Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
I’d say that Caesar is a L0 on the basis that the crew are unprotected during operation.
The only L4 protected SPG I know of off hand is the PzH2000, although the Boxer variant might be able to claim it too.
The only L4 protected SPG I know of off hand is the PzH2000, although the Boxer variant might be able to claim it too.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Indeed, reading the small print it specifies that protection for the cabin only. So it'd appear the RFI isn't entirely written for Caesar.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
From Jane's Defence Weekly...
The RFI confirms that the British Army wishes to acquire an estimated 98 self-propelled guns to equip four Royal Artillery close support regiments, along with training and support packages.
“MFP’s rapid into/out of action times and mobility [will] ensure tactical agility, and [increased] survivability - making it very difficult for the enemy to kill,” the RFI specifies.
Initial objective requirements state the MFP should have a firing range of up to 80 km; a five-round multiple round simultaneous impact (MRSI) at 25 km, along with a sustained suppressive fire rate of 20 rounds a minute for up to 10 minutes; and STANAG 4569 level 4 protection standards. It should take 20 seconds to prepare to fire and another 20 seconds to leave once firing is complete.
It is also desired that the MFP can travel up to 2,000 km into an area of operations with 95% availability, although whether it is tracked or wheeled has not been specified. An objective requirement for the MFP is for it to be possibly transported by a C-130, although a C-17 is more likely.
These draft major user requirements could change as the MoD engages with industry.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
I suspect the prolific Russian use of counter battery fire in the Donbas has rather increased the need for protection and rapid engagement and re-positioning. Caesar won't come out well in that assessment compared to SPG's with the crew protected.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
The requirements seem to not match up to any full ability. Things like Caesar aren't well protected enough, things like PzH2000 may not be fast/available/light enough, things like Boxer AGS much the same.
It sounds like they want a platform as fast as a wheeled APC, as well protected as a tracked SPG, and as light as Caesar.
Good luck on that one.
It sounds like they want a platform as fast as a wheeled APC, as well protected as a tracked SPG, and as light as Caesar.
Good luck on that one.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Sure they meant to say A400 and C-17. If not I don't have much faith in those issuing the RFI.Aethulwulf wrote:An objective requirement for the MFP is for it to be possibly transported by a C-130, although a C-17 is more likely.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
It looks like they are casting the net wide with the ideal, on the understanding that they won’t get it, but judging the balance of what is offered.
That said, some of it looks like a typo. 20 rounds per minute? That’s 1 tonne in shells alone. Over 10 minutes it’s more rounds than you’d be likely to have on the vehicle and the first supply truck.
That said, some of it looks like a typo. 20 rounds per minute? That’s 1 tonne in shells alone. Over 10 minutes it’s more rounds than you’d be likely to have on the vehicle and the first supply truck.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
20 RPM? Eeh, what's this cuckoo land they live in? Not even heavy mortars can reach that, light mortars just barely with proper procedures. Seems like you're shooting for the stars only to crash and burn.mr.fred wrote:It looks like they are casting the net wide with the ideal, on the understanding that they won’t get it, but judging the balance of what is offered.
That said, some of it looks like a typo. 20 rounds per minute? That’s 1 tonne in shells alone. Over 10 minutes it’s more rounds than you’d be likely to have on the vehicle and the first supply truck.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
On the plus side whatever we eventually end up getting will probably 52 calibre when it comes to tube artillery. The new ER missiles for the GMLRS wouldn't go amiss nor would the very long range ones aimed at replacing ATACMS or whatever it is called. Ideally moving to a HIMARs variant based on the same MAN chassis we already use would improve the deploy ability of these systems.
Like so many programmes we have a great opportunity here to deal with issues that have been around for ages, if the will and funding are available. We shall see.
Like so many programmes we have a great opportunity here to deal with issues that have been around for ages, if the will and funding are available. We shall see.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Like I said, probably a typo (2 rounds a minute sustained, more likely) or missing information (20 round per minute for a battery)Voldemort wrote:
20 RPM? Eeh, what's this cuckoo land they live in? Not even heavy mortars can reach that, light mortars just barely with proper procedures. Seems like you're shooting for the stars only to crash and burn.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
How about the Swedish Archer artillery system? I understand that provides much better protection for the crew than Caesar, although no doubt there’s an associated weight and cost penalty.RetroSicotte wrote:The requirements seem to not match up to any full ability. Things like Caesar aren't well protected enough, things like PzH2000 may not be fast/available/light enough, things like Boxer AGS much the same.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
The Archer has seen a lot of doubt and pulling out. Makes me question what it really is like.Simon82 wrote:How about the Swedish Archer artillery system? I understand that provides much better protection for the crew than Caesar, although no doubt there’s an associated weight and cost penalty.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
The plus was the platform (100 km/h transit speeds, goes through a meter of snow when that is required)RetroSicotte wrote:The Archer has seen a lot of doubt and pulling out. Makes me question what it really is like.
but the minuses
-the protected compartment got fumes into it... how can it be NBC then?
