Britain buying 72 new artillery systems
The British Army is to procure 72 new howitzers under a nearly GBP 1 billion contract, supporting at least 500 jobs across the UK.
The contract for the RCH 155, awarded by the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) on behalf of the British Army to ARTEC GmbH, a joint venture between KNDS and Rheinmetall, covers initial training and in-service support alongside the vehicles themselves. First deliveries are expected in 2028, with a minimal deployable capability to be achieved within this decade.
The weapon systems, including the barrel, breech, recoil system and trunnions, will be manufactured at Rheinmetall’s large-calibre production facility in Telford, with British steel supplied by Sheffield Forgemasters. The BOXER drive module will be manufactured by KNDS UK in Stockport. The programme is expected to create 100 new skilled jobs at Rheinmetall’s Telford facility, support 100 jobs in Stockport and back a further 300 across the wider UK supply chain.
The RCH 155 is mounted on a BOXER chassis and capable of firing eight rounds per minute at targets up to 70 kilometres away. It can redeploy at speeds of up to 100km/h, making it harder for adversaries to target, and its automated turret allows it to be operated by just two soldiers from the crew compartment.
Defence Secretary John Healey said the investment demonstrated that defence could serve as an engine for economic growth. “By securing next-generation artillery with Germany, not only are we rearming to strengthen NATO against growing Russian aggression but also creating highly skilled jobs here in Britain,” he said.
German Federal Minister of Defence Boris Pistorius said the procurement demonstrated practical commitment to NATO interoperability. “Together with the United Kingdom, we are demonstrating that we take interoperability within NATO seriously and are putting it into practice,” he said, adding that the agreement would “deepen military cooperation in the long term and improve our operational readiness — for greater security in Europe.”
Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Simon Hamilton, said the contract marked “the first significant milestone in replenishing” the capability gap created when the British Army donated AS90 artillery systems to Ukraine in 2023. “Britain answered the call for aid by providing artillery systems to Ukraine at the outbreak of the war. We knew the risk — the gap in our warfighting capability — that this would present,” he said.
The RCH 155 replaces the AS90 systems donated to Ukraine. The Archer artillery system currently serves as an interim capability and will continue to do so until the RCH 155 enters service. The procurement builds on the Trinity House Agreement signed between the UK and Germany in October 2024, and follows a £52 million Early Capability Demonstrator contract signed in December 2025 and a £53 million Long Lead Item procurement contract earlier this year.
Glasgow refuses Royal Regiment of Scotland freedom honour
Capgemini signs multi-year tech deal with BAE Systems
Team LionStrike adds Silverado HD to UK vehicle bid
Defence suppliers to earn more for on-time delivery
British paratroopers down drones in Lithuania
UK to award BAE Systems artillery components contract
Scottish defence summit to map supply chain routes
Pollard rejects resignation to give defence certainty
Man jailed for acting as Islamic State media activist
British troops receive medals for Kosovo tour
Cool that the army is getting some firepower.
Reply
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Reply
Cool that the army is getting some firepower.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Reply
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
72 is on the low side compared to the German or polish orders but at least it’s a significant step up on what we have now.
Reply
At least with Archer it’s a more or less 1:1 replacement of the Active AS-90 fleet pre-2022. These systems are high quality kit, I wonder how long the L118 will stick around alongside them.
Reply
Heres hoping it’s a good piece of kit. It’s not in service with anyone yet as far as I know?
Reply
Its a German design mate, I wouldn’t worry too much,
Reply
Like the ahem, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and their current warship which wants to sink… and we shouldn’t worry?
Reply
WTF are you on about?
Reply
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Very much so – with Ukraine 🇺🇦👍
Reply
Rowan, we had 89 AS-90s on the active list in 2022, and up to 90 on the inactive list in Ashhurch, most of the latter having been ‘laid up’ by Cameron’s defence cuts (SDSR) in 2010.
Reply
Graham, it looks as if the RCH155 will have their own Boxer hulls and not need mounts from the Boxer fleet. Am I correct, or will only a percentage be complete vehicles and the rest interchangeable? If all are complete around 730, Boxer hulls will eventually be in the British Army fleet.
Reply
GM, Requesting your opinion on the advisability of a wheeled v. tracked howitzers on the open plains of Eastern Europe. Realize HMG has already committed to a wheeled design, interested to learn whether UK could generate a tracked variant if exigent (i.e., wartime) conditions mandate it.
Reply
Archer wasn’t a one for one swap we donated ninety As90 and have 12 archer in service
Reply
Look at Germany and Poland on a map and then look at the UK and you will see why.
Reply
Look at the number of wars the UK has been in during the last 60 years Vs them and I would counter that.
Reply
We not going to use any on UK mainland only with NATO overseas not much use defending UK mainland .
Reply
What is this NATO you talk about? That is roundly dead post trump. Now just a piece of meaniless paper.
Reply
72 is on the low side compared to the German or polish orders but at least it’s a significant step up on what we have now.
At least with Archer it’s a more or less 1:1 replacement of the Active AS-90 fleet pre-2022. These systems are high quality kit, I wonder how long the L118 will stick around alongside them.
Reply
Heres hoping it’s a good piece of kit. It’s not in service with anyone yet as far as I know?
Reply
Its a German design mate, I wouldn’t worry too much,
Reply
Like the ahem, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and their current warship which wants to sink… and we shouldn’t worry?
Reply
WTF are you on about?
Reply
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Very much so – with Ukraine 🇺🇦👍
Reply
Rowan, we had 89 AS-90s on the active list in 2022, and up to 90 on the inactive list in Ashhurch, most of the latter having been ‘laid up’ by Cameron’s defence cuts (SDSR) in 2010.
Reply
Graham, it looks as if the RCH155 will have their own Boxer hulls and not need mounts from the Boxer fleet. Am I correct, or will only a percentage be complete vehicles and the rest interchangeable? If all are complete around 730, Boxer hulls will eventually be in the British Army fleet.
Reply
GM, Requesting your opinion on the advisability of a wheeled v. tracked howitzers on the open plains of Eastern Europe. Realize HMG has already committed to a wheeled design, interested to learn whether UK could generate a tracked variant if exigent (i.e., wartime) conditions mandate it.
Reply
Archer wasn’t a one for one swap we donated ninety As90 and have 12 archer in service
Reply
At least with Archer it’s a more or less 1:1 replacement of the Active AS-90 fleet pre-2022. These systems are high quality kit, I wonder how long the L118 will stick around alongside them.
Heres hoping it’s a good piece of kit. It’s not in service with anyone yet as far as I know?
Reply
Its a German design mate, I wouldn’t worry too much,
Reply
Like the ahem, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and their current warship which wants to sink… and we shouldn’t worry?
Reply
WTF are you on about?
Reply
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Very much so – with Ukraine 🇺🇦👍
Reply
Heres hoping it’s a good piece of kit. It’s not in service with anyone yet as far as I know?
Its a German design mate, I wouldn’t worry too much,
Reply
Like the ahem, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and their current warship which wants to sink… and we shouldn’t worry?
Reply
WTF are you on about?
Reply
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Its a German design mate, I wouldn’t worry too much,
Like the ahem, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and their current warship which wants to sink… and we shouldn’t worry?
Reply
WTF are you on about?
Reply
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Like the ahem, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and their current warship which wants to sink… and we shouldn’t worry?
WTF are you on about?
Reply
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
WTF are you on about?
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
Reply
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
Replying to your bollards about German manufacturing prowess.
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
Reply
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
They have a history of building successful tanks and armoured vehicles, if your counter to that is randomly mentioning WW2 tanks and a mystery sinking ship, then you are clearly here to be pointlessly argumentative.
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Reply
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
You are writing nonsense, please desist and look up both F125 and F126 warship problems; not one warship but two whole classes of warships and then write again that all we have to do is kick the tyres and she’ll be fine mate because she’s German. You utter bellthronk.
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder. Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
Warships aren’t armoured vehicles mate, try a bit harder.
Bellthronk?! Hahaha, you are just a wind up merchant.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The 126 issues is due to a Dutch shipbuilder, not a German company. It’s actually been taken off Damen and is being given to a German company to fix. F125 had listing issues when launched, but they’ve literally gone to the far side of the world and back without issues now.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
Reply
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
The pzh 2000 has a very low availability rate in the UK as it’s always breaking down and has high maintainability requirements. Somewhere in the 30% rate I believe. . Archer on the other hand has a reputation for being tough, durable and always available.
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Reply
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
There are no Pzh 2000 in the UK mate.
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
Reply
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Using it as an example of how Modern German kit might be technologically outstanding, but it has a tendency to be somewhat fragile. Bit like the new Puma or so I am hearing. It’s gotta stay to play, and if it’s in the shop it doesn’t matter has great it is.
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK. They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically. I hear the barrels held up rather well.
I’ll assume you meant Ukraine rather than the UK.
They are 30 year old vehicles being put through constant use, you should not be surprised they are requiring maintenance. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong systemically.
I hear the barrels held up rather well.
Very much so – with Ukraine 🇺🇦👍
Reply
Very much so – with Ukraine 🇺🇦👍
Rowan, we had 89 AS-90s on the active list in 2022, and up to 90 on the inactive list in Ashhurch, most of the latter having been ‘laid up’ by Cameron’s defence cuts (SDSR) in 2010.
