Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Some interesting discussion going on in the Boxer thread.

There is always the possibility the British Army could acquire a modular 155 module that is compatible with Boxer, Trucks (SV8x8) or even an ASCOD hull (with forward cab configuration).

Would we need all 3? Does Boxer offer a protection and mobility advantage over a Truck? Does a tracked chassis offer anything additional?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote:Some interesting discussion going on in the Boxer thread.

There is always the possibility the British Army could acquire a modular 155 module that is compatible with Boxer, Trucks (SV8x8) or even an ASCOD hull (with forward cab configuration).

Would we need all 3? Does Boxer offer a protection and mobility advantage over a Truck? Does a tracked chassis offer anything additional?
Interesting thought don’t know if you need all three but the idea of having a tractor unit and payload that can be matched to the operation required would give flexibility in both upgrades and deployability.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Some interesting discussion going on in the Boxer thread.

There is always the possibility the British Army could acquire a modular 155 module that is compatible with Boxer, Trucks (SV8x8) or even an ASCOD hull (with forward cab configuration).

Would we need all 3? Does Boxer offer a protection and mobility advantage over a Truck? Does a tracked chassis offer anything additional?
Interesting thought don’t know if you need all three but the idea of having a tractor unit and payload that can be matched to the operation required would give flexibility in both upgrades and deployability.
Certainly don't need all 3, but there's a Venn diagram of mobility, survivability and affordability to be had.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

We wouldn't need all three and we certainly couldn't afford all three. For commonality, maintenance and support costs and ease and cost of training for starters we would be best going for the Boxer option in my opinion. There are few places a modern 8x8 cannot go that a tracked -platform can, excluding specialist high mobility vehicles like the Viking. And an 8x8 also brings with it superior in theatre deplorability and far cheaper through life costs.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:We wouldn't need all three and we certainly couldn't afford all three. For commonality, maintenance and support costs and ease and cost of training for starters we would be best going for the Boxer option in my opinion. There are few places a modern 8x8 cannot go that a tracked -platform can, excluding specialist high mobility vehicles like the Viking. And an 8x8 also brings with it superior in theatre deplorability and far cheaper through life costs.
Couldn't you apply that to the far cheaper MAN SV 8x8?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes you certainly could to an even greater extent. I was however trying to avoid poking the non-armoured Self Propelled Gun lobby, some of whom even think having a non tracked platform is blasphemy.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I would be looking at both Boxer and MAN 8x8 with 1 Regt of Boxer and 3 of the MAN 8x8

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:For me I would be looking at both Boxer and MAN 8x8 with 1 Regt of Boxer and 3 of the MAN 8x8
What's the benefit of Boxer over MAN SV?

That's what I'm trying to dig down to. If the objective of wheeled artillery with rapid in'n'out of action, or even firing on the move, appears to have placed manoeuvrability over armour in the competition against counter-battery fire, then what would be the benefit of spending more on Boxer?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

A bit more armour on Boxer that is it really I would say however how many MAN 8x8 gun systems can one get for one of Boxer gun system

I do have to say I like the MAN 8x8 Archer system

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:A bit more armour on Boxer that is it really I would say however how many MAN 8x8 gun systems can one get for one of Boxer gun system

I do have to say I like the MAN 8x8 Archer system
Assuming the same cost of the artillery system and integration, UK contracts for BOXER was 225 for £2.3Bn, and SX45 vehicles contracted for LEAPP were €2.6 million for five vehicles (this was an additional sub contract so didn't include any training or supportability elements).

But as you can see, there's potentially a significant price difference of half a million for a trucks and several million for a Boxer.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

A pretty good video showing off the new MAN/Rheinmetall HX3 series of trucks including one with the low profile RCH155 turret, which differs from the one seen in the Boxer video over on its threat. As we already use earlier versions of the HX series, using the 8x8 version for a truck based replacement for the AS-90 would make sense as would developing a "Limber" platform to support either as well has a heavy recovery platform to supplement those already in service and a bridge launcher.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

That's not a RCH155 turret.

RCH155 is a KMW product. MAN military trucks are Rheinmetall and those guns depicted in the HX3 announcement are fictional.

