Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Don't the Polish Krabs have the AS-90 155mm L52 turret?

leonard
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 43 times
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by leonard »

Has been any consideration of the concept like this in the past or even studies????

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Dec 2021, 21:42 Development work continues on new types of munition for the 120mm Mortar in a number of countries, to make them more effective by various means.

As a result of the above, 120mm Mortars would provide greater fire support possibly including precision strike, than the 105mm Light Gun. For longer range precision engagements 16 AA could use the trailer mounter Extractor Mk2, which could also be used in a counter battery role with its range, and ease of deployment into and out of action and its range. A standard towed 120mm Mortar is an inexpensive piece of kit and Extractor Mk2 is already in service in the form described.
All of that true, but the leading-in sentence (though the 'goods' have been delivered) may have lost its momemtum as the driving force was MOUT in Iraq (mainly) and the USMC has since given up their mortars and are not emphasizing MOUT anymore ... rather: island hopping in the SCS
leonard wrote: 21 May 2022, 22:55 any knowledge if the AS90 turret of that prototype vehicle above is the turret that the Polish Government bought the license production for their Krab 155mm SPG or it was just the standard AS90 turret ???
We have been through the hulls ( a lot of changes) but as for the turret still the one, though through to the third gun (Brirish,,,Nexter,,, German... and now the barrels will be made in Poland, so what does that make it?). The key is the FCS which will be the unifying factor across all types of artillery (500 HIMARS coming, I hear)
... I do wonder what the Polish (rgmnts) 5 x 24 guns, protected SPGs with high mobility and thus can keep up with any othetrelements of the manoeuvre force are for? (TONGUE-IN-THE-CHEEK, of course)
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
leonard
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)

leonard
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 43 times
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by leonard »

Same brand new photos for better understanding of the what could have been if the modernization of the AS90 would have taken place .In the photos same brand new KRAB SPG .

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

One of the doctrines being developed for our LSGs is to impinge enemy A2/AD areas and part of that involves using mortars to tie down any opposition in a targeted area with mortars. We could use a tethered UGV to tow a standard 120mm Mortar and carry the ammunition, with both being carried, plus their Operators in a Merlin of Chinook. This would probably be better then the USMCs attempt to do teh same but using a lightweight 4x4 as the tractor. The LSU will already most likely be using lightweight 4x4s to give it greater mobility, so these could take the Mortar crew and UGV Operators. Mind you , Whether the LSU has support in the form of wither the 105mm Light Gun or a 120mm Mortar, they are going to be operating within counter battery range, so maybe the rate and weight of fire by the latter would be an advantage.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe we need a rethink going forward for the Artillery something like

Royal Horse Artillery

1st , 3rd & 7th RHA all re-equipped with AS-90 & MLRS and fixed to the 3rd Division

Royal Artillery

19th & 26th RA re-equipped with 105mm SP gun and Brimstone / Spear MLS fixed to the 1st Division

12 & 14 and 16 RA all Air defence 12 Regt 3 Batteries of Boxer and 3 of Bushmaster 14 & 16 regts Sky Sabre

4th and 29th RA L118 light gun and trailer launched Brimstone / Spear

32 & 47 RA battle field UAV

5 RA STA

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Although I believe we should be sending a number of our M270 GMLRS to Ukraine, where they are sorely needed, it will have a knock on effect on the British Army's plans to deploy its Deep Fired/Recce BCT. WE only have six to eight M270s available without reducing the number that go through the planned modernisation programme. These are our current attrition replacements that are unable to fire the GPS precision guided rockets. IF we send more than eight we will not be able to equip the second Artillery Regiment in the BCT without replacement M270 being obtained of an alternative sought instead.

I am not actually sure if the M270 is still in production but even if it is not I am sure there are a few we could obtain second hand from the US Army stocks. These would still have to be modernised but this would be the simplest option if available. Failing that there is always HIMARS which is definitely in production and we could probably hav it manufactured on a MAN chassis if we wished. These would no require further modernisation either. The last option would be a bespoke platform. I have seen artists impressions and models of a double cassette (12 rockets) launcher on teh rear of a Boxer in what must be a Mission Module adaptation. This would obviously be the most expensive option unless other nations came on board and spread the development costs.

leonard
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 43 times
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by leonard »

There's been same movement abroad and the Bae Systems Archer has made the cut
These users liked the author leonard for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixLord Jim

leonard
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 43 times
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by leonard »

A model of what is believe to be the configuration of the Hanwha Defence offer for the next British Army SPG at Eurosatory 2022 .
These users liked the author leonard for the post:
wargame_insomniac

leonard
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 43 times
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by leonard »

And we have the first video of the Krab 155mm SPG in action in Ukraine

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Before we get our new platforms we urgently need to increase our ammunition and spares stokes. Currently only having around one weeks worth of munitions for both the AS-90 155mm Gun and M270 GLMRS, and that is being optimistic is nowhere near the levels required. In Ukraine each side is firing thousands of Shells each week if not day. We also need precision rounds and cargo rounds like BONUS to delliver munitions able to effective neutralise Enemy AFVs. Ideally a rocket also equipped with Sensor Fused Munitions for the M270 should also be adopted.