Reply
Graham, it looks as if the RCH155 will have their own Boxer hulls and not need mounts from the Boxer fleet. Am I correct, or will only a percentage be complete vehicles and the rest interchangeable? If all are complete around 730, Boxer hulls will eventually be in the British Army fleet.
Reply
GM, Requesting your opinion on the advisability of a wheeled v. tracked howitzers on the open plains of Eastern Europe. Realize HMG has already committed to a wheeled design, interested to learn whether UK could generate a tracked variant if exigent (i.e., wartime) conditions mandate it.
Reply
Rowan, we had 89 AS-90s on the active list in 2022, and up to 90 on the inactive list in Ashhurch, most of the latter having been ‘laid up’ by Cameron’s defence cuts (SDSR) in 2010.
Graham, it looks as if the RCH155 will have their own Boxer hulls and not need mounts from the Boxer fleet. Am I correct, or will only a percentage be complete vehicles and the rest interchangeable? If all are complete around 730, Boxer hulls will eventually be in the British Army fleet.
Reply
Graham, it looks as if the RCH155 will have their own Boxer hulls and not need mounts from the Boxer fleet. Am I correct, or will only a percentage be complete vehicles and the rest interchangeable? If all are complete around 730, Boxer hulls will eventually be in the British Army fleet.
GM, Requesting your opinion on the advisability of a wheeled v. tracked howitzers on the open plains of Eastern Europe. Realize HMG has already committed to a wheeled design, interested to learn whether UK could generate a tracked variant if exigent (i.e., wartime) conditions mandate it.
Reply
GM, Requesting your opinion on the advisability of a wheeled v. tracked howitzers on the open plains of Eastern Europe. Realize HMG has already committed to a wheeled design, interested to learn whether UK could generate a tracked variant if exigent (i.e., wartime) conditions mandate it.
Archer wasn’t a one for one swap we donated ninety As90 and have 12 archer in service
Reply
Archer wasn’t a one for one swap we donated ninety As90 and have 12 archer in service
Look at Germany and Poland on a map and then look at the UK and you will see why.
Reply
Look at the number of wars the UK has been in during the last 60 years Vs them and I would counter that.
Reply
Look at Germany and Poland on a map and then look at the UK and you will see why.
Look at the number of wars the UK has been in during the last 60 years Vs them and I would counter that.
Reply
Look at the number of wars the UK has been in during the last 60 years Vs them and I would counter that.
We not going to use any on UK mainland only with NATO overseas not much use defending UK mainland .
Reply
What is this NATO you talk about? That is roundly dead post trump. Now just a piece of meaniless paper.
Reply
We not going to use any on UK mainland only with NATO overseas not much use defending UK mainland .
What is this NATO you talk about? That is roundly dead post trump. Now just a piece of meaniless paper.
Reply
What is this NATO you talk about? That is roundly dead post trump. Now just a piece of meaniless paper.
They should really keep archer as well. 14 isn’t a lot but given how small our military is they would still be a great asset.
Reply
The thing about archer is you can stick it in a A400m, but the RCH 155 is too heavy for the A400m. That means the archer is far more air mobile personally I would give the archers to 16 air assault brigade so they have a good 155mm option.
Reply
Any reason you can’t just take off the turret module and transport them separately?
Reply
You can do that in theory, but it means twice as many flights and then time at each end taking the modules off and putting them back on again.
Reply
I have a cunning plan for that. Buy Airlander to carry them or build some Horsa’s to tow behind the Atlas’s. I know, Genius thinking yet again. 😎
Reply
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Reply
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Acher and 105mm in 16AAB makes a lot of sense if the UK is standardising on HIMARS for the armoured forces.
Reply
Good idea, I don’t think towed howizters are really what they need anymore. I only wish they had the same 155 mm gun as each other- I don’t believe that the ammunition is directly compatible between the two unfortunately. The shells, yes. But the propellant charges have, I believe, not compatible across different NATO 155 mm guns…
Reply
Holistic thinking , now that I like 🇬🇧👍 Personally I would push them to purchase at least another 10 x Archer to form a 24 gun 3 x Battery Regt within 1 Div with a focus on supporting 16X, 7X and 4X but as you say primary focus on 16 Air Assault Talking to a gunner mate in the office another advantage of Archer over RCH155 ( being British we’ve got to give it a name surely – Crossbow? 😁👍)is Archer can lower it’s gun to go under pretty much any bridge whereas RCH can’t fit under most. Originally 19 Regt RA were set to get another 14 Archer following the first batch but perhaps quite rightly Sweden opted to send them to Ukraine.
Reply
I agree – The Archer fleet should go to the Royal Marines for the high North force, this makes that force interoperable with the partners up there & we can share logistics, maintenance etc.
Reply
Does that suit the ROYAL’s new raiding doctrine? How does ROYAL do Norwegian defence?
Reply
Dig a hole in the snow and wait for the Russians. Seriously though, I think the whole raider concept is taking a bit of a backburner due to the lack of ships to raid from and the Russians getting extremely belligerent of late. Seems like the Marines are tilting back towards their Northern role.
Reply
The raiding doctrine access because we scrapped everything else for the marines. Give them the proper amphibious ships again and you’ll see them quickly change back to what they were
Reply
They should really keep archer as well. 14 isn’t a lot but given how small our military is they would still be a great asset.
The thing about archer is you can stick it in a A400m, but the RCH 155 is too heavy for the A400m. That means the archer is far more air mobile personally I would give the archers to 16 air assault brigade so they have a good 155mm option.
Reply
Any reason you can’t just take off the turret module and transport them separately?
Reply
You can do that in theory, but it means twice as many flights and then time at each end taking the modules off and putting them back on again.
Reply
I have a cunning plan for that. Buy Airlander to carry them or build some Horsa’s to tow behind the Atlas’s. I know, Genius thinking yet again. 😎
Reply
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Reply
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Acher and 105mm in 16AAB makes a lot of sense if the UK is standardising on HIMARS for the armoured forces.
Reply
Good idea, I don’t think towed howizters are really what they need anymore. I only wish they had the same 155 mm gun as each other- I don’t believe that the ammunition is directly compatible between the two unfortunately. The shells, yes. But the propellant charges have, I believe, not compatible across different NATO 155 mm guns…
Reply
Holistic thinking , now that I like 🇬🇧👍 Personally I would push them to purchase at least another 10 x Archer to form a 24 gun 3 x Battery Regt within 1 Div with a focus on supporting 16X, 7X and 4X but as you say primary focus on 16 Air Assault Talking to a gunner mate in the office another advantage of Archer over RCH155 ( being British we’ve got to give it a name surely – Crossbow? 😁👍)is Archer can lower it’s gun to go under pretty much any bridge whereas RCH can’t fit under most. Originally 19 Regt RA were set to get another 14 Archer following the first batch but perhaps quite rightly Sweden opted to send them to Ukraine.
Reply
The thing about archer is you can stick it in a A400m, but the RCH 155 is too heavy for the A400m. That means the archer is far more air mobile personally I would give the archers to 16 air assault brigade so they have a good 155mm option.
Any reason you can’t just take off the turret module and transport them separately?
Reply
You can do that in theory, but it means twice as many flights and then time at each end taking the modules off and putting them back on again.
Reply
I have a cunning plan for that. Buy Airlander to carry them or build some Horsa’s to tow behind the Atlas’s. I know, Genius thinking yet again. 😎
Reply
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Reply
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Any reason you can’t just take off the turret module and transport them separately?
You can do that in theory, but it means twice as many flights and then time at each end taking the modules off and putting them back on again.
Reply
I have a cunning plan for that. Buy Airlander to carry them or build some Horsa’s to tow behind the Atlas’s. I know, Genius thinking yet again. 😎
Reply
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Reply
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
You can do that in theory, but it means twice as many flights and then time at each end taking the modules off and putting them back on again.
I have a cunning plan for that. Buy Airlander to carry them or build some Horsa’s to tow behind the Atlas’s. I know, Genius thinking yet again. 😎
Reply
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Reply
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
I have a cunning plan for that. Buy Airlander to carry them or build some Horsa’s to tow behind the Atlas’s.
I know, Genius thinking yet again. 😎
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Reply
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
You jest, but Airlander 50 would be able to carry a whole RCH155 over the same distance as an A400. Or an F35, or a Chinook…
Pop!
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Reply
Not really, go and read their paper on survivability.
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!! Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Reply
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Ha, I knew you’d pounce !!!
Seriously though, If it ever “get’s off the ground” and the Wind Is gentle and blowing In roughly the general direction and all radars, binoculars and People with white sticks didn’t spot It, I’m sure It could 😁😁😁. Anyway, It’s always nice to chat to you, there’s a lot of children on todays latest articles !
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Childish behaviour seems to be on the up on the site unfortunately, we’re getting close to Navy Lookout with the recurring bickering and general bad faith comments. I would point you, too, in the direction of their survivability paper/article; airships, being largely composite and thin-skinned, are much harder to spot and do damage to than would first appear.
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all. At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one ! Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Reply
I never look at that site, well sometimes I look at the pictures but that’s not often at all.
At least being a halfwit, I don’t normally attract those stupid enough to want to argue with one !
Yes, It’s been the same for decades and long gone are the days of Catastrophic fires. But (like the rear view Butt) It’s just not getting significant orders. However I haven’t checked them out for a while. You’ll more than likely know more.
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Reply
Funnily enough, I looked at that comment section today. Reading the articles is enough. There are old names from the past that I remember from here, assorted Trolls, and sone familiar names, you, Leh, SB.
