Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

[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.

[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

[marktigger]

look at who is based round Larkhill

[WhitestElephant]

Whats towing the L118 these days?

[Gabriele]

Still Pinzgauers.

[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.

[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.

[Ron5]

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]

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on another forum I put forward the proposal the Lynx should have been replaced by the AW139 to give the Army Air Corps some limited lift capability to improve flexibility.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.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The RAF types exploded.

We dont seem to have any here; a pity.

[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

[marktigger]

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

[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?

[mr.fred]

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?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Because this is a wind-up?

Quite.

[mr.fred]

Am I missing something from the naval threads then?

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

[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]

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]

Sounds like the RFI is written around Caesar.

Does it? I haven’t seen it.

[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]

Sounds like the RFI is written around Caesar.

I'd say Boxer with AGM is far more likely

[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

[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.

[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?