Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

In the AS90, Light Gun, Watchkeeper, STA and GBAD threads there are elements of what posters feel the direction of the Royal Regiment should take. Would it not be better to discuss the more general things separate from the equipment.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Certainly.

Pls remind me, as part of the trend towards "super-garrisons" did we get an artillery bde, out of which capability is divvied out as needed?
- I dont mean the reserve Rgmnts that are "local" to minimise travel time within the total available
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

look at who is based round Larkhill

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by WhitestElephant »

Whats towing the L118 these days?
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Gabriele »

Still Pinzgauers.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Spinflight »

Sadly with the ranges and accuracy that naval artillery can give you now why maintain heavy land based artillery that we'd have difficulty supplying?

They might have won us may wars but I suspect the harsh logic of logistics means their role is fading.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The biggest vehicle (re: Gabrielles post) that can be air-dropped.

A viking can be chinooked (even a Merlin can do that) when broken in two... thats about it, getting artillery going to places (and a Viking would be resupply; the dinky Jackalls and there fore-fathers can do the towing, in a tight spot).

Thats when you can outsmart/ out-manoeuvre an opponent. If you set a BA bde into a comparison with the motor rifle Russian counterpart, the artillery comparison is about 1 to 3-ish.
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The biggest vehicle (re: Gabrielles post) that can be air-dropped.

A viking can be chinooked (even a Merlin can do that) when broken in two... thats about it, getting artillery going to places (and a Viking would be resupply; the dinky Jackalls and there fore-fathers can do the towing, in a tight spot).

Thats when you can outsmart/ out-manoeuvre an opponent. If you set a BA bde into a comparison with the motor rifle Russian counterpart, the artillery comparison is about 1 to 3-ish.
if the gun is chinooked or merlined around, who needs a towing vehicle?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

Ron5 wrote:
if the gun is chinooked or merlined around, who needs a towing vehicle?
have you ever tried manhandling an L118 and its associated gear, Ammo etc over broken ground by hand? or move them any distance when you then don't have helicopters?

on another forum I put forward the proposal the Lynx should have been replaced by the AW139 to give the Army Air Corps some limited lift capability to improve flexibility. The RAF types exploded. But given the limited lift capability the UK has compared with other armed forces I felt this was reasonable.
To be effective and as mobile as artillery needs you either need dedicated lift or to have moved forward sufficient vehicles to be able to quickly and efficiently move the guns and their kit. Be it a lightweight vehicle with sufficient power to do so or the guns tractor.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote: The RAF types exploded.
We dont seem to have any here; a pity.
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Everything else you need (other than the gun and the crew) is on the second unit
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-conten ... Gun-02.jpg
although only half of it has made it to the image
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by marktigger »

and the 3rd carrying everything you need to support the crew

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Was it just a trial at the time?

You could have two underslung, and the third carried internally, but why bother when
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... -47_lg.jpg
one of these can can carry the same (combined) load?
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

Spinflight wrote:Sadly with the ranges and accuracy that naval artillery can give you now why maintain heavy land based artillery that we'd have difficulty supplying?
Because naval artillery has 100km or so range and there are plenty of places we might end up that are that or more from a coastline, much less a coastline we can access? Because we've only got a handful of ships with the appropriate weaponry? Because you can fit the same ammunition to land-based ordnance? Because this is a wind-up?
They might have won us may wars but I suspect the harsh logic of logistics means their role is fading.
Or that we need to be as, if not more, mindful of our logistics as we are of the shiny front-line toys?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:Because this is a wind-up?
Quite.
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

Am I missing something from the naval threads then?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No, you were quite right with your (speculative?) comment.
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

Digging up the old thread; it seemed the most appropriate place for this:
https://www.janes.com/article/87623/uk- ... d-howitzer
98 off, apparently. I would hazard for the Strike brigades, but could cover AS90 too. Hopefully Caesar gets kicked into the long grass early doors.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:Digging up the old thread; it seemed the most appropriate place for this:
https://www.janes.com/article/87623/uk- ... d-howitzer
98 off, apparently. I would hazard for the Strike brigades, but could cover AS90 too. Hopefully Caesar gets kicked into the long grass early doors.
Sounds like the RFI is written around Caesar.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:
Sounds like the RFI is written around Caesar.
Does it? I haven’t seen it.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

There is this:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... der-v2.pdf
via https://twitter.com/turnbulljourno
To replace AS90 as well, it seems. Small numbers.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Sounds like the RFI is written around Caesar.
I'd say Boxer with AGM is far more likely

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

From what I can see the DE&S is casting a very wide net, basically saying "This is what we are aiming to achieve and what have you got that might be able to do it". More important is that it is inferred that we are looking for an existing system, given the in service date, rather than developing a new on, and a lot is going to depend on which of the criteria is the most important. Is survivability more important than mobility and/or range for example. DE&S could therefore be looking at everything from the German PzHb2000 to Caesar and everything in between and around them. So in other words all options are open

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As already mentioned
"will be used to support both the armoured infantry and future Strike Brigades"
but
there will also be better rounds part&parcel in the purchase.
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)

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Defiance »

The requirements as written in the full article will mean Caesar needs an additional armour package. Requirement is for STANAG 4569 level 4 protection whereas Caesar bounces around level 2/3 depending on what you're trying to damage it with.

EDIT: Even then, doesn't Caesar need the crew to dismount and be exposed?

Post Reply