UK Mobile Fires Platform

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Rentaghost wrote: 22 Mar 2022, 08:53 the close support MPF equipped regiments would deploy from the current "deep recce but actually just a DIVARTY" BCT to the heavy BCTs and the tactical groups would then work from those BCT Ajax regiments. Meanwhile the actual deployed deep recce BCT would be two regiments (or really one and a half) of MLRS with Ajax and (bizarrely) Jackal screening in front of the heavy BCTs.
Reading, err leafing thru, Future Soldier definitely leaves that impression. Units with 'rocketry' were, prior to the publishing of F.S., unsurprisingly labelled as divisional fires.

Concept has changed, but the real beef is in the choice of the new platform. As in whether it will be wheeled and thus able to deploy across the area of ops of a division or even a corps (a multinational such, obviously).
- if so, the AS90s should get the Braveheart turrets and become integral to the heavy BCTs (2 mapping onto 2)
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

Are you proposing two 155mm system here, Braveheart plus a wheeled platform, or suggesting that we should purchase HIMARS? I am a little confused/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 May 2022, 22:21 I am a little confused/
No worries, read again (and delete yr favorite HIMARS that I did not mention)
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok, lets have another go.
We will get a new wheeled 155,, SP Gun That will be able to work with our Deep Fires BCT and provide fire support across multiple BCTs and allied formation, but we should also upgrade the AS-90, equipping it with the Braveheart Turret and Ammunition, in order to equip two Regiments, one for each Heavy BCT.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 24 May 2022, 13:13 We will get a new wheeled 155,, SP Gun That will be able to work with our Deep Fires BCT and provide fire support across multiple BCTs and allied formation, but we should also upgrade the AS-90, equipping it with the Braveheart Turret and Ammunition, in order to equip two Regiments, one for each Heavy BCT.
UK will get a new 155mm SP Gun, it is not decided will it be wheeled or tracked. But whichever is picked it should replace all AS-90, as it would be a bad to have two systems. I also doubt that upgrading AS-90 with a new turret would be either a cheep or good long turn solution. If Army needs more than two 155 regiments than just order more vehicles. Also tracked 155, like K9, could be just a good option as any wheeled platform, for deep recce and working with allies.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

sol wrote: 24 May 2022, 18:00 should replace all AS-90, as it would be a bad to have two systems.
Divisional fires on wheels... have them where needed. Plus rocketry with more range, but with less sustained weight of fire.
Integral Heavy BCT fires on tracks; can keep up, and even w/o upgrade 'fit for purpose'

So: good... and good.

What is not good is the two (same) regiments masquerading as both, no?
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 24 May 2022, 18:09
sol wrote: 24 May 2022, 18:00 should replace all AS-90, as it would be a bad to have two systems.
Divisional fires on wheels... have them where needed. Plus rocketry with more range, but with less sustained weight of fire.
Integral Heavy BCT fires on tracks; can keep up, and even w/o upgrade 'fit for purpose'

So: good... and good.

What is not good is the two (same) regiments masquerading as both, no?
What are the Heavy BCT "keeping up" with!? We're not an invading force. We're not using these vehicles offensively in any way, and we're certainly not going to be fighting an offensive battle on open plains in wherever land.

If we're having 2 platforms, let's still have one gun. But that's either mean a L60 on tracks (too big maybe) or a L52 on wheels (not big enough).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 24 May 2022, 22:59 What are the Heavy BCT "keeping up" with!? [1] We're not an invading force. We're not using these vehicles offensively[2] in any way, and we're certainly not going to be fighting an offensive battle on open plains in wherever land.

