAR 6x6 with manually loaded gun offered a more deployable solution. I agree, it does, but the crew requirements, survivability and lethality of such a transportable vehicle is greatly reduced against the SIGMA-like solutions.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

Or we could just use the bae archer system on the ubiquitous man truck

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... sed-archer

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:38 Or we could just use the bae archer system on the ubiquitous man truck

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... sed-archer
Glad I checked the date, I didn't think that was a new development.

Anything truck based would have to be HX based.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 21:30
SW1 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:38 Or we could just use the bae archer system on the ubiquitous man truck

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... sed-archer
Glad I checked the date, I didn't think that was a new development.

Anything truck based would have to be HX based.
No not new, but on the same truck as sky sabre would gd and if while there at it they could put mlrs on the same truck also would be even better
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 22:05
RunningStrong wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 21:30
SW1 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:38 Or we could just use the bae archer system on the ubiquitous man truck

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... sed-archer
Glad I checked the date, I didn't think that was a new development.

Anything truck based would have to be HX based.
No not new, but on the same truck as sky sabre would gd and if while there at it they could put mlrs on the same truck also would be even better
Wouldn't the truck get rather overloaded?

Djpowell1984
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Mar 2017, 01:28
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Djpowell1984 »

I'm not sure where I should put this, this or coyote. I like this system and would be good for British Army.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/05/ ... tzers/amp/

I find it other day; it is seem like light and fast moving idea for support fire paratrooper or RM or part of light mobility strike team.

Think this can move around by helicopters to become a rapid re-deployment if needed also can move around fast and small, move and quick fire and move.

Good replacement for L118 (or use both; L118 for outpost base stationary and this Coyotes Hawkeye for support patrol team outside outpost of base zone and light support / strike team
These users liked the author Djpowell1984 for the post:
jedibeeftrix
Deaf Man among huge Military Technology & Aviation Hobbies.

Pardon regard my poor written skills as due to my language-specific - BSL and it is the second language English after BSL as it is different Grammar Rules applied. (Use Grammarly APP)

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Djpowell1984 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 08:10 Think this can move around by helicopters to become a rapid re-deployment if needed also can move around fast and small, move and quick fire and move.
Questionable. Coyote is weighting some 10.5 tone alone. Hawkeye gun with cradle and digital fire control system is some 1.15 tone, L118/M119 gun has longer barrel it should at least have same weight if not longer. So it is already borderline transportable by Chinook. If you add any ammo on it would probably be to heavy for it.
These users liked the author sol for the post (total 2):
RunningStrongDjpowell1984

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

Djpowell1984 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 08:10 I'm not sure where I should put this, this or coyote. I like this system and would be good for British Army.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/05/ ... tzers/amp/

I find it other day; it is seem like light and fast moving idea for support fire paratrooper or RM or part of light mobility strike team.

Think this can move around by helicopters to become a rapid re-deployment if needed also can move around fast and small, move and quick fire and move.

Good replacement for L118 (or use both; L118 for outpost base stationary and this Coyotes Hawkeye for support patrol team outside outpost of base zone and light support / strike team
Here's the beastie but no firm order yet as far as I know:
Image
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Djpowell1984

Djpowell1984
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Mar 2017, 01:28
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Djpowell1984 »

sol wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 11:17
Djpowell1984 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 08:10 Think this can move around by helicopters to become a rapid re-deployment if needed also can move around fast and small, move and quick fire and move.
Questionable. Coyote is weighting some 10.5 tone alone. Hawkeye gun with cradle and digital fire control system is some 1.15 tone, L118/M119 gun has longer barrel it should at least have same weight if not longer. So it is already borderline transportable by Chinook. If you add any ammo on it would probably be to heavy for it.

I check chinook can lift 10 ton so ur right too heavy, maybe long term replacement chinook - quad rotar aircraft could able lift this. In 2040s
Deaf Man among huge Military Technology & Aviation Hobbies.

Pardon regard my poor written skills as due to my language-specific - BSL and it is the second language English after BSL as it is different Grammar Rules applied. (Use Grammarly APP)

Djpowell1984
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Mar 2017, 01:28
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Djpowell1984 »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 15:03
Djpowell1984 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 08:10 I'm not sure where I should put this, this or coyote. I like this system and would be good for British Army.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/05/ ... tzers/amp/

I find it other day; it is seem like light and fast moving idea for support fire paratrooper or RM or part of light mobility strike team.

Think this can move around by helicopters to become a rapid re-deployment if needed also can move around fast and small, move and quick fire and move.

Good replacement for L118 (or use both; L118 for outpost base stationary and this Coyotes Hawkeye for support patrol team outside outpost of base zone and light support / strike team

Here's the beastie but no firm order yet as far as I know:
Image
Look awesome and thanks for pictures.
These users liked the author Djpowell1984 for the post:
Ron5
Deaf Man among huge Military Technology & Aviation Hobbies.