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
Reply
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Is the intension to buy dedicated BOXER drive modules for these, or cynic that I am, are the MOD using this as a headine grabber while also saving money and just buying the turret and gun …. so use existing orders of drive train/chassis?
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
This is just a guess, but I’m going with Drive and Weapon module as the 500 Boxer KNDS alert is German prices for all partners, and Germany is buying the full vehicle.
Acher and 105mm in 16AAB makes a lot of sense if the UK is standardising on HIMARS for the armoured forces.
Reply
Acher and 105mm in 16AAB makes a lot of sense if the UK is standardising on HIMARS for the armoured forces.
Good idea, I don’t think towed howizters are really what they need anymore. I only wish they had the same 155 mm gun as each other- I don’t believe that the ammunition is directly compatible between the two unfortunately. The shells, yes. But the propellant charges have, I believe, not compatible across different NATO 155 mm guns…
Reply
Good idea, I don’t think towed howizters are really what they need anymore. I only wish they had the same 155 mm gun as each other- I don’t believe that the ammunition is directly compatible between the two unfortunately. The shells, yes. But the propellant charges have, I believe, not compatible across different NATO 155 mm guns…
Holistic thinking , now that I like 🇬🇧👍 Personally I would push them to purchase at least another 10 x Archer to form a 24 gun 3 x Battery Regt within 1 Div with a focus on supporting 16X, 7X and 4X but as you say primary focus on 16 Air Assault Talking to a gunner mate in the office another advantage of Archer over RCH155 ( being British we’ve got to give it a name surely – Crossbow? 😁👍)is Archer can lower it’s gun to go under pretty much any bridge whereas RCH can’t fit under most. Originally 19 Regt RA were set to get another 14 Archer following the first batch but perhaps quite rightly Sweden opted to send them to Ukraine.
Reply
Holistic thinking , now that I like 🇬🇧👍 Personally I would push them to purchase at least another 10 x Archer to form a 24 gun 3 x Battery Regt within 1 Div with a focus on supporting 16X, 7X and 4X but as you say primary focus on 16 Air Assault Talking to a gunner mate in the office another advantage of Archer over RCH155 ( being British we’ve got to give it a name surely – Crossbow? 😁👍)is Archer can lower it’s gun to go under pretty much any bridge whereas RCH can’t fit under most. Originally 19 Regt RA were set to get another 14 Archer following the first batch but perhaps quite rightly Sweden opted to send them to Ukraine.
I agree – The Archer fleet should go to the Royal Marines for the high North force, this makes that force interoperable with the partners up there & we can share logistics, maintenance etc.
Reply
Does that suit the ROYAL’s new raiding doctrine? How does ROYAL do Norwegian defence?
Reply
Dig a hole in the snow and wait for the Russians. Seriously though, I think the whole raider concept is taking a bit of a backburner due to the lack of ships to raid from and the Russians getting extremely belligerent of late. Seems like the Marines are tilting back towards their Northern role.
Reply
The raiding doctrine access because we scrapped everything else for the marines. Give them the proper amphibious ships again and you’ll see them quickly change back to what they were
Reply
I agree – The Archer fleet should go to the Royal Marines for the high North force, this makes that force interoperable with the partners up there & we can share logistics, maintenance etc.
Does that suit the ROYAL’s new raiding doctrine? How does ROYAL do Norwegian defence?
Reply
Dig a hole in the snow and wait for the Russians. Seriously though, I think the whole raider concept is taking a bit of a backburner due to the lack of ships to raid from and the Russians getting extremely belligerent of late. Seems like the Marines are tilting back towards their Northern role.
Reply
The raiding doctrine access because we scrapped everything else for the marines. Give them the proper amphibious ships again and you’ll see them quickly change back to what they were
Reply
Does that suit the ROYAL’s new raiding doctrine?
How does ROYAL do Norwegian defence?
Dig a hole in the snow and wait for the Russians. Seriously though, I think the whole raider concept is taking a bit of a backburner due to the lack of ships to raid from and the Russians getting extremely belligerent of late. Seems like the Marines are tilting back towards their Northern role.
Reply
Dig a hole in the snow and wait for the Russians. Seriously though, I think the whole raider concept is taking a bit of a backburner due to the lack of ships to raid from and the Russians getting extremely belligerent of late. Seems like the Marines are tilting back towards their Northern role.
The raiding doctrine access because we scrapped everything else for the marines. Give them the proper amphibious ships again and you’ll see them quickly change back to what they were
Reply
The raiding doctrine access because we scrapped everything else for the marines. Give them the proper amphibious ships again and you’ll see them quickly change back to what they were
Noice.
Reply
Yes indeed and Daniele will be happy…maybe…sort of…Lol. Does this quantity include replacing the Archers 1 for 1?
Reply
He won’t be happy 😀
Reply
😉 Yes and no. The numbers are pretty much as I’d suggested all along, suggestions of the hundreds never sounded realistic to me. The original requirement was for 116 guns, in 4 Regiments. As I’ve noted before, now 3 RHA has gone from a gun Regiment on L118 to MLRS, that left 2, possibly 3 Regiments to be outfitted. 1 RHA, 19 RA, both supporting the 2 Armoured Brigades. And 4 RA, a L118 equipped Regiment supporting 7 Light Mech Bde. 72. So no more 3×8 gun per Battery Regiments, maybe 3×6, which leaves 18 spare for Training, 14 RA. Trials. RATDU. Plus a small reserve. One suggestion I read here was for hundreds. So, Jim, good to see an order, but down on numbers again, no matter how one spins it. For balance, the Army is getting OWE Long Range Strike Drones and as we’ve daid before, the MLRS fleet is expanding, even though this government won’t commit to the final tranche. As for MLRS ER, and PRSM, where are they? I fear gone, the money spent instead on the Anglo German missile.
Reply
Yes, tend to think the 3×6 model. As you say Daniele.. Need spare guns for training and trials so on. 👍
Reply
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
Reply
No idea on PrSM, I thought project nightfall was going to cover it but apparently not. That being said we have the launchers for PrSM so presumably it’s just an ammunition purchase required and if project nightfall produces a weapon then a purchase should be simple. We have a large number of one way effectors in the offing with similar ranges out to 500km so we will likely be very well served and hopefully with no reliance on the USA.
Reply
There was a report in a German paper and backed up by a German Minister, that said the UK and Germany were going to buy a large number of RCH155s. With Germany looking to acquire around 230 and the UK a similar number. If I remember correctly this was around Nov/Dec last year. This was separate to the Polish and Ukrainian deals. I think a lot of assumptions have been made based on manning. If the AS90 had a crew of 5 plus another (though not always needed) 4 or 5 in support to operate, whilst the RCH can use 2 to 3. It would mean you have a load of bods spare. What do you do with them? In theory it could mean that you can operate more RCH tube artillery, but that would depend on the MOD putting their hands in their pockets to fund more RCHs. Which is sadly unlikely!
Reply
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9). That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
Daniele, you mention that the original requirement was for 116 guns for 4 regiments. How is that made up? I guess that the 116 figure factored in equipments for the: Trg Org (RA and REME); Repair Pool; Attrition Reserve?
Reply
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
Reply
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Yes indeed and Daniele will be happy…maybe…sort of…Lol. Does this quantity include replacing the Archers 1 for 1?
Reply
He won’t be happy 😀
Reply
😉 Yes and no. The numbers are pretty much as I’d suggested all along, suggestions of the hundreds never sounded realistic to me. The original requirement was for 116 guns, in 4 Regiments. As I’ve noted before, now 3 RHA has gone from a gun Regiment on L118 to MLRS, that left 2, possibly 3 Regiments to be outfitted. 1 RHA, 19 RA, both supporting the 2 Armoured Brigades. And 4 RA, a L118 equipped Regiment supporting 7 Light Mech Bde. 72. So no more 3×8 gun per Battery Regiments, maybe 3×6, which leaves 18 spare for Training, 14 RA. Trials. RATDU. Plus a small reserve. One suggestion I read here was for hundreds. So, Jim, good to see an order, but down on numbers again, no matter how one spins it. For balance, the Army is getting OWE Long Range Strike Drones and as we’ve daid before, the MLRS fleet is expanding, even though this government won’t commit to the final tranche. As for MLRS ER, and PRSM, where are they? I fear gone, the money spent instead on the Anglo German missile.
Reply
Yes, tend to think the 3×6 model. As you say Daniele.. Need spare guns for training and trials so on. 👍
Reply
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
Reply
No idea on PrSM, I thought project nightfall was going to cover it but apparently not. That being said we have the launchers for PrSM so presumably it’s just an ammunition purchase required and if project nightfall produces a weapon then a purchase should be simple. We have a large number of one way effectors in the offing with similar ranges out to 500km so we will likely be very well served and hopefully with no reliance on the USA.
Reply
There was a report in a German paper and backed up by a German Minister, that said the UK and Germany were going to buy a large number of RCH155s. With Germany looking to acquire around 230 and the UK a similar number. If I remember correctly this was around Nov/Dec last year. This was separate to the Polish and Ukrainian deals. I think a lot of assumptions have been made based on manning. If the AS90 had a crew of 5 plus another (though not always needed) 4 or 5 in support to operate, whilst the RCH can use 2 to 3. It would mean you have a load of bods spare. What do you do with them? In theory it could mean that you can operate more RCH tube artillery, but that would depend on the MOD putting their hands in their pockets to fund more RCHs. Which is sadly unlikely!
