AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)

[marktigger]

with AS90 they had to move the firing points on the plain

[RetroSicotte]

You know, depending on the way you read that article, there is a certain inclination of a supplement to the L118, and then an additional purchase of a wheeled or towed 155.

105mm and 155mm Howitzers with 120mm mortars perhaps? I can hardly see this budget not doing "instead of" in the end though.

[mr.fred]

I find the awareness that it will be always invariably outranged by its adversaries rather more concerning

I'd view fire control and handling as superior to range any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Field artillery isn't getting in gun duels anyway, we've go MLRS and aviation as the primary counter-battery assets.
Historically, "my ordnance is bigger than yours" doesn't mean as much as the skill of the guys using what they have.

[Gabriele]

Field artillery isn't getting in gun duels anyway, we've go MLRS and aviation as the primary counter-battery assets.

Good to know that you have got the enemy to sign a contract saying that they will not put in their vote and will wait restrain from countering with their own rockets and aviation.

[mr.fred]

Keep a few rounds of extended range ammunition for counter-battery and targets of opportunity, by all means, but if there is a choice between range and training, I'm going to pick training.
That way I don't need a contract from the opposition saying that they'll wait for my gunners to get up to speed.

[RetroSicotte]

The point Gabe is making is that even the extended range munition available to the current gun is shorter ranged than opposition systems. Even our MLRS are outranged by equivilents, so they aren't a counter either.

And to think that they are untrained and lack fire direction technology that at least equals our own is folly, the same folly Ukraine blundered into. We saw how that turned out for them.

Doesn't matter how good a knife-fighter you are if your opponent is wielding a rifle.

[marktigger]

our conventional artillery has been sidelined as the Light Gun was to the fore in afghanistan backed by Apache/Harrier/Tornado and coalition airpower. we now need to rebuild it that includes AS90 upgrades and Light gun replacement. And what to do about MLRS it needs long range guided projectiles, Area attack munitions and ?special weapons?

[LordJim]

Artillery as with all branches of the Army have to be re-equipped and re-organised to fight in a conflict where air superiority isn't a definite and the other guy can reach out and touch you. The people at the top still seem to be un willing to acknowledge this and allocate sufficient resources to allow the above to take pace at anything other than a snail's pace, meaning we are going to slip further behind and spend more for less.

Also if air power is off the table then it doesn't mater matter how advanced your artillery is if your opponent can plaster your location with tons of cheap dumb ordonnance, something the Russians have in abundance. I am a fan of the M777 but we need the AS90 because in any high level conflict our Artillery is going to have to shoot and scoot as its life will depend on it. The M777 portee in the other post could be an answer but again it is a matter of resources and the Army has less that half it needs to re-equip properly and in a timely fashion.

[marktigger]

Its also the reason the Royal Artillery needs to re build the Air defence Regiments both regular and reserve!

[ArmChairCivvy]

The people at the top still seem to be un willing to acknowledge this and allocate sufficient resources to allow the above to take pace at anything other than a snail's pace

I agree with everything you say... but, they might be facing the dilemma of preserving the overall strength vs how fast you go?

the Royal Artillery needs to re build the Air defence Regiments both regular and reserve!

Ohh! I'd love to see the DAG(s) come back (128 guns plus the more modern pepper)... to get the latter included, the AD Rgmnts could be drawn from the reserves.
- DAG(s)... just one would be nice

[mr.fred]

The point Gabe is making is that even the extended range munition available to the current gun is shorter ranged than opposition systems. Even our MLRS are outranged by equivilents, so they aren't a counter either.

Yes, and the point I am making is that range is not necessarily the most important aspect for field artillery like the AS90. Given a choice between range and training, I recommend training. It would be nice if we could afford range and training, but that may not be an option because of financial constraints and it may be limited by the availability of suitable training areas.
If our counter-battery assets are outranged, then it would make more sense to provide them with a range boost first before worrying about a fairly modest range boost for our most mobile and best protected field artillery.

And to think that they are untrained and lack fire direction technology that at least equals our own is folly, the same folly Ukraine blundered into. We saw how that turned out for them.

So we need to know how to disrupt their target acquisition while enhancing our own. Range is no good if you haven't got the capability to acquire targets to make use of it. Before we up gun the field artillery we need the radar, UAVs, EW and other ISTAR assets to find targets and EW, ECM, and counter-recce assets to stop the opposition doing the same to us.