Pardon regard my poor written skills as due to my language-specific - BSL and it is the second language English after BSL as it is different Grammar Rules applied. (Use Grammarly APP)

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Djpowell1984 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 14:13 I check chinook can lift 10 ton so ur right too heavy, maybe long term replacement chinook - quad rotar aircraft could able lift this. In 2040s
By the time RAF replace Chinook with something else, Coyote and 105mm gun could be gone too.

Not sure for who would this solution be adopted. If it is for 16 AABCT, than some lighter platform should be considered, like for example Humvee 2-CT on which Hawkeye 105mm is tested. Or something similar.

https://www.amgeneral.com/wp-content/up ... 062521.pdf

It would probably require two Chinooks, one for vehicle with gun and one for vehicle with ammo. So more difficult to transport but it could give better mobility to gun. Question is, is the trade worth it.

If it is for LBCT than weight is less of restriction, even tho it still matters. But in that case I would rather see it on some other vehicle that could provide better protection to crew, from both fire and weather.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Djpowell1984

Djpowell1984
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Mar 2017, 01:28
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Djpowell1984 »

sol wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:14
Djpowell1984 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 14:13 I check chinook can lift 10 ton so ur right too heavy, maybe long term replacement chinook - quad rotar aircraft could able lift this. In 2040s
By the time RAF replace Chinook with something else, Coyote and 105mm gun could be gone too.

Not sure for who would this solution be adopted. If it is for 16 AABCT, than some lighter platform should be considered, like for example Humvee 2-CT on which Hawkeye 105mm is tested. Or something similar.

https://www.amgeneral.com/wp-content/up ... 062521.pdf

It would probably require two Chinooks, one for vehicle with gun and one for vehicle with ammo. So more difficult to transport but it could give better mobility to gun. Question is, is the trade worth it.

If it is for LBCT than weight is less of restriction, even tho it still matters. But in that case I would rather see it on some other vehicle that could provide better protection to crew, from both fire and weather.
Mmmmm good points;

I think should get remote vehicles drone ripsaw m5 “Hawkeye” can drop helicopter idea for 16 AAB.

Other option - GET Big gun ”Brutus” 155mm is Available so extra firepower for 16 AAB. Common rounds with k9a3 would more easy logically.
Deaf Man among huge Military Technology & Aviation Hobbies.

Pardon regard my poor written skills as due to my language-specific - BSL and it is the second language English after BSL as it is different Grammar Rules applied. (Use Grammarly APP)

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:14 Not sure for who would this solution be adopted. If it is for 16 AABCT, than some lighter platform should be considered, like for example Humvee 2-CT on which Hawkeye 105mm is tested. Or something similar.
The article suggested it was for SF/SFSG.

“If finally adopted after trials, it will provide huge firepower to special forces in a mobile configuration in a way that has never been experienced before and we should reasonably expect a limited number to be in service within the next two years,” the senior official explained."

I tend to agree that I'm not sure how it's managed as an ammunition and platform in an air mobility aspect.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post (total 2):
Djpowell1984sol

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

One thing I only now noticed is that article is from May 9th, 2022, and all similar content articles are around same time. But nothing since then, no official confirmation by either MoD or Supacat, no news, nothing. So I would not consider this as confirmation of the done deal.

Considering current transport of L118 by Chinook, does anyone know what is a standard practice? I saw images of using either one or two helicopters to transport gun and its towing vehicle. Maybe using one helicopter is used because in that case gun was transported from the ship as image was taken in Sierra Leone during Operation Palliser.

Image

Image
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Djpowell1984

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 10:55 Considering current transport of L118 by Chinook, does anyone know what is a standard practice? I saw images of using either one or two helicopters to transport gun and its towing vehicle. Maybe using one helicopter is used because in that case gun was transported from the ship as image was taken in Sierra Leone during Operation Palliser.
It's a trade off on available airframes and ammunition requirements. It's very much task specific in terms of the quantity of ammunition and whether you're using an additional ammunition vehicle carried internally.

(And in that particular picture set there's a 6x6 and a 4x4 Pinz)
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
sol

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »



If Poland can buy the launcher system and fit it to there own truck why can’t we?
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Djpowell1984

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by inch »

Simple, because it's the polish MOD not the British MOD ,who are totally useless
These users liked the author inch for the post:
jedibeeftrix

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by NickC »

Apologies if previously posted
British Army considers replacements for AS90 self-propelled gun, September 2022
https://www.forces.net/technology/briti ... pelled-gun
one of the potential candidates is the future Korean K9, A2 variant expected IOC 2027
Jul 26, 2022 video showing operation of K9A2 automated magazine

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

There's been several reports recently that the choice for the new UK gun has been narrowed to the K9 and the RCH155 with the army wanting the k9 and the ministry wanting the boxer. With heavyweight lobbying for Archer still continuing.

I suppose it would be silly of me to suggest they buy both k9 & boxer.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 15:00 There's been several reports recently that the choice for the new UK gun has been narrowed to the K9 and the RCH155 with the army wanting the k9 and the ministry wanting the boxer. With heavyweight lobbying for Archer still continuing.

I suppose it would be silly of me to suggest they buy both k9 & boxer.
My view probably isn't a popular one...but...for once lets not go for the new, shiny and unproven...lets go proven and cheaper. A mix of ongoing projects and upgrades.