Reply
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9). That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
Daniele, you mention that the original requirement was for 116 guns for 4 regiments. How is that made up? I guess that the 116 figure factored in equipments for the: Trg Org (RA and REME); Repair Pool; Attrition Reserve?
Reply
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
Reply
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Yes indeed and Daniele will be happy…maybe…sort of…Lol. Does this quantity include replacing the Archers 1 for 1?
He won’t be happy 😀
Reply
😉 Yes and no. The numbers are pretty much as I’d suggested all along, suggestions of the hundreds never sounded realistic to me. The original requirement was for 116 guns, in 4 Regiments. As I’ve noted before, now 3 RHA has gone from a gun Regiment on L118 to MLRS, that left 2, possibly 3 Regiments to be outfitted. 1 RHA, 19 RA, both supporting the 2 Armoured Brigades. And 4 RA, a L118 equipped Regiment supporting 7 Light Mech Bde. 72. So no more 3×8 gun per Battery Regiments, maybe 3×6, which leaves 18 spare for Training, 14 RA. Trials. RATDU. Plus a small reserve. One suggestion I read here was for hundreds. So, Jim, good to see an order, but down on numbers again, no matter how one spins it. For balance, the Army is getting OWE Long Range Strike Drones and as we’ve daid before, the MLRS fleet is expanding, even though this government won’t commit to the final tranche. As for MLRS ER, and PRSM, where are they? I fear gone, the money spent instead on the Anglo German missile.
Reply
Yes, tend to think the 3×6 model. As you say Daniele.. Need spare guns for training and trials so on. 👍
Reply
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
Reply
No idea on PrSM, I thought project nightfall was going to cover it but apparently not. That being said we have the launchers for PrSM so presumably it’s just an ammunition purchase required and if project nightfall produces a weapon then a purchase should be simple. We have a large number of one way effectors in the offing with similar ranges out to 500km so we will likely be very well served and hopefully with no reliance on the USA.
Reply
There was a report in a German paper and backed up by a German Minister, that said the UK and Germany were going to buy a large number of RCH155s. With Germany looking to acquire around 230 and the UK a similar number. If I remember correctly this was around Nov/Dec last year. This was separate to the Polish and Ukrainian deals. I think a lot of assumptions have been made based on manning. If the AS90 had a crew of 5 plus another (though not always needed) 4 or 5 in support to operate, whilst the RCH can use 2 to 3. It would mean you have a load of bods spare. What do you do with them? In theory it could mean that you can operate more RCH tube artillery, but that would depend on the MOD putting their hands in their pockets to fund more RCHs. Which is sadly unlikely!
Reply
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9). That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
Daniele, you mention that the original requirement was for 116 guns for 4 regiments. How is that made up? I guess that the 116 figure factored in equipments for the: Trg Org (RA and REME); Repair Pool; Attrition Reserve?
Reply
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
Reply
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
He won’t be happy 😀
😉 Yes and no. The numbers are pretty much as I’d suggested all along, suggestions of the hundreds never sounded realistic to me. The original requirement was for 116 guns, in 4 Regiments. As I’ve noted before, now 3 RHA has gone from a gun Regiment on L118 to MLRS, that left 2, possibly 3 Regiments to be outfitted. 1 RHA, 19 RA, both supporting the 2 Armoured Brigades. And 4 RA, a L118 equipped Regiment supporting 7 Light Mech Bde. 72. So no more 3×8 gun per Battery Regiments, maybe 3×6, which leaves 18 spare for Training, 14 RA. Trials. RATDU. Plus a small reserve. One suggestion I read here was for hundreds. So, Jim, good to see an order, but down on numbers again, no matter how one spins it. For balance, the Army is getting OWE Long Range Strike Drones and as we’ve daid before, the MLRS fleet is expanding, even though this government won’t commit to the final tranche. As for MLRS ER, and PRSM, where are they? I fear gone, the money spent instead on the Anglo German missile.
Reply
Yes, tend to think the 3×6 model. As you say Daniele.. Need spare guns for training and trials so on. 👍
Reply
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
Reply
No idea on PrSM, I thought project nightfall was going to cover it but apparently not. That being said we have the launchers for PrSM so presumably it’s just an ammunition purchase required and if project nightfall produces a weapon then a purchase should be simple. We have a large number of one way effectors in the offing with similar ranges out to 500km so we will likely be very well served and hopefully with no reliance on the USA.
Reply
There was a report in a German paper and backed up by a German Minister, that said the UK and Germany were going to buy a large number of RCH155s. With Germany looking to acquire around 230 and the UK a similar number. If I remember correctly this was around Nov/Dec last year. This was separate to the Polish and Ukrainian deals. I think a lot of assumptions have been made based on manning. If the AS90 had a crew of 5 plus another (though not always needed) 4 or 5 in support to operate, whilst the RCH can use 2 to 3. It would mean you have a load of bods spare. What do you do with them? In theory it could mean that you can operate more RCH tube artillery, but that would depend on the MOD putting their hands in their pockets to fund more RCHs. Which is sadly unlikely!
Reply
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9). That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
Daniele, you mention that the original requirement was for 116 guns for 4 regiments. How is that made up? I guess that the 116 figure factored in equipments for the: Trg Org (RA and REME); Repair Pool; Attrition Reserve?
Reply
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
Reply
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
😉 Yes and no. The numbers are pretty much as I’d suggested all along, suggestions of the hundreds never sounded realistic to me. The original requirement was for 116 guns, in 4 Regiments. As I’ve noted before, now 3 RHA has gone from a gun Regiment on L118 to MLRS, that left 2, possibly 3 Regiments to be outfitted. 1 RHA, 19 RA, both supporting the 2 Armoured Brigades. And 4 RA, a L118 equipped Regiment supporting 7 Light Mech Bde. 72. So no more 3×8 gun per Battery Regiments, maybe 3×6, which leaves 18 spare for Training, 14 RA. Trials. RATDU. Plus a small reserve. One suggestion I read here was for hundreds. So, Jim, good to see an order, but down on numbers again, no matter how one spins it. For balance, the Army is getting OWE Long Range Strike Drones and as we’ve daid before, the MLRS fleet is expanding, even though this government won’t commit to the final tranche. As for MLRS ER, and PRSM, where are they? I fear gone, the money spent instead on the Anglo German missile.
Yes, tend to think the 3×6 model. As you say Daniele.. Need spare guns for training and trials so on. 👍
Reply
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
Reply
Yes, tend to think the 3×6 model. As you say Daniele.. Need spare guns for training and trials so on. 👍
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
Reply
For once really good news for the Army and I’ve always been a fan of RCH155 , able to deploy over long distance on its own wheels without having to rely on a whole RLC Regt of trucks, low loaders etc to move them about . Will still ify course still need an RLC Arty Support Regt to keep the ammo coming and I’m also keen to see if we will also have a dedicated ammo re-supply/reloading vehicle like Archer does but again hopefully Boxer based . Without such a vehicle and without carrying many rounds in the turret it just won’t be able to keep up it’s much vaunted rate of fire. I’m actually quite encouraged by the numbers as the earlier reports were just 43 which made no sense at all but as you say 72 will at least allow 3 x 3 Bty Regts with 8 guns each ( 2 x Troops of 4 ) or at a push 4 x Regts with 3 x Bty x 6 guns . Personally I would prefer the former and as they will all probably be based at Tidworth or at least on the ‘Plain’ it should be no problem supplying a Bty in rotation to support RSA Larkhill as necessary, courses etc, as we have done before . Of course once the domestic supply line is up and running at Telford or wherever we could always order more. IMHO this brings the RA back in the fight and the best news we have had for the Army for a very long time 🇬🇧👍🙏
No idea on PrSM, I thought project nightfall was going to cover it but apparently not. That being said we have the launchers for PrSM so presumably it’s just an ammunition purchase required and if project nightfall produces a weapon then a purchase should be simple. We have a large number of one way effectors in the offing with similar ranges out to 500km so we will likely be very well served and hopefully with no reliance on the USA.
Reply
No idea on PrSM, I thought project nightfall was going to cover it but apparently not. That being said we have the launchers for PrSM so presumably it’s just an ammunition purchase required and if project nightfall produces a weapon then a purchase should be simple.
We have a large number of one way effectors in the offing with similar ranges out to 500km so we will likely be very well served and hopefully with no reliance on the USA.
There was a report in a German paper and backed up by a German Minister, that said the UK and Germany were going to buy a large number of RCH155s. With Germany looking to acquire around 230 and the UK a similar number. If I remember correctly this was around Nov/Dec last year. This was separate to the Polish and Ukrainian deals. I think a lot of assumptions have been made based on manning. If the AS90 had a crew of 5 plus another (though not always needed) 4 or 5 in support to operate, whilst the RCH can use 2 to 3. It would mean you have a load of bods spare. What do you do with them? In theory it could mean that you can operate more RCH tube artillery, but that would depend on the MOD putting their hands in their pockets to fund more RCHs. Which is sadly unlikely!
Reply
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9). That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
There was a report in a German paper and backed up by a German Minister, that said the UK and Germany were going to buy a large number of RCH155s. With Germany looking to acquire around 230 and the UK a similar number. If I remember correctly this was around Nov/Dec last year. This was separate to the Polish and Ukrainian deals.
