UK Defence Forum

The hawkeye L118 system on a HX60 should work for the Light Infantry BCT , Light Mechanised BCT and AA BCT if it can be kept at around 9 tons and within the lift capability of a Chinook

Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2022, 16:32 The hawkeye L118 system on a HX60 should work for the Light Infantry BCT , Light Mechanised BCT and AA BCT if it can be kept at around 9 tons and within the lift capability of a Chinook

Unladen weight of MAN HX60 is 9.2 tons. There is no chance to put a gun on it, with all the ammo and other equipment and make it transportable by Chinook.

IT will be difficult to find any platform able to carry and fire a 105mm Light Gun that is capable of being carried by a Chinook as an underslung load, even more so if said platform is also to carry the Gun Crew and a couple of dozen rounds of ammunition. IF we are keeping the L118,then for our airmobile units air lifting the gen and limber and the respective towing platforms where needed is still the best way to go. For the Light BCTs I would hope they would gain support from guns of say 155mm instead, towed or SP.

sol wrote: ↑23 Sep 2022, 19:32

Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2022, 16:32 The hawkeye L118 system on a HX60 should work for the Light Infantry BCT , Light Mechanised BCT and AA BCT if it can be kept at around 9 tons and within the lift capability of a Chinook

Unladen weight of MAN HX60 is 9.2 tons. There is no chance to put a gun on it, with all the ammo and other equipment and make it transportable by Chinook.

Ok just when I did some very quick digging I found somewhere it said empty weight of a HX60 was 7 tons so was thinking if the gun and mount could be kept to 2 tons it could be a starter but if not OK but a HX60 with this gun and mount could still be a good SP option for the Light infantry and Light Mechanised and just keep the L118 LG for 16XX and RM

Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 08:55 Ok just when I did some very quick digging I found somewhere it said empty weight of a HX60 was 7 tons so was thinking if the gun and mount could be kept to 2 tons it could be a starter but if not OK but a HX60 with this gun and mount could still be a good SP option for the Light infantry and Light Mechanised and just keep the L118 LG for 16XX and RM

So replacement for L118 would be ... L118. Two out of three regular regiments would just keep old guns, while one regular and some TA should get a new(?) gun, which is basically an L118 with new cradle/recoil mechanism on truck. To me this doesn't sound as good solution. In couple of years, it will just pop up again as there will still be a need to replace L118. Then why just not keep L118 for all until something better come up.

IMO, the Army, and RM, should first look if it is possible to find some uniform solution for replacement of L118. If that include developing a new gun than be it. If that is not possible, that go looking for what is the best option available on the market. Going for shortcuts would just result in throwing the money to short term solutions without addressing original issue. If idea is to replace L118 with something better and more modern, than keeping L118 for some units while also using L118 on different mount for others does not sound as good solution at all.

well if you want something bigger and off the self so so then Brutus 6x6 truck mounted 155mm for the Light infantry and Light Mechanised BCT's then look into developing a new lighter 155mm field gun for 16XX & RM if not buy M777 and suck it up

there is a good video of Brutus 155mm working on youtube

the other option is to develop a new extended round for the L118

Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 10:50 the other option is to develop a new extended round for the L118

I'm not sure how much juice is left in that to squeeze.

In my opinion, and completely blind on this, I think there's a future in 105mm but we would have to be considering the use of US standard ammunition, a longer barrel (significant up from the 37cal) and use of materials to reduce any subsequent weight increase (which is somewhat complex when trying to balance the system for manual manipulation).

Whether the US is interested in coming along with this I'm not sure.

So if what we are told about ROWANEX is right and it dose give the 105mm round the same effect as a standard 155mm shell then is there anything in having a sabot 90mm shell that could give a 120mm effect at say 40km's when fired from a L118 happy to be told no and why not

Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 16:03 So if what we are told about ROWANEX is right and it dose give the 105mm round the same effect as a standard 155mm shell then is there anything in having a sabot 90mm shell that could give a 120mm effect at say 40km's when fired from a L118 happy to be told no and why not

Interesting though, but then you also reduce the amount of fragmentation you have available, even if you have greater energy.

Haven't the South Africans developed an extended range 105mm Gun?

In today's Telegraph Ben Wallace interview presumably held at the DVD2022 event at the Millbrook Proving Ground last Wednesday/Thursday he made the following comment

People will always talk about the regiments – ‘will you bring back the Rifles’, or whatever it is. We are more likely to be bringing about artillery batteries and more signals intelligence and more electric warfare, and certainly counter-UAV capabilities. If we can’t bring down those little drones, we are very vulnerable, no matter who you are.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... n-without/

PS Re C-UAV yesterday in the 'Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion' thread did a write up on he on the Northrop Grumman proximity fuzed 30mm projectiles which could used with the RN DS30M Mk 2, the main driver for the 30mm proximity projectiles seems to have been the US Army M-LIDS (Mobile-Low, slow, small unmanned aircraft Integrated Defeat System) for Counter-UAS effector, the same requirement as Ben Wallace talking about, guns just one option for C-UAV another could be high power microwaves etc

Lord Jim wrote: ↑24 Sep 2022, 20:26 Haven't the South Africans developed an extended range 105mm Gun?