Doesn't matter how good a knife-fighter you are if your opponent is wielding a rifle.

Doesn't matter if you have a rifle if you don't know how to use it.
A shorter range rifle with a better sight will frequently out-shoot a theoretically longer-range rifle
A smaller calibre rifle can outshoot a longer range rifle if rate of fire, ease of logistics supply and ease of mobility is taken into account.
You don't attempt to outrange a snipers rifle/heavy machine gun with the standard issue infantry arm.

[RetroSicotte]

To say that those the UK must measure itself against don't know how to use their weapons is a terrible assumption to make.

You're talking as though money to acquire 52 cal guns will remove all training from the forces and reduce them to weekend basics or something. It's not a black and white one or the other. It's always a sliding scale.

[Gabriele]

Also, i can imagine problems with ER ammunition like Vulcano reaching beyond 100 km, but i can't possibly imagine that training can't be arranged for a 30+ km 155/52. If Strike 155 progresses and buys something like Archer and CAESAR, that's what will come online.

Training will be adapted, through training rounds, simulation and BATUS / Sennelager. The germans use the Pzh2000 with the 52 calibre barrel: if they can train, an AS90 52 could too.

I agree on the importance of EW and weapon locating sensors, instead. But thankfully they are looking to restarting the Common Weapon Locating Radar programme to replace MAMBA and the already gone COBRA.
EW is also supposedly going to make a resurgence after the disgrace of Soothsayer's cancellation.

[mr.fred]

To say that those the UK must measure itself against don't know how to use their weapons is a terrible assumption to make.

I agree.

You're talking as though money to acquire 52 cal guns will remove all training from the forces and reduce them to weekend basics or something. It's not a black and white one or the other. It's always a sliding scale.

Yes, some of what I've written could be taken like that. In fairness though, each time I make that sort of statement I do tend to caveat it. If there is a choice to make, then I favour training and being able to train.
As we dig further into the issue, it's more the case that there are many areas that need the money and slightly increasing the range of these SPGs should be, IMHO, way down the list behind performance enhancements to other systems and other, new, systems that will enhance artillery as a whole far more than a few km more range on field guns. Training would be performance enhancement.

Also, i can imagine problems with ER ammunition like Vulcano reaching beyond 100 km, but i can't possibly imagine that training can't be arranged for a 30+ km 155/52. If Strike 155 progresses and buys something like Archer and CAESAR, that's what will come online.

Training will be adapted, through training rounds, simulation and BATUS / Sennelager. The germans use the Pzh2000 with the 52 calibre barrel: if they can train, an AS90 52 could too.

Limitations on training areas may be a bit of a red herring, but not something that should be ignored without consideration.

[marktigger]

reduced ranges can be used in uk but you could use full charge in places like BATUS

[Ron5]

Artillery as with all branches of the Army have to be re-equipped and re-organised to fight in a conflict where air superiority isn't a definite and the other guy can reach out and touch you.

Surely the preferred answer is to invest in regaining the air superiority?

Which, by the way, I don't think we have conceded to anyone. We=NATO. Although the gap might be closing.

The easiest answer for the UK is to buy more F-35's (only 8 on order) and to enhance existing & on order Typhoons. All that is needed is money and the will to spend it

[RetroSicotte]

Biggest issue with air presence is not so much the protracted nature of air dominance (And it is a very very protracted thing to achieve). It's countering the denial of airspace from the ground.

[Ron5]

Sorry but I don't understand your comment.

Do you mean that NATO has lost the ability to attack land targets because of the advances in Russian and Chinese ground based air defenses? If so, it's very hard to know if that is correct. The previous generation of Russian air defense got whupped in Desert Storm. The F-35 has been specifically developed to handle the latest.

[marktigger]

NATO has lost its ability to Control airspace from ground or air because of the running down of Air Defence assets both in terms of Aircraft and GBAD systems. As Afghan centric policies have destroyed these capabilities because "the Taliban don't have aircraft" mentality!

[mr.fred]

NATO has lost its ability to Control airspace from ground or air because of the running down of Air Defence assets both in terms of Aircraft and GBAD systems.

I think that you are wrong, at least in terms of aircraft, and possibly also in terms of GBAD.