I think a lot of assumptions have been made based on manning. If the AS90 had a crew of 5 plus another (though not always needed) 4 or 5 in support to operate, whilst the RCH can use 2 to 3. It would mean you have a load of bods spare. What do you do with them? In theory it could mean that you can operate more RCH tube artillery, but that would depend on the MOD putting their hands in their pockets to fund more RCHs. Which is sadly unlikely!
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9). That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
It’s a bit more complicated than that Davey. Germany has notified KNDS to be prepared to make 500 RCH155’s, for Germany and allied nations. Of those 500, Germany has already ordered 80, and the working idea is that Germany will follow that with 149, because that’s basically what Germany needs to fill out it’s artillery Orbat (the Bundeswehr is increasing it’s artillery battalions from 4 in 2018 to 7 and then 9).
That leaves 271 systems up for grabs, which is where the “UK similar number” I think is coming from, because so far the UK is the only other country in that 500 RCH pot AFAIK (I believe Ukraine’s order is seperate). Britain buys 72 now, so KNDS is baisically looking to “flog” another 199 RCH’s (145 if Ukraine’s 54 systems is part of the 500). There probably will be some pressure by KNDS and the German govt for a Batch 2 UK order, but also they’ll be looking for other export partners.
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
Reply
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
Hi Dern, do you have an idea how many the BA would realistically need to equip both Divisions (assuming 1 Division gets Boxer later on if 3 gets tracks) plus Corp level artillery with the assumption the aim is to equip to meet the U.K. ARRC commitment.
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Reply
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
What are your hypothetical planning assumptions? You say 3XX gets tracks is that including the artillery? Are you assuming that the reserves get systems as well? Are you assuming an uplift in RA numbers to support all brigades since you are assuming the creation of a corps artillery brigade?
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Reply
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Talking of “Corps artillery,” I read yesterday a suggestion on X, the usual UKAFC, that a third MLRS Regiment might form, and that it might be a resurrected 39 Regiment, as a Corps level Deep Fires asset. Leaves me a bit confused if true, as most of our artillery is in 1 and 3 DRSB supporting their respective 1 and 3 Divisions. The other longstanding rumour is that a third GBAD Regiment will form as well, though where do the pids come from? Reshuffling bods from Batteries which eventually will have KGA? Or, if RCH155 has fewer crew, spare there?
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced. Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have. I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Hi Dern, for now I had assumed the only self propelled artillery would be RCH 155, even if an IFV is ordered it seems a bit to hopeful that a tracked option would be introduced.
Whilst the Reserves should be equipped to make up for the smaller regular force it’s just not going to happen any time soon so I was assuming they would not have.
I had assumed with the change back to peer level warfare that there would be uplift in numbers at some point to allow for all Brigades in 1/3 Div to have artillery support plus Corp level artillery as part of a deployable corps under ARRC (even if ARRC is unlikely to be met).
Using this as a planning assumption: https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
Reply
Using this as a planning assumption:
https (space) ://files (Space) .catbox (space) .moe/0tws6q. (space) png
<- delete the (spaces) to get the URL
You'd need anywhere from 84 to 112 Boxer RCH 155's to equip the RA, depending on 6 or 8 per battery, plus training and attrition reserve, and another 70-90 Light Guns.
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
That makes sense. I do wonder what the RA will be doing with their now freed up spare bods. But as Dani says below, if we are getting an additional MLRS Regt. Then those spare from AS90 might be going there. Which still doesn’t explain where the bods are coming from to form another GBAD Regt? Perhaps the RA are getting an uplift in numbers? As I’ve also heard that there’s going to be more emphasise on forming another RA unit using drones for attack rather than surveillance.
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
Reply
I don’t think they will have spare bods. The vehicle might have a crew of two, but the harbour still will need defending, watches will have to be kept, vehicles maintained, ammo physically moved, and now CUAS duty. You aren’t doing that with 12-16 blokes per battery. Additional units probably will need an uplift in personnel in the Army overall.
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Reply
The King’s Gurkha Artillery are due to get 3, or was it 4 Batteries, split up within existing RA Gun Regiments. Maybe from that?
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
Interesting are ours not being domestically produced at Telford etc so should not be impacted by the German or other allied orders unless of course we want to produce more for export after we have fulfilled the order for our own ? As regards crew numbers I’m really hoping the much vaunted and quoted two doesn’t include the driver as this would leave one bod to command , load , fire and fight the vehicle ( plus stag on !) all on his/her own . Really hoping it actually turns out to be three, Comd, Bmdr, plus Dvr. Makes much more sense to me. We will also need a whole load more blokes in the ammo resupply/reloading vehicle one would hope .
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
Our APC Boxers are being produced at Telford, but I suspect the RCH 155’s are going to be produced by KNDS in Germany, just given the German government warning order to KNDS to be prepared for 500 RCH155 orders from the Bundeswehr and allies.
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Reply
I believe I read that the drive modules will be built in the U.K. but the RCH specific module will be built in Germany, barrel also uk.
Daniele, you mention that the original requirement was for 116 guns for 4 regiments. How is that made up? I guess that the 116 figure factored in equipments for the: Trg Org (RA and REME); Repair Pool; Attrition Reserve?
Reply
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
Reply
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Daniele, you mention that the original requirement was for 116 guns for 4 regiments. How is that made up? I guess that the 116 figure factored in equipments for the: Trg Org (RA and REME); Repair Pool; Attrition Reserve?
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
Reply
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Yes, I believe so, but not certain on allocations Assume they’d have been 18 Gun Regiments and a sensible number for 14RA, RATDU, and some spares. All very sensible!
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else. Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Reply
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
I wonder if we will see follow on orders once 3 Div is in a somewhat sensible state again, with the amount that needs doing it doesn’t seem realistic to go all in on RCH155 in high numbers if you can’t afford anything else.
Also waiting on Shroedingers DIP to see if 3 Div will go more tracked, then Boxer to 1Div when feasible at a later date which had been speculated, perhaps a follow on order for more RCH 155 then, 72 seems low for end game considering the talk about the importance of artillery.
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
Reply
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Ah yes, the Boxer to 7 Brigade stories from last year, with tracked for the 4 AI Battalions. Not heard anything else there. Where else would more RCH155 go? There are only 3 Regiments available without changing roles for others or widespread issue to the Reserve, both unlikely given how the Reserve work and that the other Regiments support UKCF, 16, and are GBAD, UAV, or ISTAR all vital areas that need expanding, not converting to gun artillery.
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns. Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks. There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Reply
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
It would mostly be needed if 1 Div gained medium brigades on Boxer, surely each would benefit from wheeled RCH 155 support over light guns.
Although if 1 Div gained Boxer and wanted fully deployable brigades it would need to have the full set of enablers, so that and artillery would require an uplift in numbers. There have been a number of proposed orbats (not official) the past couple of years looking at this with a small uplift to mid 80ks.
There’s also Corp level assets if you consider ARRC but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Well. According to Gabs on UKAFC, that is the plan. He’s reporting that 39 RA will be resurrected and that it’ll be a Corps level asset with ARRC in another DRSB! 9 DRSB. So, 1 DRSB and 1 Div 3 DRSB, 3 Div. 9 DRSB, ARRC. The mind boggles, well mine does, knowing the orbat and where are the regiments coming from for these “Brigades.” They already robbed the original DRSB to give some formations to 1 DRSB.
Not a large order but better than a kick in the bollocks
Reply
In the end we don’t have the ORBAT for more than 3 155mm regiments.
Reply
Exactly this. And no chance they might try to bleed some more kit into the Reserve Regiments, a shame. But it’s not surprising, is it? There’s no declared plan to expand the CS CSS required.
Reply
Yep if they were clever they would use archer as an air mobile element. With zero capital investment they could make 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery massively more lethal and so add huge punch to 16 Brigade. Make 7th a mixed regiment, 105mm and Archer, you could even with a few more people make the batteries up to 8 guns and fully equip the honourable artillery company with 8 105mm to make them a deployable reserve battery.
Reply
Most things are.😏
Reply
Not a large order but better than a kick in the bollocks
In the end we don’t have the ORBAT for more than 3 155mm regiments.
Reply
Exactly this. And no chance they might try to bleed some more kit into the Reserve Regiments, a shame. But it’s not surprising, is it? There’s no declared plan to expand the CS CSS required.
Reply
Yep if they were clever they would use archer as an air mobile element. With zero capital investment they could make 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery massively more lethal and so add huge punch to 16 Brigade. Make 7th a mixed regiment, 105mm and Archer, you could even with a few more people make the batteries up to 8 guns and fully equip the honourable artillery company with 8 105mm to make them a deployable reserve battery.
Reply
In the end we don’t have the ORBAT for more than 3 155mm regiments.
Exactly this. And no chance they might try to bleed some more kit into the Reserve Regiments, a shame. But it’s not surprising, is it? There’s no declared plan to expand the CS CSS required.
Reply
Yep if they were clever they would use archer as an air mobile element. With zero capital investment they could make 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery massively more lethal and so add huge punch to 16 Brigade. Make 7th a mixed regiment, 105mm and Archer, you could even with a few more people make the batteries up to 8 guns and fully equip the honourable artillery company with 8 105mm to make them a deployable reserve battery.
Reply
Exactly this. And no chance they might try to bleed some more kit into the Reserve Regiments, a shame. But it’s not surprising, is it? There’s no declared plan to expand the CS CSS required.
