UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby mr.fred » 04 Apr 2019, 07:50

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.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Defiance » 04 Apr 2019, 08:01

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.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Aethulwulf » 04 Apr 2019, 09:04

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.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Timmymagic » 04 Apr 2019, 09:30

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.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2332
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby RetroSicotte » 04 Apr 2019, 09:46

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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Apr 2019, 14:54

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.


Sure they meant to say A400 and C-17. If not I don't have much faith in those issuing the RFI.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby mr.fred » 04 Apr 2019, 18:07

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.

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Voldemort » 04 Apr 2019, 19:42

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.


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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Apr 2019, 22:05

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.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby mr.fred » 04 Apr 2019, 23:02

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.

Like I said, probably a typo (2 rounds a minute sustained, more likely) or missing information (20 round per minute for a battery)

Simon82
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Simon82 » 11 Apr 2019, 11:50

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.


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
Site Admin
Posts: 2332
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Apr 2019, 12:57

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.

The Archer has seen a lot of doubt and pulling out. Makes me question what it really is like.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Apr 2019, 13:12

RetroSicotte wrote:The Archer has seen a lot of doubt and pulling out. Makes me question what it really is like.


The plus was the platform (100 km/h transit speeds, goes through a meter of snow when that is required)
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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Apr 2019, 16:28

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: 1142
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Tempest414 » 11 Apr 2019, 18:50

What about a South African G-6 Rhino

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Apr 2019, 20:18

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.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby mr.fred » 11 Apr 2019, 21:22

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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Apr 2019, 21:52

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.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Dahedd » 12 Apr 2019, 13:04

Boxer artillery? I had to Google that one. Looks very top heavy.

http://www.military-today.com/artillery ... rch155.htm

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Apr 2019, 16:25

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;
www.artec-boxer.com/fileadmin/documents ... 8-2017.pdf

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby mr.fred » 12 Apr 2019, 17:57

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.

Do you and I agree on something? Egad!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Apr 2019, 22:59

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."

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Apr 2019, 13:22

mr.fred wrote:Do you and I agree on something? Egad!


We were bound to eventually as our goals are the same. :)

J. Tattersall
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:30
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Postby J. Tattersall » 17 Apr 2019, 08:39

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.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 

 

cron