As I mentioned before, the weapon in the KMW videos is the new lower profile version. Here is another image.

Image

"Revised Boxer RCH155 howitzer. New low-profile turret makes rail and air transportation (A400M) easier. Fires 8 rounds per minute and carries 30 rounds. Range 70 km. Crew of just 2. No hydraulic supports needed. Into action < 20 seconds. Shoots and scoots. A revolutionary system"

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:That's not a RCH155 turret.

RCH155 is a KMW product. MAN military trucks are Rheinmetall and those guns depicted in the HX3 announcement are fictional.
Fictional to the extent that they are a RLS 60 Calibre gun on an existing HX3 chassis?

Testing already underway on HX2 with Archer gun system.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 3e038ea7b5

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

"fictional" was a poor choice of words. Maybe "unannounced" would have been better.

And no, it's not Archer in the video posted by Jim. Archer on MAN was first displayed at DSEI in 2019 and many believe it's the front runner for the BA requirement.

Image

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:"fictional" was a poor choice of words. Maybe "unannounced" would have been better.

And no, it's not Archer in the video posted by Jim. Archer on MAN was first displayed at DSEI in 2019 and many believe it's the front runner for the BA requirement.

Image
Yes, Archer is a 52 Calibre on a HX2 chassis. The previous video was a 60 Calibre on the HX3 chassis, the newest model.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

I am learning something new everyday here. The British Army is really going to be spoilt for choice if and when it decides to pursue a truck based 155mm .

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by tomuk »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:"fictional" was a poor choice of words. Maybe "unannounced" would have been better.

And no, it's not Archer in the video posted by Jim. Archer on MAN was first displayed at DSEI in 2019 and many believe it's the front runner for the BA requirement.

Image
Yes, Archer is a 52 Calibre on a HX2 chassis. The previous video was a 60 Calibre on the HX3 chassis, the newest model.
The Archer is a BAE Bofors gun whereas the RCH155 and the 'concept' 60 calibre on the HX3 is Rheinmetall.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

Archer is Bae. Its gun is based on the swedish FH777 gun and is available to be mounted on any suitable truck chassis..

RCH155 is KMW. I believe its gun is rheinmetall from the pz2000 SPG. RCH155 is also offered on any suitable chassis.

Rheinmetall is developing a long range howitzer, and long range ammo, to meet a German requirement. AFAIA that project has not yet resulted in a product or firm proposal so any discussion of caliber etc is rather premature.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Using a Precision Guidance Kit and Rheinmetall's new shell, a PzHb2000 was able to accurately hit targets out to 70Km in trials in South Africa. This was using standard NATO charges in a standard chamber, not the revised experimental charges and chamber used in other trials with a modified PzHb2000.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Using a Precision Guidance Kit and Rheinmetall's new shell, a PzHb2000 was able to accurately hit targets out to 70Km in trials in South Africa. This was using standard NATO charges in a standard chamber, not the revised experimental charges and chamber used in other trials with a modified PzHb2000.
Not sure it was.

"The maximum range of over 76 km was achieved with a non-JBMoU-compliant gun."

Also believe that both the top shots were with a rocket-assisted, bleed-base round. It's not a precision round and has a smaller payload.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 9991090146

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

The report I have read stated it was a Rheinmetall V-LAP round fitted with a Northrop Grumman M1156 Precision-Guided Kit shot out to 70km from a standard L52 cal gun. Rheinmetall and Northrop Grumman have signed a ten year partnership this year to cover the development of extended range precision ordonnance for 155mm weapons.

This was not the shot in 2016 out to 76km, using an RDM 155mm projectile from a L52 cal. weapon with a non standard propellant chamber, also carried out in South Africa.

But I might have misinterpreted the article as can always happen.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

It's been reported that the German requirement is for 100km range! I guess they always liked VLR guns :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Ron5 »

I've just seen this. Boxer bumbling along taking pot shots with its MG at passing motorists and it spots a tank with its hunter/killer kit ..


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

An interesting direct fire capability. Better not let the MoD see this or they might think they can replace both the AS-90 and Challenger 2! :D

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »


Post Reply