Yep if they were clever they would use archer as an air mobile element. With zero capital investment they could make 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery massively more lethal and so add huge punch to 16 Brigade. Make 7th a mixed regiment, 105mm and Archer, you could even with a few more people make the batteries up to 8 guns and fully equip the honourable artillery company with 8 105mm to make them a deployable reserve battery.
Reply
Yep if they were clever they would use archer as an air mobile element.
With zero capital investment they could make 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery massively more lethal and so add huge punch to 16 Brigade. Make 7th a mixed regiment, 105mm and Archer, you could even with a few more people make the batteries up to 8 guns and fully equip the honourable artillery company with 8 105mm to make them a deployable reserve battery.
Most things are.😏
Reply
This must be the first real significant Army order we’ve read about on here for the last couple of years ?
Reply
Since Archer I think?
Reply
Triton to replace the current M3 rigs was another.
Reply
Well yes but that was more an exercise In “Building Bridges” with the Europeans …… 😎 (see what I did there ?)
Reply
Ha. That also potentially applies to the PRSM funding.
Reply
And this isn’t??
Reply
Think I remember reading that we ordered 300 doss bags last year.
Reply
Ha ha…. Back up Is here ! 😁 Time for some humour now me thinks !
Reply
This must be the first real significant Army order we’ve read about on here for the last couple of years ?
Since Archer I think?
Reply
Since Archer I think?
Triton to replace the current M3 rigs was another.
Reply
Well yes but that was more an exercise In “Building Bridges” with the Europeans …… 😎 (see what I did there ?)
Reply
Ha. That also potentially applies to the PRSM funding.
Reply
And this isn’t??
Reply
Triton to replace the current M3 rigs was another.
Well yes but that was more an exercise In “Building Bridges” with the Europeans …… 😎 (see what I did there ?)
Reply
Ha. That also potentially applies to the PRSM funding.
Reply
And this isn’t??
Reply
Well yes but that was more an exercise In “Building Bridges” with the Europeans …… 😎 (see what I did there ?)
Ha. That also potentially applies to the PRSM funding.
Reply
Ha. That also potentially applies to the PRSM funding.
And this isn’t??
Reply
Think I remember reading that we ordered 300 doss bags last year.
Reply
Ha ha…. Back up Is here ! 😁 Time for some humour now me thinks !
Reply
Think I remember reading that we ordered 300 doss bags last year.
Ha ha…. Back up Is here ! 😁 Time for some humour now me thinks !
Reply
Ha ha…. Back up Is here ! 😁 Time for some humour now me thinks !
As the current plans are for 100 boxers a year to be delivered up to the 2030s this order will extend delivery times by a year or so at the very least! So 155s or delivery to the slated units?
Reply
Delays or some Boxers switched to Patrias?
Reply
Delays either way isn’t it? Babcock are still waiting on the supposed Patria order🙄
Reply
Been trying to find latest news on the supposed Babcock Patria assembly plant in Plymouth. Found this on the monkandpartners surveyors web site. Dated Oct 1 2025. “Following a long period of negotiations The Sherford Consortium through Plymouth Commercial agents Monk & Partners and Exeter based JLL Property Consultants have a secured the sale of Plot C, 7.6 hectares (18.8 acres) of land at Sherford for the development of a large industrial facility to be occupied by Babcock International Group Plc as an integrated logistics hub and advanced manufacturing base”. I have to believe this is happening. The UK has joined to CAV program, Babcock and Patria have signed an agreement, Plymouth is one of the designated UK ‘Freeports’ and we can’t afford Boxer as the replacement for basic APC. Govt just needs to pull its financial finger out. I’ll bet you could throw up the steel for a Patria assembly plant pretty quickly.
Reply
👍 I had read that,down to the normal dithering though isn’t it?
Reply
Babcock and Patria won’t build the plant until the UK Govt makes some sort of sign of being interested in the CAVS program, and it hasn’t. Babcock and Patria have agreed to work together to try and sell the idea to the MoD, but that’s it, and it’s being misreported a lot.
Reply
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option. It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Reply
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
As the current plans are for 100 boxers a year to be delivered up to the 2030s this order will extend delivery times by a year or so at the very least! So 155s or delivery to the slated units?
Delays or some Boxers switched to Patrias?
Reply
Delays either way isn’t it? Babcock are still waiting on the supposed Patria order🙄
Reply
Been trying to find latest news on the supposed Babcock Patria assembly plant in Plymouth. Found this on the monkandpartners surveyors web site. Dated Oct 1 2025. “Following a long period of negotiations The Sherford Consortium through Plymouth Commercial agents Monk & Partners and Exeter based JLL Property Consultants have a secured the sale of Plot C, 7.6 hectares (18.8 acres) of land at Sherford for the development of a large industrial facility to be occupied by Babcock International Group Plc as an integrated logistics hub and advanced manufacturing base”. I have to believe this is happening. The UK has joined to CAV program, Babcock and Patria have signed an agreement, Plymouth is one of the designated UK ‘Freeports’ and we can’t afford Boxer as the replacement for basic APC. Govt just needs to pull its financial finger out. I’ll bet you could throw up the steel for a Patria assembly plant pretty quickly.
Reply
👍 I had read that,down to the normal dithering though isn’t it?
Reply
Babcock and Patria won’t build the plant until the UK Govt makes some sort of sign of being interested in the CAVS program, and it hasn’t. Babcock and Patria have agreed to work together to try and sell the idea to the MoD, but that’s it, and it’s being misreported a lot.
Reply
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option. It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Reply
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
Delays or some Boxers switched to Patrias?
Delays either way isn’t it? Babcock are still waiting on the supposed Patria order🙄
Reply
Been trying to find latest news on the supposed Babcock Patria assembly plant in Plymouth. Found this on the monkandpartners surveyors web site. Dated Oct 1 2025. “Following a long period of negotiations The Sherford Consortium through Plymouth Commercial agents Monk & Partners and Exeter based JLL Property Consultants have a secured the sale of Plot C, 7.6 hectares (18.8 acres) of land at Sherford for the development of a large industrial facility to be occupied by Babcock International Group Plc as an integrated logistics hub and advanced manufacturing base”. I have to believe this is happening. The UK has joined to CAV program, Babcock and Patria have signed an agreement, Plymouth is one of the designated UK ‘Freeports’ and we can’t afford Boxer as the replacement for basic APC. Govt just needs to pull its financial finger out. I’ll bet you could throw up the steel for a Patria assembly plant pretty quickly.
Reply
👍 I had read that,down to the normal dithering though isn’t it?
Reply
Babcock and Patria won’t build the plant until the UK Govt makes some sort of sign of being interested in the CAVS program, and it hasn’t. Babcock and Patria have agreed to work together to try and sell the idea to the MoD, but that’s it, and it’s being misreported a lot.
Reply
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option. It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Reply
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
Delays either way isn’t it? Babcock are still waiting on the supposed Patria order🙄
Been trying to find latest news on the supposed Babcock Patria assembly plant in Plymouth. Found this on the monkandpartners surveyors web site. Dated Oct 1 2025. “Following a long period of negotiations The Sherford Consortium through Plymouth Commercial agents Monk & Partners and Exeter based JLL Property Consultants have a secured the sale of Plot C, 7.6 hectares (18.8 acres) of land at Sherford for the development of a large industrial facility to be occupied by Babcock International Group Plc as an integrated logistics hub and advanced manufacturing base”. I have to believe this is happening. The UK has joined to CAV program, Babcock and Patria have signed an agreement, Plymouth is one of the designated UK ‘Freeports’ and we can’t afford Boxer as the replacement for basic APC. Govt just needs to pull its financial finger out. I’ll bet you could throw up the steel for a Patria assembly plant pretty quickly.
Reply
👍 I had read that,down to the normal dithering though isn’t it?
Reply
Babcock and Patria won’t build the plant until the UK Govt makes some sort of sign of being interested in the CAVS program, and it hasn’t. Babcock and Patria have agreed to work together to try and sell the idea to the MoD, but that’s it, and it’s being misreported a lot.
Reply
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option. It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Reply
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
Been trying to find latest news on the supposed Babcock Patria assembly plant in Plymouth. Found this on the monkandpartners surveyors web site. Dated Oct 1 2025. “Following a long period of negotiations The Sherford Consortium through Plymouth Commercial agents Monk & Partners and Exeter based JLL Property Consultants have a secured the sale of Plot C, 7.6 hectares (18.8 acres) of land at Sherford for the development of a large industrial facility to be occupied by Babcock International Group Plc as an integrated logistics hub and advanced manufacturing base”. I have to believe this is happening. The UK has joined to CAV program, Babcock and Patria have signed an agreement, Plymouth is one of the designated UK ‘Freeports’ and we can’t afford Boxer as the replacement for basic APC. Govt just needs to pull its financial finger out. I’ll bet you could throw up the steel for a Patria assembly plant pretty quickly.
👍 I had read that,down to the normal dithering though isn’t it?
Reply
👍 I had read that,down to the normal dithering though isn’t it?
Babcock and Patria won’t build the plant until the UK Govt makes some sort of sign of being interested in the CAVS program, and it hasn’t. Babcock and Patria have agreed to work together to try and sell the idea to the MoD, but that’s it, and it’s being misreported a lot.
Reply
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option. It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Reply
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
Babcock and Patria won’t build the plant until the UK Govt makes some sort of sign of being interested in the CAVS program, and it hasn’t. Babcock and Patria have agreed to work together to try and sell the idea to the MoD, but that’s it, and it’s being misreported a lot.
