Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3816
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 225 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 13:52
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 11:55 The 3rd currently has 3 Armoured and 6 Cavalry regt's and I am saying we should move 1 of Reserve Cavalry regts from 1st to 3rd to make it 7
No it does not. Currently it has 3 armoured, 3 heavy cavalry and 1 light cavalry. It also has two TA units, RWY and RY. But none of those two are intended to work as fully operational units but to provide crew replacement and reinforcements to specific units. RWY to 3 armoured regiments and RY to light cavalry regiment in the DRSCT. Moving another TA unit is pointless as it is not fully operational on its own and it is suppose to strengthen one of other two light cavalry regiments in the 1st Division.
I think you need to back and look again as it has 4 Armoured Cavalry 1 light Cavalry and 1 light Reserve Cavalry plus 2 Armoured and 1 Armoured reserve regts as things stand in FS

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 16:01 it has 4 Armoured Cavalry 1 light Cavalry and 1 light Reserve Cavalry plus 2 Armoured and 1 Armoured reserve regts as things stand in FS
thanks; looking back to the future form of the army, then that will translate to 2 BGs,
1+2 each
with some cavalry screening (might be augmented from other formations)
plus some top-ups for MBTs and Cavalry (if time permits).

Just this 'hand' being so weak may explain why the DAG has been reinvented (many more letters to it, now),
BUT if I put the two together,
two BGs
1-3 cavalry, in whatever way they will be combined
backing up artillery (some may have done 'down' to the BGs)

... v hard to get up to 7 manoeuvre units, to give the one in charge some flexibility
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)

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 16:01 I think you need to back and look again as it has 4 Armoured Cavalry 1 light Cavalry and 1 light Reserve Cavalry plus 2 Armoured and 1 Armoured reserve regts as things stand in FS
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 11:55 The 3rd currently has 3 Armoured and 6 Cavalry regt's and I am saying we should move 1 of Reserve Cavalry regts from 1st to 3rd to make it 7
You need to decide which orbat you are using: current one or the one which is given by FS, and not jump from post to post with different claims. By FS, KRH, which is currently equipped with CR2 will be switched to Ajax. But my post is absolutely correct as you said CURRENTLY not FS in the post I quoted. And counting reserve "regiments" is ridicules as they are not full fighting formations. RWY should provide replacement crews, it will not be sent somewhere as a unit. Same for RY which will provide crews and one SQUADRON to QDG. RY, QoY and S&NIY are all paired in this way with three regular regiment equipped with Jackals.

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 »

sol wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 16:43 But my post is absolutely correct as you said CURRENTLY not FS in the post I quoted. And counting reserve "regiments" is ridicules as they are not full fighting formations.
Would artillery be the exception? In the field they do operate as batteries, assigned to whoever as the situation dictates.
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3816
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 225 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 16:43
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 16:01 I think you need to back and look again as it has 4 Armoured Cavalry 1 light Cavalry and 1 light Reserve Cavalry plus 2 Armoured and 1 Armoured reserve regts as things stand in FS
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 11:55 The 3rd currently has 3 Armoured and 6 Cavalry regt's and I am saying we should move 1 of Reserve Cavalry regts from 1st to 3rd to make it 7
You need to decide which orbat you are using: current one or the one which is given by FS, and not jump from post to post with different claims. By FS, KRH, which is currently equipped with CR2 will be switched to Ajax. But my post is absolutely correct as you said CURRENTLY not FS in the post I quoted. And counting reserve "regiments" is ridicules as they are not full fighting formations. RWY should provide replacement crews, it will not be sent somewhere as a unit. Same for RY which will provide crews and one SQUADRON to QDG. RY, QoY and S&NIY are all paired in this way with three regular regiment equipped with Jackals.
I am sorry if you have found it hard to keep up with my posts (my bad ) to be clear all my post refer to the current plan for future solider and how I think it should differ

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 17:07 Would artillery be the exception? In the field they do operate as batteries, assigned to whoever as the situation dictates.
Depending which regiment.
  • 101st Regiment RA will now provide a formed battery each to 3rd Regiment RHA and 26th Regiment RA, having previously provided individual M270 detachments and reinforcements.
  • 103rd Regiment RA will be aligned to Light Brigade Combat Team 2 and be expected to deploy as a fully constituted regiment, reinforced by 104th and 105th Regiments RA where appropriate.
  • 104th Regiment RA will provide individual reinforcements to 1st Regiment RHA and 19th Regiment RA in the Deep Reconnaissance & Strike Brigade Combat Team.
  • 105th Regiment RA will provide formed detachments as guns 7 & 8 in each gun battery of 4th Regiment RA who are supporting Light Brigade Combat Team 1.
  • 106th Regiment RA will continue to provide individual reinforcements to 7th Air Defence Group.
  • A Battery HAC will provide formed detachments as guns 7 & 8 in each gun battery of 7th (Parachute) Regiment RHA.
  • Patrols Squadron HAC will provide Special OP patrols to the Army Special Operations Brigade and continue to provide patrols to 4/73 Bty RA.
So unlike 103rd, 104th and 105th would only provide reinforcements and gun detachments, not full batteries. You can't count three full artillery regiments there, they will not have equipment to provide that. 104th should also provide only individual reinforcements for two 155mm regiments in DRS, not fully formed batteries. Same for 106th. Basically, only 101st and 103rd should be fully manned and equipped, the rest will have enough guns/platforms to either provide additional detachments to already existing units or just for basic training on them.