If we're having 2 platforms, let's still have one gun.[3]
[1] Our MBTs... I am hearing that we will still have some
[2] I have so far thought that you are a military man, ie. educated at least in tactics. Have you ever heard of a counter-offensive? Or has someone brainwashed you, making that a 'no-no'... can't possibly do that, under any circumstances
[3] What a good idea

... so you are still in the game: two down, but coming up strong (as in [3]) when the final straight is opening...
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Mr Carrot
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 25 May 2022, 19:39
RunningStrong wrote: 24 May 2022, 22:59 What are the Heavy BCT "keeping up" with!? [1] We're not an invading force. We're not using these vehicles offensively[2] in any way, and we're certainly not going to be fighting an offensive battle on open plains in wherever land.

If we're having 2 platforms, let's still have one gun.[3]
[1] Our MBTs... I am hearing that we will still have some
Do you expect us to be using MBT on open plains fighting offensively? 1980s doctrine...
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 25 May 2022, 19:39 [2] I have so far thought that you are a military man, ie. educated at least in tactics. Have you ever heard of a counter-offensive? Or has someone brainwashed you, making that a 'no-no'... can't possibly do that, under any circumstances
LMAO, at what point are you expecting a counter offensive to be a fast moving affair?

Perhaps join us in 2022 and then we can all have a honest discussion on tactics. Until then, you keep thumbing the pages on your 1989 TAM.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 25 May 2022, 20:04 Do you expect us to be using MBT on open plains fighting offensively? 1980s doctrine...
You seem to have an obsession about open plains... did I mention any such?
RunningStrong wrote: 25 May 2022, 20:04LMAO
You speak in code... please retransmit
RunningStrong wrote: 25 May 2022, 20:04 at what point are you expecting a counter offensive to be a fast moving affair?
What sort of question is that... At what point do you expect the offensive that we need to respond to ... to be a 'fast moving' affair??
RunningStrong wrote: 25 May 2022, 20:04 thumbing the pages on your 1989 TAM.
More code... please explain yourself!
... or is it just a bad day?
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Mr Carrot
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

Personally I strongly believe that is we are to have a combination of heavy and light BCTs our new 155mm SP platform needs to be able to operate effectively with both. It needs to be tactically as mobile as possible as well as being able to move far greater distances under its own power and not need to tie up any HETs, which will be needed for our Challenger 3s and Ajax. Cross country there is little difference between a modern large wheeled 8x8 and a tracked platform, or at least not enough to make a real difference. However any platform will still need to be operated with its crew protected to a certain level, either in the turret or remotely form the front. It must have a high rate for fire for rapid MRSI type missions, have a reasonable on board ammunition supply and be easily and rapidly reloaded. The front runners for me are the Boxer RCH155 and Archers, with the MAS armoured 155 truck up there also. Systems like Caesar should be excluded as the crew are too exposed when operating the Gun.

We must also look at the benefits wheeled platforms have over tracked ones as a whole. Firstly they are usually cheaper both the purchase and maintain. Secondly it is easier to train the crew especially the drivers, and they have better resistance to mines. All of these must impact any decision, especially when funding it tight. I partly agree that in an ideal world the Heavy BCT could use a tracked platform, most likely the K9A2 being developed. But as over half teh vehicle in the Heavy BCT will be wheeled, with Boxers being in the Armoured Regiments to replace the old FV432 series in admin and support roles in addition to the two Mechanised Infantry Battalions, for example. Therefore there is no need for a tracked platform in order to keep the BCT together and operating at teh speed of its slowest platform, most likely the Challenger 3s.

The talk of open planes does have some relevancy, as the areas in Eastern Europe we are likely to operate do contain such terrain in addition to the more obvious forested areas. Our BCTs will need to stay mobile, whether in defence of on teh offence, much like we were supposed to be in the Cold War of teh last century. Regarding mobility, one lesson learnt form the first Gulf War was that the UK's Division was hindered by the inability of its artillery to keep up, and that was in what is probably the better terrain for armoured warfare. In the Baltics and Poland we will, like our opponent be forced onto set routes trough these forested areas. Combat Engineering platforms like our Terrier are going to be vital to maintain the mobility of both tracked and wheeled platforms for any attempt not to use recognised roads tracks.