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option. It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Reply
You are right, Cavs has been overhyped in the media and given the impression it’s happening, but with the complete lack of progress on the various sections of the LMP program, or orders for the Army in general with the MIA DIP it’s easy to get carried away with even a hint of an order. It almost seems to sensible an option.
It’s worth noting Turkish Nurol Makina have actually set up a factory in Leamington and have a vehicle in a similar weight class and role despite no order.
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
Well more fool me – the misreporting certainly worked. Lot of articles reporting that ‘the UK’ had signed up to the CAV program. I guess a case of Babcock and Patria using the ‘Royal plural’.
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
It was widely reported on X that it had been chosen as base vehicle for Stormer HVM replacement.
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
That may have come from the same place as 7x to Boxer and tracked IFV plus turreted Ares, I seem to remember the Cavs info coming out around that time before it was actually announced. There had also been discussion on whether Nemo would go on Boxer or Cavs around that time, Army supposedly wanted it on Boxer, cost said Cavs.
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Reply
Yes, I read all that as well, agreed!
Well did not expect to read this, this morning.
Reply
Amazing how quickly defence priorities sharpen when the government starts feeling the pressure, suddenly good news stories on capability and industry become very useful.
Reply
I heard Starmer wants Ireland and Iceland next to shore up Atlantic Bastion !
Reply
Ireland is working on this. Significant 1 Billion Euro purchase in the French Scorpion program, for up to 400 new armored vehicles from three different classes and Caesar 155mm from KNDS. Also Thales sonar and radar systems have been purchased.
Reply
That’s a very serious change.
Reply
Well did not expect to read this, this morning.
Amazing how quickly defence priorities sharpen when the government starts feeling the pressure, suddenly good news stories on capability and industry become very useful.
Reply
I heard Starmer wants Ireland and Iceland next to shore up Atlantic Bastion !
Reply
Ireland is working on this. Significant 1 Billion Euro purchase in the French Scorpion program, for up to 400 new armored vehicles from three different classes and Caesar 155mm from KNDS. Also Thales sonar and radar systems have been purchased.
Reply
That’s a very serious change.
Reply
Amazing how quickly defence priorities sharpen when the government starts feeling the pressure, suddenly good news stories on capability and industry become very useful.
I heard Starmer wants Ireland and Iceland next to shore up Atlantic Bastion !
Reply
Ireland is working on this. Significant 1 Billion Euro purchase in the French Scorpion program, for up to 400 new armored vehicles from three different classes and Caesar 155mm from KNDS. Also Thales sonar and radar systems have been purchased.
Reply
That’s a very serious change.
Reply
I heard Starmer wants Ireland and Iceland next to shore up Atlantic Bastion !
Ireland is working on this. Significant 1 Billion Euro purchase in the French Scorpion program, for up to 400 new armored vehicles from three different classes and Caesar 155mm from KNDS. Also Thales sonar and radar systems have been purchased.
Reply
That’s a very serious change.
Reply
Ireland is working on this. Significant 1 Billion Euro purchase in the French Scorpion program, for up to 400 new armored vehicles from three different classes and Caesar 155mm from KNDS.
Also Thales sonar and radar systems have been purchased.
That’s a very serious change.
Reply
That’s a very serious change.
This is very good news as yesterday we thought there was only 37 on the books it also confirms that they are moving to 3 155mm regiments. Now if they were being really switched on and committed they would reconfigure 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery to be a mixed regiment of archer and 105mm guns say 1 battery of 8 105mm for air assault+ the reserve battery equipped with 8 105mm ( equipped to fight ) and 2 batteries of 8 archer for a stronger air mobile element. Archer can be moved by A400m this is a huge from a strategic mobility point of view considering how many A400ms are available and where they can land.
Reply
I agree, this is really good news. This is double the expected number, nearly double the number of systems it’s replacing and it’s close to the 100 fantasy level that Rishi Sunak unveiled. The RCH 155 is also the most capable system on the planet offering capabilities a full generation beyond what any one else is doing with the ability to fire on the move and reduced crew of just two. But I’m sure we can expect all the negative commentary as usual.
Reply
Realism, Jim, not negativity. It’s useful when some good folk like yourself are so positive it blurs reality of what’s happening to the military. I state it as is, one takes it as they will.
Reply
That’s fun, Jim, as I remember you saying we might get hundreds as they’re only 2 crew. 😉 Yes, the expected number.
Reply
Jim types with “10 x the Lethality” sometimes !
Reply
Hello Jim, That’s true what you say, I’ve seen a fair few “Negative” posts from you too over the time I’ve been here. Not sure If yours are any different really. I guess most of us have concerns… and rightly so.
Reply
72 puts us in a bracket not far off Netherlands and Norway. Still given the state of the economy and lack of growth it’s a start.
Reply
That’s a dash of cold water.
Reply
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Reply
Has it been proven to be “the best system” on the planet?it’s not in service anywhere yet is it.Ukraine might have a few but not fielded as far as I can find. Let’s ask that two man crew how they are after a week on exercise/ops with all the duties done usually by a four man crew,veh maintenance,guard stags,radio watch and a whole host of other things that keep you awake!
Reply
Yes, that is why I mentioned two crew above. I remember when Dern explained to me about the varied jobs when laying up that with only two people are problematic.
Reply
I wouldn’t read too much into Jim’s ‘the most capable system on the planet’ comments, he’s saying things like this about everything at the moment. The other day he said something like, ‘Our ration packs are the tastiest and most nutrient dense in the universe.’
Reply
Are you trying to say he isn’t on this planet?😂
Reply
To be fair, he did say ”… and that was only the cardboard packaging they came in…”
Reply
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
Ukraine have officially ordered 54 units. But have said they will order more depending on its performance. I heard that they initially got six from the production line to train with in Germany. The rest of their order will be going to Ukraine, where I expect them to be fielded this summer.
Reply
Jacko, the army were denied the competitive evaluation of a number of SPGs when Sunak directed that we would co-develop and buy RCH-155. One reason that the RAC never wanted a tank autoloader was that it would cut the crew to 3 and that would play havoc with undertaking all crew duties especially when leaguered up. No idea how a 2-man artillery crew can do everything – and sustain effort over even a few days, let alone weeks.
Reply
👍
Reply
Probably by having a Battery TCV with a load of blokes to do harbour duties, hoping that one day they get to be on one of the guns. I remember back in the day I spent an exercise alongside 26RA, as was then on AS90, anyone who wasn’t actively firing guns, including medics and clerks where humping 155 shells forward to the gun line.
Reply
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process. Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
So 72 is really good news but 100 was a fantasy. Can you not leave party politics out of anything. Please try.
Reply
Yes, a fair summery. 116 was the original requirement. The Army went a different path. It’s basically the same as the 8 T26 5 T31, it’ll be spun as a vast increase, it’s actually enabling the bare minimum benchmark. Same case here, the Army doesn’t even have the RA Regiments to furnish all its Brigades without serious reorganisation of roles that is very unlikely. But, that’s ignored and everyone is happy with the smallest ever number of guns. It is what it is, hope the Drones and MLRS make up for it.
Reply
It’s probably all we’re going to get. I would have preferred a few more but given the army we now have? As you say the old 3X6 configuration for three regiments or I suppose 4X6 for two? It would work, I think. I don’t know where we at with drones I confess. A bit outside My sphere really. Anyhting you can tell me would be good. Cheers.
Reply
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
It was originally reported as a £3Bn program back in mid 2024 although the reporting was pretty loose in some aspects, there is a potential for follow on orders, the focus for now could be the bare minimum to get 3 Div equipped, but without the DIP who knows it could have just been revised down, maybe they’ll go for some tracked too with the discussions around tracked 3Div.
Reply
Worth noting Germany ordered 80, and is expecting a follow on order of another 150 or so. So it’s not impossible that we will order a batch 2.
Reply
Truth. Fingrers crossed but as Daniele says do we have homes for more than 100 or so perhaps.
Reply
I did consider if this was the first batch, but dismissed it for orbat reasons and that when is it ever Christmas in Defence? Bare minimum always seems the way.
Reply
One of the reasons why missile equipped wheeled/tracked effectors were previously in inventory – they are light and you can get a lot onto air transport. So there are distributed effectors.
Reply
And I would imagine why drones will make a huge difference.. how many one way drones even larger longer range versions could you fly in via a A400m
Reply
Side note, I believe Exator is still in service.
Reply
Another of my question marks. I thought it was still around, but now concentrated in but a single Battery rather than spilt into 3 Troops in 3 Batteries as before.
Reply
Yes, article said “until RC155 in service” so unlikely.
Reply
I’d be very surprised if Archer went to 7 Para, as it can’t be lifted by chinook, and would put some rather hefty operating constraints on the unit.
Reply
So would I, they love their underslung Light Guns, same for 29 in arctic role.
Reply
Do wonder what BAES could do with redesigning the L118/9 using experience from the M777, by incorporating titanium alloys to save weight?
Reply
Is the Archer order still expected to get to 24 as originally planned once more become available from the Swedish as they replace the Volvo Tractor variant with the newer version on the Man HX Truck ? It would be a small but reasonable pool.
Reply
I’d not heard it was meant to be 24, only the 14. Maybe my memory is hazy there… It would, I’d like the Army to keep them.