AS-90 Braveheart upgrade - Krab is working well in Ukraine so why re-invent the wheel?...only go for the 55 cal barrel that the US is moving to. Comparatively cheap, low risk with low training burden.
M777-ER - Keeps Barrow in business, cheap as chips in comparison to SPG's, has utility with 16AAB and RM. We could even put some in reserve...55 cal barrel again
M270A2 - Carry on with that, and with increasing numbers as planned. Add in LPS, PrSM, JFS-M, GMLRS-ER and GLSDB (because its cheap for mass)
Resurrect LIMAWS(R)....could even get some export orders. Again really useful for 16AAB and RM. I'm ambivalent about resurrecting. LIMAWS(G) particularly with the longer barrel...suspect it wouldn't work as a portee, but still could be useful as Prime Mover.
Project Serpens - Look to increase the number of radars...

Apart from that? Spend any left over cash on the following...
- Resurrect barrel manufacturing....we own Forgemasters now...
- Artillery propellant...has to be onshored
- Pay BAE a bunce to increase arty shell production capacity in the UK....and mothball if not required...
- Arm Watchkeeper with the Fury munition...easy peasy
- Every SPG has to have an RWS capable of detecting and defending against loitering munitions and UAV's..
- Chuck all the cash into ammo and AD...

The long term smart move is to re-nationalise Royal Ordnance and accept that BAE's stewardship of the Land Division has been a disaster...

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Timmymagic wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 15:31 ...only go for the 55 cal barrel that the US is moving to.
I guess you meant 58 cal. US is not moving to 58 cal but adding to already existing M109A7 and M777 with 52 cal guns. M1299 will not replace M109A7 but compliment it on divisional/corps level.
Timmymagic wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 15:31 M777-ER - Keeps Barrow in business, cheap as chips in comparison to SPG's, has utility with 16AAB and RM. We could even put some in reserve...55 cal barrel again
M777 shown that towed guns could be quite vulnerable on drone dominated battlefield. On the other side M119 is lighter and easier to conceal and seems like quite loved by Ukrainians.
Timmymagic wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 15:31 Resurrect LIMAWS(R)....could even get some export orders. Again really useful for 16AAB and RM. I'm ambivalent about resurrecting.
I am not sure what would be point of LIMAWS(R) if UK is getting long range munition for M270. Even if airdropped in the rear, I doubt 16AABCT
would even operate so far from frontline so that M270 would not be able to cover it. Same for RM which would probably operate at one commando strength, and RN would be able to support them with Tomahawk missiles or other weapons if needed.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Timmymagic »

sol wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 16:16 I guess you meant 58 cal. US is not moving to 58 cal but adding to already existing M109A7 and M777 with 52 cal guns. M1299 will not replace M109A7 but compliment it on divisional/corps level.
55 cal is the Next Generation Cannon which is derived from the XM351 ERC used on M777ER.
sol wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 16:16 M777 shown that towed guns could be quite vulnerable on drone dominated battlefield. On the other side M119 is lighter and easier to conceal and seems like quite loved by Ukrainians.
Not really. M777 has been in one of the most artillery dense conflicts for decades for 9 months now....with huge volumes of counter battery work undertaken. It's loss rate in those 9 months is around 25%, even then not all of the guns listed as destroyed are totally destroyed...that loss rate is actually comparable to the loss rate on Krab and M109 variants supplied to date....some of those losses have also been down to, what can only be described as shoddy practices, by the Ukrainian's...With M777ER you can also stand 20km further back....
sol wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 16:16 I am not sure what would be point of LIMAWS(R) if UK is getting long range munition for M270. Even if airdropped in the rear, I doubt 16AABCT
would even operate so far from frontline so that M270 would not be able to cover it. Same for RM which would probably operate at one commando strength, and RN would be able to support them with Tomahawk missiles or other weapons if needed.
We won't have that many PrSM. And with LPS being developed M270/LIMAWS(R) have other roles as well. Tomahawk supporting RM will never happen....the missiles cost too much (we have 65 of them in total), you're reliant on an SSN being in range in a firing box (unlikely). And who wants to wait for an hour+ for fire support to arrive?

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 15:31 My view probably isn't a popular one...but...for once lets not go for the new, shiny and unproven...lets go proven and cheaper. A mix of ongoing projects and upgrades.
Agree that mass is a very real issue in the British Army, however the use of auto loaded artillery systems with Multi round simultaneous hit could be a real capability enhancer allowing fewer guns be more widely dispersed but with a similar effect

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sunstersun »

The answer is the Boxer.

Most of the artillery game is not being spotted. If you're spotted by a drone, the difference in armor isn't that useful. Add on a fortune in logistical savings and it's a pretty good deal.
These users liked the author sunstersun for the post:
Djpowell1984

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

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

sunstersun wrote: 16 Feb 2023, 18:41 The answer is the Boxer.

Most of the artillery game is not being spotted. If you're spotted by a drone, the difference in armor isn't that useful. Add on a fortune in logistical savings and it's a pretty good deal.
Spotted by a drone armed with what?

Post Reply