So whilst I have p reference for wheeled vehicles obviously, as I see little advantage of tracks these days, we must get a new systems into service before 2030 not after it. We need to concentrate on ensuring we get the best performing gun on a platform that has growth potential to absorb future developments. We must speed up and protect the sensor to shooter kill chain, to the next level. We must also ensure our tube artillery has a greater effect on all types of AFV beyond using precision rounds to engage individual vehicles. We need a cargo round like BONUS as a matter of the greatest urgency. We also need a man portable Joint Fires capability, especially for out lighter forces. Finally we need to be able to fully integrate with the forces of our allies at any point in the Kill Chain.

WE that is my little speech for the day done.

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 25 May 2022, 21:02
RunningStrong wrote: 25 May 2022, 20:04 Do you expect us to be using MBT on open plains fighting offensively? 1980s doctrine...
You seem to have an obsession about open plains... did I mention any such?
So we need large tracked SPG to keep up with MBT doing what then? :lol:

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by sunstersun »

Poland going for 500 HIMARS.

I think the UK should add HIMARS due to the need for long range fires, but also the combination with US Marines. They've done a lot of work on navalizing the HIMARS for use in the Pacific.
These users liked the author sunstersun for the post (total 3):
jedibeeftrixArmChairCivvyLord Jim

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by NickC »

Mentioned previously last year that MoD placed £315 million contract with Lockheed to update 44 M270 launchers to A2 standard to fire the new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), range ~ 500 km, expected in service ~2024 replacing the ~300 km MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) fired from both the tracked M270 and wheeled HIMARS. Presuming £315 includes cost of the PrSMs, how many have not seen any numbers, (FY23 budget US Army showing $1.8 million cost per PrSM).

PS British Army never acquired the ATACMS and used the M270 for firing the shorter range M26 artillery rocket, GMLRS
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: 27 May 2022, 11:36 Mentioned previously last year that MoD placed £315 million contract with Lockheed to update 44 M270 launchers to A2 standard to fire the new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM),
Interestingly the nations mentioned for the missile upgrade and the fire control system for the same do not match 100%.
- the missile of course comes 'as is' from the production line
- but what's the story wit the improved fire control (read as 'targeting') ?
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting to know that the strength of a UK M270 Battery is eighteen launchers. Currently we have one regular Regiment and one Reserve Regiment. The latter has only twelve launchers in peacetime rising to eighteen in wartime. We have a total of fifty four launchers but we are only upgrading forty four of them. So that gives us the two planned Regular Regiments as well as a Reserve of eight launchers.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 26 May 2022, 01:26 one lesson learnt form the first Gulf War was that the UK's Division was hindered by the inability of its artillery to keep up, and that was in what is probably the better terrain for armoured warfare. In the Baltics and Poland we will, like our opponent be forced onto set routes trough these forested areas."

Oopps... so never mind the bridging.
- at what level in the formations are the 'movement enablers' going to be? The Terriers being he foremost (55 of them, I think)
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

Which is why we could do with a combat engineering version of the Boxer. It could supplement the Terriers working with out three Heavier BCTs but also be transportable and mobile enough to work with the Lighter ones, Airmobile excepted.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

At the BG level (again excepting bridging assets as they are for 'special' situations), one would need to be prepared to have assets for enabling movement on two different axes

... so how many would that be then?