- and the platform did not have enough stabilisation, which rendered the much-vaunted MRSI capabilily ineffective
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Maybe we should dust off the old Supercat designs, but use modern variants of the weapon systems they used like the L52 version of the M777 and GMLRS and its longer range, guided rockets and even its 500Kn option. As I recall the designs were pretty mature when everything was cancelled.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Great piece of kit but very big and very heavy.
Somebody is going to have to do one of those Risk Assessments to work out which characteristics are a priority I order to narrow the field moving forward. Like a Tank what ever we end up choosing is going to be a compromise between the key properties. At the moment everything from a large towed gun to a rail gun is in the running.
Somebody is going to have to do one of those Risk Assessments to work out which characteristics are a priority I order to narrow the field moving forward. Like a Tank what ever we end up choosing is going to be a compromise between the key properties. At the moment everything from a large towed gun to a rail gun is in the running.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
I think “operational analysis” is the term you are looking for.
A protected wheeled chassis (probably Boxer) with the upgraded M777 ordnance (ERCA project) and the ability to fire Vulcano rounds would seem about the right place.
This thing is supposed to be be the field artillery for the mechanised and armoured formations, so making air transportation any kind of significant requirement would be unwise. The ability to do so might be useful, but not at the expense of other requirements. The Supercat based artillery systems were intended for light forces and would suffer too many compromises in durability, protection, capacity and the like.
A protected wheeled chassis (probably Boxer) with the upgraded M777 ordnance (ERCA project) and the ability to fire Vulcano rounds would seem about the right place.
This thing is supposed to be be the field artillery for the mechanised and armoured formations, so making air transportation any kind of significant requirement would be unwise. The ability to do so might be useful, but not at the expense of other requirements. The Supercat based artillery systems were intended for light forces and would suffer too many compromises in durability, protection, capacity and the like.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Basing the system on the Boxer makes sense, with a clean slate I would, as suggested have a Gun Module using the enhanced M777, but I would also develop a Ammo Module for a partner vehicle, similar to what the US Army did with the M109. For longer reach I would go with HIMARS but use the Armoured cabin version of the MAN truck already in use.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Boxer artillery? I had to Google that one. Looks very top heavy.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery ... rch155.htm
http://www.military-today.com/artillery ... rch155.htm
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
It might look so but it is stated it can fire at all elevations and azimuth up to charge 6, so the engineers have done their job. Its performance seems pretty good to, going into action, firing eight rounds and out of actions in 90 seconds. see below;
http://www.artec-boxer.com/fileadmin/do ... 8-2017.pdf
http://www.artec-boxer.com/fileadmin/do ... 8-2017.pdf
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Do you and I agree on something? Egad!Lord Jim wrote:Basing the system on the Boxer makes sense, with a clean slate I would, as suggested have a Gun Module using the enhanced M777, but I would also develop a Ammo Module for a partner vehicle, similar to what the US Army did with the M109. For longer reach I would go with HIMARS but use the Armoured cabin version of the MAN truck already in use.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Counter-battery by EW won't totally silence them:
"The Boxer RCH 155 has an advanced fire control system. It receives target data via radio or datalink. The gun is automatically laid using the fire control data. This howitzer is aimed and fired by the crew remotely from the cab. Though in case of emergency or failure this artillery system can be loaded and fired manually."
"The Boxer RCH 155 has an advanced fire control system. It receives target data via radio or datalink. The gun is automatically laid using the fire control data. This howitzer is aimed and fired by the crew remotely from the cab. Though in case of emergency or failure this artillery system can be loaded and fired manually."
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
We were bound to eventually as our goals are the same.mr.fred wrote:Do you and I agree on something? Egad!
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
I'm guessing this procurement is off the shelf. Hence the requirement can reasonably be expected to have been informed by capabilities which are available now (automatic loading), or could reasonably be expected to be developed in a few short years.
Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=376&p=93270#p93270
I’m sure that I’ve asked before, but why do we need this? Why do we need to encumber our light forces with bigger and heavier ordnance, and bigger and heavier logistics demands?Lord Jim wrote:We need to make a step change in the weight of artillery we use with the 120mm Mortar replacing the 81mm weapon at Battalion level in most units and replacing the 105mm Light Gun with a highly mobile, possibly air transportable 155mm weapon.