We also need to maintain all three Regiments currently equipped with the AS-90, and expand the MFP programme to cover all three. Finally we need to have a third regular Regiment equipped to fire GMLRS and other rockets, though using the HIMARD rather than the M270. This could still provide support to force in Europe but will be fat easier to deploy, support and operate in areas further afield. This new unit, possibly re rolled form a 105mm Light Gun Regiment together with the third 155mm Regiment would be held a Divisional level (3rd Division) and allocated as needed, when fighting a major conflict.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 35 times

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

We don't need or want HIMARS. If we want a wheeled platform that can take one or ideally two GMLRS 6-packs then we should be used MAN HX chassis that we have in abundance. HIMARS being C130 deployable is an irrelevance when we have A400M and MAN chassis by the 1000s.

A wheeled GMLRS would be better implemented as a battery within the existing GMLRS regiments if you want rapid IOC. Otherwise standing up a new regiment or re-role from light gun will take an extended period of time.

Increasing the number of stored rounds has far wider implications in terms of training costs, platform maintenance and storage. Unless of course we're just going to make'em and burn'em which has its own issues.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree to a certain extent, I was thinking about using a MAN HX chassis and transplanting the relevant items across. Cannot see a two pod fitting though. Increasing our stockpiles of munition across the board is essential, running out after about a week at warfighting consumption rates, less so with our "Fight at a distance" doctrine".

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

So when we look at the M-142 and K239 what we see is two wheeled rocket artillery systems using the same pods as the M-270

M-142 = 16 tons 7 L x 2.4 W x 3 H meters and carries 1 six round pack

K-239 = 25 tons 9 L x 2.5 W x 3 H Meters and carries 2 six rounds packs

K-239 can be carried by A400M in the same way M-142 can be carried in a C-130

Maybe we should be looking at South Korea and a mix of K9A2 and K-239
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacRunningStrong

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Neither of the South Korean MLRS are really suited to what the British Army needs Taking the K-239 it is as heavy as the M270 but is a larger platform and its cross country mobility will suffer as a result. The Army might as well simply retain the M270 as it also fits in teh A400. The reason for my advocating HIMARS or at least a version using the MAN HX 6x6 with a protected Cab, is that it is lighter then M270 and has a proven cross country performance. It is also far easier to maintain and to train the required crew compared to the M270. You may even be able to carry two HIMARS on a A400 as this load would be within the A400 load carrying specs, though it would be a tight squeeze, so a could be wrong on this.

In my opinion, the current plans for two M270 GMLRS and two 155mm SP Gun Regiments are the absolute bare minimum 3rd (UK) Division should be quipped with. The current small number of Extractor launch trailers need to be replaced with a more modern and capable system and moved down the food chain to individual Armoured, Recce and Infantry Units, especially being made available to the Army's light and very light formations as their primary means of precision strike and counter batter missions.

I am not a proponent of the 105mm Light Gun remaining in service, instead preferring the adoption of a 120mm Towed or SP Mortar to support our lighter units. The Light Gun may have a range advantage but it is not significant enough to counter the advantages in the weight of a 120mm mortar nor the weight of fire the latter can deliver. Engaging enemy Artillery will be the job of the successor to Extractor. One othe big advantage of the 120mm mortar is that it can b carried internally by the Chinook as can a number of 4x4 platforms capable of towing the weapon, not including the Mini Jeeps adopted by the USMC.

The 105mm has given great service to the British Army over the past forty odd years, but whilst I am sure the bespoke ammunition could be adapted to be used with a version of the US Precision Guidance Kits, the explosive power an d blast pattern are inferior to a 120mm Mortar Shell, there are a number of projects around the World to provide more options for the guidance and payload of siad mortar bombs. Anything regarding hte 105mm will most likely be a unilateral effort by the UK. We could of course adopt the same barrel as the US version enabling it to fire standard 105mm shells, though the performance of these is worse and reduces any range advantage held by the light gun over a 120mm mortar.

Whilst officially both an upgraded AS-90 and the South Korean K-9 are in the running for the MFP programme, looking at the programme requirements it stated that the system is required to be able to travel hundreds of miles on both road and across country under its own power. I am not sure either tracked platform is able to meet this target so unless the requirements are relaxed considerable in theis area we will be looking at a wheeled platform to succeed the AS-90.