For the RAC, RWY will not provide additional armoured regiment but just crews for two regular regiments, and three TA light cavalry regiments will provide individual reinforcements and a fully formed squadron to three regular light cavalry regiments. Each of them only has enough Jackals for this, not whole regiment is equipped with them. That is how they are currently structured and as far as I know FS will not change this.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Seems like Poland is taking its defence quite seriously with intention to buy/produce 1000 K2 tanks and 690 (or 670, sources defer) K9PL platforms with is based on K9A2 to accompany 144 Krabs. So it would be fourth NATO nation to use K9, with some 750-800 units among them. Looks like they are also interested in K239 Chunmoo but no orders so far.

These users liked the author sol for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

sol wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 07:33 690 (or 670, sources defer) K9PL platforms with is based on K2A2 to accompany 144 Krabs.
I am glad that it has dawned on some that the rounds will never reach the guns in MAN trucks - the crew, by some miracle, could be saved in their protected cabs.
- 4 to 1... might keep you going for a day
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)

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

How K9A2 autoloader works


sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Seems like that Germany and UK might work together on the new artillery and munitions system. But there is no confirmation from British side about it so far, or any clue about which type of artillery system this cooperation might be.



If this is about replacement of 155mm gun system, than that could probably mean either Boxer RCH155 or Rheinmetall 155mm gun on MAN XH system for British Army.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

There's a big assumption there that's completely without reason, and that is they will cooperate at a platform level.

Both nations are looking forward to L60 155mm systems, so it's very possible both will seek to impose a L60 requirement on whichever system (trucked, Boxer, tracked) is chosen for the requirement.

There's more than one system that is MAN truck based...

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by leonard »

And from the frontlines in Ukraine we can sea the very proven importance and the capabilities that this system brings to the table.
What a beast of a machine !!!!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes it is a very good Weapon System, high rate of fire, one of the best protected SPGs out there. TO really have an effect though it needs to be performing MRSI mission in Batteries. Such actions will allow them to smother a target with up to 32 rounds landing simultaneously form an eight gun battery, easily taking out an opposing Artuillery Battery if cued by a modern Counter Battery Fire Radar like that the US has provided.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
leonard

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Prototype of the K9A2 arrived in the UK. It should be presented on DVD at UTAC Millbrook

These users liked the author sol for the post:
wargame_insomniac

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2458
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 73 times
Been liked: 46 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by bobp »

According to this article the MOD have a lot of work to do regarding Mobile fires and deep strike......
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... zer-risks/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

One thing mentioned that I found interesting was the desire of the Army to increase its numbers of M270s to enable a second regiment to be fully equipped. Ay present we have 44 M270 that are to be modernised, but it may be that additiopnal second hand vehicles could be added to the contract or that weourchase new build vehicles already incorporating the upgrades..

WIth Deep Fires becoming a major priority we could be aiming to increase the final size of both planned Regiments as well.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3816
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 225 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

For me if there is to be a second regiment it should be given M-142 allowing the army to have

1 x M-270 regt , 1 x M-142 regt and 1 Mixed Reserve regt

Allowing the army to cover all the bases
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Lord Jim

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 608
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by whitelancer »

1st Regiment RHA will gain an AJAX tactical group battery.
3rd Regiment RHA will re-role to the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), with two batteries equipped with M270 launchers, one of which also has a JACKAL tactical group. A third M270 battery will be provided by 101st Regiment RA on deployment.
4th Regiment RA will gain a gun group, building on what is currently a tactical group battery.
5th Regiment RA will resubordinate to the Deep Reconnaissance & Strike Brigade Combat Team.
7th (Parachute) Regiment RHA will gain a gun battery, including a tactical group, and a tactical group battery.
19th Regiment RA will gain an AJAX tactical group battery.
26th Regiment RA will become a three battery MLRS Regiment, with two batteries equipped with M270 launchers, one of which also has an AJAX tactical group, and an AJAX tactical group battery. A third M270 battery will be provided by 101stRegiment RA on deployment.
32nd Regiment RA will retain its third MUAS battery and gain a fourth MUAS battery.
There are also positive changes regarding our Reserve Regiments:

101st Regiment RA will now provide a formed battery each to 3rd Regiment RHA and 26th Regiment RA, having previously provided individual M270 detachments and reinforcements.
103rd Regiment RA will be aligned to Light Brigade Combat Team 2 and be expected to deploy as a fully constituted regiment, reinforced by 104th and 105th Regiments RA where appropriate.
104th Regiment RA will provide individual reinforcements to 1st Regiment RHA and 19th Regiment RA in the Deep Reconnaissance & Strike Brigade Combat Team.
105th Regiment RA will provide formed detachments as guns 7 & 8 in each gun battery of 4th Regiment RA who are supporting Light Brigade Combat Team 1.
106th Regiment RA will continue to provide individual reinforcements to 7th Air Defence Group.
A Battery HAC will provide formed detachments as guns 7 & 8 in each gun battery of 7th (Parachute) Regiment RHA.
Patrols Squadron HAC will provide Special OP patrols to the Army Special Operations Brigade and continue to provide patrols to 4/73 Bty RA.
You will note that going forward, our Reserve regiments will remain integral to the Warfighting capability of the Regiment. Significantly, the Integrated Review seeks to transform the Reserve by giving them a fully established Warfighting role. Force generating this capability will be challenging, but I am confident our Reserve regiments will respond to the re-invigorated purpose this provides.
This is from the RA Association.
As you can see their are 2 M270 Regiments each with 2 Bty's, with third added on deployment. Going by the number of M270 being updated I assume each Bty will consist of 2 Troops each of 3 launchers, giving 18 per Regt. If the number of M270's are to be increased the most cost effective method would be to add a third troop to each Bty. This would give 9 per Bty and 27 per Regt, which is what they had in the days of BAOR.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »


sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

whitelancer wrote: 02 Sep 2022, 01:54 As you can see their are 2 M270 Regiments each with 2 Bty's, with third added on deployment.
There will be 2 regiments from 2024, till then 3rd Regiment RHA will still operate AS-90 and 26th Regiment RA will be the only MLRS regiment with 3 batteries of 9.
whitelancer wrote: 02 Sep 2022, 01:54 Going by the number of M270 being updated I assume each Bty will consist of 2 Troops each of 3 launchers, giving 18 per Regt.
That should be correct, 12 systems in peacetime and 18 during the war with TA battery.
whitelancer wrote: 02 Sep 2022, 01:54 If the number of M270's are to be increased the most cost effective method would be to add a third troop to each Bty. This would give 9 per Bty and 27 per Regt, which is what they had in the days of BAOR.
IMO, this is the best option to increase number of MLRS in the Army, with 18 in peacetime and 27 in wartime. There will be just one system, uniform training and logistic. But that would require at least 54 systems for two regiment, maybe some 60 in total with those for training. So some 10-16 more than number that will be upgraded. UK could probably buy some from countries like Norway or German or even US which have such systems in the storage, but I doubt that would happen and it would go with 6 launcher battery instead.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Lord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Just watched this video and found it interesting and related to a number of threads on here. IT starts off with an evolution of the Hummer, seen as an alternative to the JLTV but then mover to a platform developed by GM and Supercat, providing a lightweight SP gun using the British L118 Light Gun. People might find it useful to discuss this and I hope the video has not already been posted elsewhere.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3816
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 225 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

not seen the video but have seen the coyote 105mm before but did not know it was a L118 now for me this is the SP gun for the Light mechanised BCT's
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 08:40 not seen the video but have seen the coyote 105mm before but did not know it was a L118 now for me this is the SP gun for the Light mechanised BCT's
It is a Mandus Hawkeye system, with L118 gun barrel. IMO some solution based on Hawkeye cold be solution for L118 gun replacement, but there is one big issue with the one Supacat is offering, and that is it is to heavy to be transported by Chinook. And also I don't like that it does provide very limited protection both against enemy fire and weather. Maybe it could be tested on BvS 10 platform, or some platform that has less weight than Coyote.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3816
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 225 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 11:24
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 08:40 not seen the video but have seen the coyote 105mm before but did not know it was a L118 now for me this is the SP gun for the Light mechanised BCT's
It is a Mandus Hawkeye system, with L118 gun barrel. IMO some solution based on Hawkeye cold be solution for L118 gun replacement, but there is one big issue with the one Supacat is offering, and that is it is to heavy to be transported by Chinook. And also I don't like that it does provide very limited protection both against enemy fire and weather. Maybe it could be tested on BvS 10 platform, or some platform that has less weight than Coyote.
when it comes to the Light mechanised BCTs dose it need to be air transported by Chinook? . Might it be better to mount it on a MAN HX60 4x4 truck it is 7 tons empty maybe 9 tons with the gun on the back the Chinook has a just over 10 tons limit

sol
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 11:50 when it comes to the Light mechanised BCTs dose it need to be air transported by Chinook?
I guess not really, but having a same system on different platforms does not sound as a good idea to me. Same guns system on the same platform for both Infantry & AA BCT, and 3rd Commando would simplify training and maintenance. Unless there is a physical restriction for this (like not be able to provide a good mobile system for AA due weight or some other reasons) or some really specific requirement I don't see why there should be more versions just because of unit type.

Post Reply