You can already guess that I will come up with the count of BGs with the Army (incl. the Reserves) fully mobilised (as in 8-) mobilisation).
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: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

On the plus side there is a jopint programme with the Germans to expand out s and theirs holdings of M3 Amphibious Ferries as the current amount is deemed insufficent to enable mobile units to freely manoeuvre over water crossing. To think at one stage we were going to get rid of the lot! Great piece of kit, maybe another Yeomanry unit to support the BCTs in wartime and with civil emergencies in the UK like flooding and destruction of road bridges for example.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
warspite

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 27 May 2022, 21:38 Interesting to know that the strength of a UK M270 Battery is eighteen launchers. Currently we have one regular Regiment and one Reserve Regiment. The latter has only twelve launchers in peacetime rising to eighteen in wartime. We have a total of fifty four launchers but we are only upgrading forty four of them. So that gives us the two planned Regular Regiments as well as a Reserve of eight launchers.
Both 3rd Regiment RHA and 26th Regiment RA will have only two MLRS batteries. Same for 101st (TA) Regiment RA, which will provide fully formed battery for both regular regiment. So in total 6 MLRS batteries, 4 regular and 2 TA. That would mean 36 launchers, with 8 left for training and reserve.

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 26 May 2022, 01:26 Personally I strongly believe that is we are to have a combination of heavy and light BCTs our new 155mm SP platform needs to be able to operate effectively with both. It needs to be tactically as mobile as possible as well as being able to move far greater distances under its own power and not need to tie up any HETs, which will be needed for our Challenger 3s and Ajax. Cross country there is little difference between a modern large wheeled 8x8 and a tracked platform, or at least not enough to make a real difference. However any platform will still need to be operated with its crew protected to a certain level, either in the turret or remotely form the front. It must have a high rate for fire for rapid MRSI type missions, have a reasonable on board ammunition supply and be easily and rapidly reloaded. The front runners for me are the Boxer RCH155 and Archers, with the MAS armoured 155 truck up there also. Systems like Caesar should be excluded as the crew are too exposed when operating the Gun.
There's nothing light about the 155 options, wheeled or otherwise. You're looking at 35-45t. The heaviest combat vehicles otherwise being Jackal and Coyote vehicles.

You also need to consider that the wheeled options of Boxer vehicle versus a truck chassis (Rheinmetall MAN 10x10, BAE Archer, Caesar 8x8 etc). There are differences in their off road and on road ability.

I don't see how HIMARS would benefit the new structure. What's the benefit of it's capability for deep fires in a light or expeditionary force? I'm unsure why then USMC or RM would choose to bring an asset with limited short-range capability (or value) ashore when the naval support should be equipped to provide similar surface to surface effects.

I can see the benefit of moving away from the GMLRS tracked chassis to a full-12 missile wheeled vehicle, on a MAN chassis.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

It is really recycling the constant tracked vs wheeled debate. The latter as you pointed out is then further divided nto AFV chassis, usually an 8x8 and one based on a military truck chassis with a protected cab. The former is obviously teh more expensive but has cross country mobility almost equal to that of tracked platform, Both do however offer superior road mobility and importantly an ability to self deploy without the need to utilise any of the valuable HETS, for which better uses could be found. Add to this the cost savings in operating costs and crew training and one can start to see the appeal of a wheeled chassis.

As pointed out none of these can be considered lightweight platforms, but a wheeled platform would be far more easily integrated into a light BCTs as well as the Heavy and Deep Fires BCTs.

HIMARS is more flexible, as is the M270, than what can currently be delivered from out of a Mk41 VLS. Yes both can be used in the precision strike role, but HIMARS has the option to use cargo rockets laying AT munition for example. Both these vehicles will be able to fire the US Army's new long range precision strike missile with a range of around 500km. It is the ability of HIMARS to easily cooperate in conjunction with a Wheeled 155mm SP platform, bringing the same cost benefits.

Looking to the future I can see the need for three instead of two Artillery Regiments equipped with a 8x8 155mm SP Gun, though I wouldn't rule out Archer. These would provide indirect fire support for both Heavy ad Light BCTs and work with a single Regiment equipped with HIMARS. Whereas the tracked M270 Regiments have a compliment of eighteen launch vehicles, I would suggest the HIMARS equipped Regiment has twenty four launch vehicles. The Purchase of HIMARS brings the benefit of a vehicles that already has all the improved capabilities the planned M270 upgrade, It would also get the new capabilities into service faster given the slow pace the Army has set for teh modernisation programme of the forty four M270s selected to go through the programme. One thing that is glaringly obvious from the war in Ukraine is that the British Ary need more heavy, mobile Artillery and the above would meet that need.