But as I stated at the top, current plans do not deliver what I believe is required to provide adequate Artillery support of the British Army. In addition the programmes are running too slow and much greater urgency needs to be injected, treating the situation along the lines of a UOR

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1270
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 38 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jul 2022, 21:44 We could of course adopt the same barrel as the US version enabling it to fire standard 105mm shells, though the performance of these is worse and reduces any range advantage held by the light gun over a 120mm mortar.
"any" range advantage? Like twice?
Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jul 2022, 21:44 I am not sure either tracked platform is able to meet this target
I'd expect them to. Older tracked vehicles can.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

From memory the US Barrel reduces the range by around 30%. As for range, as the guns/motars would be for direct fore support rather then aiming for rear area targets and counter battery, weight of fire and time into and out of action is probably more important. IF we went down the Brandt Rifles 120mm Mortar the difference between the gun and Mortar would be further reduced. Other nations like France often use 120mm Mortars for Brigade level artillery support with their 155mm Guns allocated at Divisional level. This is especially true in lighter formationss.

As for the requirement can a AS-90 travel 599 miles on road under its own power followed by around 100 cross country? How fast could it do it? It would be interesting to find a comparison somewhere to provide firmer data one way or the other.

sol
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 35 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 02:44 Other nations like France often use 120mm Mortars for Brigade level artillery support with their 155mm Guns allocated at Divisional level.
Which is not exactly true. Artillery regiments in French brigades are using both 155mm guns and 120mm mortars and some other weapons, like Mistrals missiles. Having just 120mm mortars as support would not be adequate, just like US 10th Mountain Division learned in Afghanistan.

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times
Scotland

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Rentaghost »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jul 2022, 21:44
In my opinion, the current plans for two M270 GMLRS and two 155mm SP Gun Regiments are the absolute bare minimum 3rd (UK) Division should be quipped with. The current small number of Extractor launch trailers need to be replaced with a more modern and capable system and moved down the food chain to individual Armoured, Recce and Infantry Units, especially being made available to the Army's light and very light formations as their primary means of precision strike and counter batter missions.
As I understand it, the Exactor replacement comes under the Precision Land Strike programme. Apparently its progressing on the basis of being able to hit moving/armoured targets out to 80km and is slated to be launched from an MLRS pod on the basis of 'one platform many payloads'

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... B8uf1G9s2b

Presumably individual battlegroups will then call on the Battlegroup Mounted Organic Overwatch capability for Precision strike out to >10km.

If this progresses as planned the army would definitely require extra platforms as its asking a lot of 36 launchers (not counting replacements) to do counter battery fire, deep interdiction and Precision strike.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jul 2022, 21:44 Neither of the South Korean MLRS are really suited to what the British Army needs Taking the K-239 it is as heavy as the M270 but is a larger platform and its cross country mobility will suffer as a result. The Army might as well simply retain the M270 as it also fits in teh A400. The reason for my advocating HIMARS or at least a version using the MAN HX 6x6 with a protected Cab, is that it is lighter then M270 and has a proven cross country performance. It is also far easier to maintain and to train the required crew compared to the M270. You may even be able to carry two HIMARS on a A400 as this load would be within the A400 load carrying specs, though it would be a tight squeeze, so a could be wrong on this.

In my opinion, the current plans for two M270 GMLRS and two 155mm SP Gun Regiments are the absolute bare minimum 3rd (UK) Division should be quipped with. The current small number of Extractor launch trailers need to be replaced with a more modern and capable system and moved down the food chain to individual Armoured, Recce and Infantry Units, especially being made available to the Army's light and very light formations as their primary means of precision strike and counter batter missions.

I am not a proponent of the 105mm Light Gun remaining in service, instead preferring the adoption of a 120mm Towed or SP Mortar to support our lighter units. The Light Gun may have a range advantage but it is not significant enough to counter the advantages in the weight of a 120mm mortar nor the weight of fire the latter can deliver. Engaging enemy Artillery will be the job of the successor to Extractor. One othe big advantage of the 120mm mortar is that it can b carried internally by the Chinook as can a number of 4x4 platforms capable of towing the weapon, not including the Mini Jeeps adopted by the USMC.

The 105mm has given great service to the British Army over the past forty odd years, but whilst I am sure the bespoke ammunition could be adapted to be used with a version of the US Precision Guidance Kits, the explosive power an d blast pattern are inferior to a 120mm Mortar Shell, there are a number of projects around the World to provide more options for the guidance and payload of siad mortar bombs. Anything regarding hte 105mm will most likely be a unilateral effort by the UK. We could of course adopt the same barrel as the US version enabling it to fire standard 105mm shells, though the performance of these is worse and reduces any range advantage held by the light gun over a 120mm mortar.