As Afghan centric policies have destroyed these capabilities because "the Taliban don't have aircraft" mentality!

I'm not entirely sure that's true either.

The British Army's GBAD systems are Starstreak and Rapier - both are fairly short range and, compared to fixed wing aviation and smart missiles, increasingly obsolete. Even had the Middle Eastern adventures not taken place, they would still be in the process of being phased out.
The replacement systems is CAMM(L) which is supposedly due for 2020 - I've not heard anything off that project of late. If it is adopted, then it provides an effective anti-air capability
As for the rest of NATO, There have been a number of purchases and developments - SAMP/T, THAAD and PAC3 spring to mind.

As air superiority goes, the purchases of fighter aircraft have shrunk, but development of upgrades continues. The Meteor missile is a performance enhancer for anything it's fitted to.

That's how I see it, so I'd be interested to hear why you think that we are at the bottom of a downward slope?

[marktigger]

NATO has lost its ability to Control airspace from ground or air because of the running down of Air Defence assets both in terms of Aircraft and GBAD systems.

I think that you are wrong, at least in terms of aircraft, and possibly also in terms of GBAD.

As Afghan centric policies have destroyed these capabilities because "the Taliban don't have aircraft" mentality!

I'm not entirely sure that's true either.

Really the Air Defence Regiments were reduced to release manpower for the field regiments and most of the Army reserve regiments (bar 1) were converted to field! There was even debate with CAMM that the Regiment shouldn't get them and shouldn't even attempt to get them that they should be given to the RAF Regiment!

[mr.fred]

So the AD regiments have been run down - their equipment is becoming obsolescent and had no role in the current conflict - that behaviour was seen towards the end of WW2.
As to who owns them, does it matter that much? As long as the armed forces have them, does the cap-badge or service matter?
Given the move in aircraft to stand-off weapons and release at higher altitudes, the need for organic GBAD is limited to low altitude drones and attack helicopters. In some ways it makes sense for the RAF to own the longer-range GBAD so as to ensure that there is no conflict between SAMs and its own aircraft.

So is there a loss of institutional knowledge with the re-roling of AD regiments, and is it severe given the changing nature of air warfare and limited scope of the current GBAD systems?
And what is the problem with aircraft?
Should this debate be in a different thread?

[RetroSicotte]

Sorry but I don't understand your comment.

Do you mean that NATO has lost the ability to attack land targets because of the advances in Russian and Chinese ground based air defenses? If so, it's very hard to know if that is correct. The previous generation of Russian air defense got whupped in Desert Storm. The F-35 has been specifically developed to handle the latest.

It would be folly of the highest order to pass off modern ground to air defences. There is an enormous difference between "air superiority" and "air supremecy". NATO would have air superiority from day one, in that they have an advantage in the air. Air Supremecy is when you have absolute control and complete safety in the air. Contempary foes have hundreds of SAMs, thousands of SHORAD assets, longer ranged naval bubbles of AAW than before, longer ranged aircraft to move in and out of areas to intercept.

The amount of time it would take to wipe out well hidden SAM systems that can lurk hundreds of kilometres away from an air sortie's location alone, to track, evade, locate and strike them, would be enormous. Until that threat is neutralised completely, the vast majority of missions to support troops at the front line are going to be having a lot of trouble. F-22 isn't enough of a strike plane yet, F-35 is barely in service right now. The onus still falls to older SEAD missionss like Tornado, F-16, Growlers and suchlike.

Knowing that airspace has nothing capable of throwing a missile into it is a nightmare scenario to have to assure. Thats why you can't count on having air supremecy to throw any aircraft for any amount of time like we've done in say, Afghanistan. Heck, even in Libya, which had a pitifully outdated air defence network, many aircraft weren't dared to enter it until it was reduced. Even then, Apache's got missiles shot at them.

You can't rely on air support for every single engagement in a hot contempary war. There is simply no way to assure air supremecy in any sort of workable timetable. (That and aircraft often have better tasks they need to be doing) Thats why you need artillery to be capable and modern to support the front line independantly without relying on air support to shoulder most of the burden.

[Ron5]

Thanks for the reply. Clarified matters.

[RetroSicotte]

No problem. Apologies if it got a little "directed", it's been a particular subject in some more divisive debates at work right now. :p