The Royal Marines were mentioned and here I cannot see the need for them to bring any artillery ashore, either towed of self propelled, instead relying on their integral 81mm Mortars. Heavier systems would only hinder any Commando Raiding operation. So in this case fire support from afloat would need to be provided, most effectively by either a HIMARS or M270s on the deck of the LSG's MRSS. The current Royal Horse Artillery unit designated to support the Royal Marines would instead become the HIMARS equipped Regiment and would support the Army's BCTs, ensuring it doesn't allow its skills in operations in difficult conditions wither away.

In addition to the two classes of Mobile Fires mentioned already, there is also a need for a long range/overwatch missile system, with a range of at least 25km. This could be anyone of a number of current and planned systems, from Spike-NLOS to ground launched SPEAR 3, though the latter is probably less likely. My choice after much soul searching would be a ground launched version of Brimstone 3 enhanced with a "Man in the loop", capability. This would allow such a system to either carry out single precision strikes or volley fired to engage larger Enemy AFV formations.

Such a system would be invaluable to our Airmobile BCT, which is likely to end up the only BCT supported by towed RO 105mm Light Guns. Work should be carried out to develop a lightweight SP or Portee version of the 105mm that can be carried under slung beneath a Chinook. Personally I would like to see the introduction of a modern 120mm Mortar, with ae abundantly available, cheap to purchase as is the ammunition, but has the option to use far more sophisticated precision and dispenser rounds. Both the 105mm and 120mm would have to operate within Counter Battery range, but the 120mm should be quicker to bring into and out of action whether being towed or an SP platform.

Moving forwards the British Army needs to greatly increase the lethality and accuracy of it artillery both against Enemy Troop concentrations and in Counter Battery roles, using MRSI fire missions as standard. In NATO operations we have become too used to having air dominance, which we and our Allies may not actually have in a future conflict, possible having contested airspace as the best result. Therefore artillery will increase in importance. MoD planner will neglect this requirement at their peril when the balloon goes up!

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

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 It is really recycling the constant tracked vs wheeled debate.
Not at all. It's a question of size, regardless of the means of propulsion.

To repeat, there's nothing light about a 155 SPG regardless of wheels or tracked. Nor the ammunition carriers. Nor the recovery vehicle (SVR or CRAAV).

Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 As pointed out none of these can be considered lightweight platforms, but a wheeled platform would be far more easily integrated into a light BCTs ....
But why? They're completely incompatible with the doctrine of the BCT.
Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 HIMARS is more flexible, as is the M270, than what can currently be delivered from out of a Mk41 VLS. Yes both can be used in the precision strike role, but HIMARS has the option to use cargo rockets laying AT munition for example. Both these vehicles will be able to fire the US Army's new long range precision strike missile with a range of around 500km. It is the ability of HIMARS to easily cooperate in conjunction with a Wheeled 155mm SP platform, bringing the same cost benefits.
But HIMARS is a lightweight solution intended for rapid deployability. I can't see any reason why a light force would also require a land-launched 500km precision strike capability.

The medium and heavy units should have a full 12-pack launcher equipped, on wheels if necessary.
Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 The current Royal Horse Artillery unit designated to support the Royal Marines would instead become the HIMARS equipped Regiment and would support the
29 Commando support the Royal Marines with indirect fires.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the need for a Brimstone Overwatch platform with a 30 to 40 km should be high up the list followed by a upgrade to Spear 3 with a 80 to 100 km range

If we could get the Motorized BCT's to a place where there Artillery support was made up of

Coyote based 105mm SP gun
Coyote based Brimstone ground launcher
Foxhound basted Air defence system
UAV battery

it would be in a good place
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

Post Reply