Whilst officially both an upgraded AS-90 and the South Korean K-9 are in the running for the MFP programme, looking at the programme requirements it stated that the system is required to be able to travel hundreds of miles on both road and across country under its own power. I am not sure either tracked platform is able to meet this target so unless the requirements are relaxed considerable in theis area we will be looking at a wheeled platform to succeed the AS-90.

But as I stated at the top, current plans do not deliver what I believe is required to provide adequate Artillery support of the British Army. In addition the programmes are running too slow and much greater urgency needs to be injected, treating the situation along the lines of a UOR
The K239 is a 8x8 platform and we know the MAN HX 8x8 has very good off road capability I would say the MAN 6x6 and 8x8 are close as dame it in off road capability. As for training it would the same for a MAN 6x6 with a single pod as a MAN 8x8 with 2 pods.

Yes you could get two M-142's on a A400M but when you get to the other end you still only have two 6 round pods but now you have two times as many vehicles and men to look after, I would say having regiments with a mix of M-270 & MAN 8x8 K239 would be a good thing

As said a number of times the 105mm gun has twice the range of a 120mm mortar and the same if not more range than the Russian 122mm gun also when you put the whole package together weapon vehicle to tow it and ammo here is little difference in weight and logistics

As said for me if we are looking for greater organic fire power at Battalion level then we need to move the javelin's from the ATGW Pl to the RWS's on the APC's and replace the 9 vehicles of the ATGW Pl with 9 x 18 round Brimstone Over-watch this would give the Infantry Battalions organic fire power out to 30+ kms this would allow the Artillery to conentrate on 155mm SP guns and M-270 and K239 MLRS's

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

You may still only have 2 6 cell pods, but with two vehicles, they can be in two different locations so if one is taken out the other is still available, also there is benefits of not pushing vehicles up to the limits of their transport weight wise, you get more flexible especially on aircraft with the option to fly into many more airstrips. Swings and roundabouts.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:26 You may still only have 2 6 cell pods, but with two vehicles, they can be in two different locations so if one is taken out the other is still available, also there is benefits of not pushing vehicles up to the limits of their transport weight wise, you get more flexible especially on aircraft with the option to fly into many more airstrips. Swings and roundabouts.
All very much right and if the UK had unlimited logistics and manpower then 2 vehicles and 6 men over 1 vehicle and 3 men may well be the way to go also K239 comes in at 25 tons A400M has a max load of 36 tons so it would be well within its operating window where two M-142's would be 33 tons and there for A400M would be at the far end of its operating window

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:38
SW1 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:26 You may still only have 2 6 cell pods, but with two vehicles, they can be in two different locations so if one is taken out the other is still available, also there is benefits of not pushing vehicles up to the limits of their transport weight wise, you get more flexible especially on aircraft with the option to fly into many more airstrips. Swings and roundabouts.
All very much right and if the UK had unlimited logistics and manpower then 2 vehicles and 6 men over 1 vehicle and 3 men may well be the way to go also K239 comes in at 25 tons A400M has a max load of 36 tons so it would be well within its operating window where two M-142's would be 33 tons and there for A400M would be at the far end of its operating window
Yes true but on a400m particularly if you were heading tactically into rough strips the max weight of the payload carried is well below the max payload it can carry on strategic missions. Think there’s more of a balance to be had with the single pod launchers esp if you were wanting such systems to support our light forces

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

I was lucky to catch some of the A400M rough ground landing trials at Woodbridge when delivering an annual course at Whattisham a few years back and 25 tons was within that capability.

When you say light forces are you talking about Air Assault or Light Mech as within the Light Mech and Light Infantry there will be a large number of fully loaded MAN 8x8's in logistic support

I have no problem with M-142 but one of its main drivers was it had to fit in a USMC C-130 but we have A400M and this allows us to carry the 25 ton M-270 or K239 into most if not all the same places as the C-130 can take a M-142
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
RunningStrong

sol
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 35 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:07 I would say having regiments with a mix of M-270 & MAN 8x8 K239 would be a good thing
And what would be a benefit of having two platforms. Both have same weapon system, provide same load and are similar in weight. So what is a point?

Keep in mind that, like it someone or not, M270 will remain in the British Army, upgraded of course. Contract is already signed. The only question is should Army buy more and if when and what. I personally don't see any advantage in having both M270 and K239 as it is just complicate things without bringing much to justify that. Procuring M142 would have sense if RAF keep its C130 fleet which would most likely not happen. So if Army decide to get more MLRS, than to me there is only sense to go with more M270A2, or with a platform that can be lifted by Chinook, like LIMAWS (even tho not sure if there is much point in this too). Anything else is totally unnecessary.

Post Reply