Yes, Denel's G7 105mm with 52 caliber barrel, and weight of 3.8 tons (there are some proposals which could reduce weight to 2.5 tons). Issue is that development is still not finished due lack of funding, but Denel is still looking for partners to finish it. It does look interesting

https://web.archive.org/web/20130719035 ... y/peck.pdf

On the other news, short video of mobile display of K9A2 on Millbrook Proving Ground, during DVD

For comparison the latest model's from Bae Systems on their offering for the U.S. Army MH155mm wheeled howitzer program.

sol wrote: ↑25 Sep 2022, 12:20 Yes, Denel's G7 105mm with 52 caliber barrel, and weight of 3.8 tons (there are some proposals which could reduce weight to 2.5 tons). Issue is that development is still not finished due lack of funding, but Denel is still looking for partners to finish it. It does look interesting

No point 'partnering' with Denel on anything these days. They're done. Literally all of the Engineering staff have got up and left, most to the UAE. Thats what happens when you don't pay wages for months on end...just a shell of a company now.

And this news makes the fild for the new 155mm artillery systems very very narrow and some systems are completely disregarded .
Your thoughts are welcome!!!!!!

Not related to this but I don't know how or where I should ask the question . . . I'm considering buying a Leyland Daf T244 with an Atlas crane . . . looking at it tomorrow at Witham Specialist Vehicles . . . the crane has a wheel handling attachment at present but that will be removed . . . the only load rating says 400kg at 5.17 metres, I'm trying to find out what is the maximum weight that the crane will lift from the ground right next to the truck. The crane is an Atlas 63.M7. Thanks for reading.

leonard wrote: ↑09 Nov 2022, 15:32 And this news makes the fild for the new 155mm artillery systems very very narrow and some systems are completely disregarded .
Your thoughts are welcome!!!!!!

If tracked is preferred and Boxer was something they were edging towards why not look at the tracked Boxed with 155mm module ?

A mixed fleet of both tracked and wheeled would meet the various needs of the British Army. Ideally using a common gun with different Chassis.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 21:07 A mixed fleet of both tracked and wheeled would meet the various needs of the British Army. Ideally using a common gun with different Chassis.

That’s where what I said above could fit nicely, the tracked Boxer can use the same module as it’s wheeled counter part.

It could also be a back door way for the army to introduce a new tracked vehicle to be ready incase Ajax simply doesn’t work out.

Given that the rest of the Deep Strike Brigade will be tracked I see why the army is looking that way

What we need is a Light gun replacement maybe we just buy K9A2 and then develop a new field gun that can be towed or mounted on a 6x6 truck as needed or wanted

A few of these perhaps:



SIGMA, the Elbit Systems 155 SPH made in cooperation with Rheinmetall. Plan for at least 100 vehicles from this year for the IDF

Courtesy of Jon Hawkes

Ron5 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 15:23 A few of these perhaps:



SIGMA, the Elbit Systems 155 SPH made in cooperation with Rheinmetall. Plan for at least 100 vehicles from this year for the IDF

Courtesy of Jon Hawkes

With the above artillery system i don't think that expeditionary deployment is possible if not with strategic cargo planes if the idea is a expeditionary system which can be placed on the back on a A400M and send in every corner of the word a 155mm system like below is more preferred not to mentioned is the costs aspect of the matter.
Everybody opinion are welcome !!!!

leonard wrote: ↑14 Jan 2023, 16:06 With the above artillery system i don't think that expeditionary deployment is possible if not with strategic cargo planes if the idea is a expeditionary system which can be placed on the back on a A400M and send in every corner of the word a 155mm system like below is more preferred not to mentioned is the costs aspect of the matter.
Everybody opinion are welcome !!!!

The issue is the lack of autoloader. Moving to a 2-3 man crew with autoloader is a big help in soldier numbers and reduced need for multiple systems.

SIGMA (pictured) has a 2 person crew and the gun is fully automated.

As said before we need to reconfigure the Artillery units better and then Kit them out maybe something like

1 RHA , 19 RA & 103 RA (R)

With SP gun allowing 1 RHA deploying batteries in support of armoured brigades and 19 RA & 103 RA(R) supporting the Deep Fires Brigade

3 RHA , 26 RA & 101 RA(R)

With M270A2 allowing 3 RHA to deploy in support of armoured Brigades and 26 & 101 to support the Deep fires Brigade

4 RA & 105 RA(R)

with HIMARS in support of light forces

7 RHA , 29 RA & 104 RA(R)

With field guns in support of 16AA , FCF , and Light forces

12 , 16 RA & 106 RA(R)

Air defence