Reply
It was in a couple of articles back in 2023, not widely reported, supposedly Col Stuart Nasse said that a further 10 would be purchased for a full regiments worth, although not really seen anything since so it’s probably gone the way of rapid ranger. Seems like a good way to keep numbers up with the shortage of funds and would have been on par with the ‘active’ AS90 numbers before donations to Ukraine.
Reply
This is very good news as yesterday we thought there was only 37 on the books it also confirms that they are moving to 3 155mm regiments.
Now if they were being really switched on and committed they would reconfigure 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery to be a mixed regiment of archer and 105mm guns say 1 battery of 8 105mm for air assault+ the reserve battery equipped with 8 105mm ( equipped to fight ) and 2 batteries of 8 archer for a stronger air mobile element.
Archer can be moved by A400m this is a huge from a strategic mobility point of view considering how many A400ms are available and where they can land.
I agree, this is really good news. This is double the expected number, nearly double the number of systems it’s replacing and it’s close to the 100 fantasy level that Rishi Sunak unveiled. The RCH 155 is also the most capable system on the planet offering capabilities a full generation beyond what any one else is doing with the ability to fire on the move and reduced crew of just two. But I’m sure we can expect all the negative commentary as usual.
Reply
Realism, Jim, not negativity. It’s useful when some good folk like yourself are so positive it blurs reality of what’s happening to the military. I state it as is, one takes it as they will.
Reply
That’s fun, Jim, as I remember you saying we might get hundreds as they’re only 2 crew. 😉 Yes, the expected number.
Reply
Jim types with “10 x the Lethality” sometimes !
Reply
Hello Jim, That’s true what you say, I’ve seen a fair few “Negative” posts from you too over the time I’ve been here. Not sure If yours are any different really. I guess most of us have concerns… and rightly so.
Reply
72 puts us in a bracket not far off Netherlands and Norway. Still given the state of the economy and lack of growth it’s a start.
Reply
That’s a dash of cold water.
Reply
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Reply
Has it been proven to be “the best system” on the planet?it’s not in service anywhere yet is it.Ukraine might have a few but not fielded as far as I can find. Let’s ask that two man crew how they are after a week on exercise/ops with all the duties done usually by a four man crew,veh maintenance,guard stags,radio watch and a whole host of other things that keep you awake!
Reply
Yes, that is why I mentioned two crew above. I remember when Dern explained to me about the varied jobs when laying up that with only two people are problematic.
Reply
I wouldn’t read too much into Jim’s ‘the most capable system on the planet’ comments, he’s saying things like this about everything at the moment. The other day he said something like, ‘Our ration packs are the tastiest and most nutrient dense in the universe.’
Reply
Are you trying to say he isn’t on this planet?😂
Reply
To be fair, he did say ”… and that was only the cardboard packaging they came in…”
Reply
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
Ukraine have officially ordered 54 units. But have said they will order more depending on its performance. I heard that they initially got six from the production line to train with in Germany. The rest of their order will be going to Ukraine, where I expect them to be fielded this summer.
Reply
Jacko, the army were denied the competitive evaluation of a number of SPGs when Sunak directed that we would co-develop and buy RCH-155. One reason that the RAC never wanted a tank autoloader was that it would cut the crew to 3 and that would play havoc with undertaking all crew duties especially when leaguered up. No idea how a 2-man artillery crew can do everything – and sustain effort over even a few days, let alone weeks.
Reply
👍
Reply
Probably by having a Battery TCV with a load of blokes to do harbour duties, hoping that one day they get to be on one of the guns. I remember back in the day I spent an exercise alongside 26RA, as was then on AS90, anyone who wasn’t actively firing guns, including medics and clerks where humping 155 shells forward to the gun line.
Reply
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process. Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
So 72 is really good news but 100 was a fantasy. Can you not leave party politics out of anything. Please try.
Reply
Yes, a fair summery. 116 was the original requirement. The Army went a different path. It’s basically the same as the 8 T26 5 T31, it’ll be spun as a vast increase, it’s actually enabling the bare minimum benchmark. Same case here, the Army doesn’t even have the RA Regiments to furnish all its Brigades without serious reorganisation of roles that is very unlikely. But, that’s ignored and everyone is happy with the smallest ever number of guns. It is what it is, hope the Drones and MLRS make up for it.
Reply
It’s probably all we’re going to get. I would have preferred a few more but given the army we now have? As you say the old 3X6 configuration for three regiments or I suppose 4X6 for two? It would work, I think. I don’t know where we at with drones I confess. A bit outside My sphere really. Anyhting you can tell me would be good. Cheers.
Reply
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
It was originally reported as a £3Bn program back in mid 2024 although the reporting was pretty loose in some aspects, there is a potential for follow on orders, the focus for now could be the bare minimum to get 3 Div equipped, but without the DIP who knows it could have just been revised down, maybe they’ll go for some tracked too with the discussions around tracked 3Div.
Reply
Worth noting Germany ordered 80, and is expecting a follow on order of another 150 or so. So it’s not impossible that we will order a batch 2.
Reply
Truth. Fingrers crossed but as Daniele says do we have homes for more than 100 or so perhaps.
Reply
I did consider if this was the first batch, but dismissed it for orbat reasons and that when is it ever Christmas in Defence? Bare minimum always seems the way.
Reply
I agree, this is really good news. This is double the expected number, nearly double the number of systems it’s replacing and it’s close to the 100 fantasy level that Rishi Sunak unveiled.
The RCH 155 is also the most capable system on the planet offering capabilities a full generation beyond what any one else is doing with the ability to fire on the move and reduced crew of just two.
But I’m sure we can expect all the negative commentary as usual.
Realism, Jim, not negativity. It’s useful when some good folk like yourself are so positive it blurs reality of what’s happening to the military. I state it as is, one takes it as they will.
Reply
Realism, Jim, not negativity. It’s useful when some good folk like yourself are so positive it blurs reality of what’s happening to the military. I state it as is, one takes it as they will.
That’s fun, Jim, as I remember you saying we might get hundreds as they’re only 2 crew. 😉 Yes, the expected number.
Reply
Jim types with “10 x the Lethality” sometimes !
Reply
That’s fun, Jim, as I remember you saying we might get hundreds as they’re only 2 crew. 😉 Yes, the expected number.
Jim types with “10 x the Lethality” sometimes !
Reply
Jim types with “10 x the Lethality” sometimes !
Hello Jim, That’s true what you say, I’ve seen a fair few “Negative” posts from you too over the time I’ve been here. Not sure If yours are any different really. I guess most of us have concerns… and rightly so.
Reply
72 puts us in a bracket not far off Netherlands and Norway. Still given the state of the economy and lack of growth it’s a start.
Reply
That’s a dash of cold water.
Reply
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Reply
Hello Jim, That’s true what you say, I’ve seen a fair few “Negative” posts from you too over the time I’ve been here. Not sure If yours are any different really.
I guess most of us have concerns… and rightly so.
72 puts us in a bracket not far off Netherlands and Norway. Still given the state of the economy and lack of growth it’s a start.
Reply
That’s a dash of cold water.
Reply
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Reply
72 puts us in a bracket not far off Netherlands and Norway. Still given the state of the economy and lack of growth it’s a start.
That’s a dash of cold water.
Reply
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Reply
That’s a dash of cold water.
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Reply
Hang on. Norway has 52 K9’s in two Regiments the Netherlands has 46 PzHb 2000’s in two Regiments. 72 RCH-155’s, plus 70 105mm LG’s is not the same bracket as them.
Has it been proven to be “the best system” on the planet?it’s not in service anywhere yet is it.Ukraine might have a few but not fielded as far as I can find. Let’s ask that two man crew how they are after a week on exercise/ops with all the duties done usually by a four man crew,veh maintenance,guard stags,radio watch and a whole host of other things that keep you awake!
Reply
Yes, that is why I mentioned two crew above. I remember when Dern explained to me about the varied jobs when laying up that with only two people are problematic.
Reply
I wouldn’t read too much into Jim’s ‘the most capable system on the planet’ comments, he’s saying things like this about everything at the moment. The other day he said something like, ‘Our ration packs are the tastiest and most nutrient dense in the universe.’
Reply
Are you trying to say he isn’t on this planet?😂
Reply
To be fair, he did say ”… and that was only the cardboard packaging they came in…”
Reply
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
Ukraine have officially ordered 54 units. But have said they will order more depending on its performance. I heard that they initially got six from the production line to train with in Germany. The rest of their order will be going to Ukraine, where I expect them to be fielded this summer.
Reply
Jacko, the army were denied the competitive evaluation of a number of SPGs when Sunak directed that we would co-develop and buy RCH-155. One reason that the RAC never wanted a tank autoloader was that it would cut the crew to 3 and that would play havoc with undertaking all crew duties especially when leaguered up. No idea how a 2-man artillery crew can do everything – and sustain effort over even a few days, let alone weeks.
Reply
👍
Reply
Probably by having a Battery TCV with a load of blokes to do harbour duties, hoping that one day they get to be on one of the guns. I remember back in the day I spent an exercise alongside 26RA, as was then on AS90, anyone who wasn’t actively firing guns, including medics and clerks where humping 155 shells forward to the gun line.
Reply
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process. Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
Has it been proven to be “the best system” on the planet?it’s not in service anywhere yet is it.Ukraine might have a few but not fielded as far as I can find. Let’s ask that two man crew how they are after a week on exercise/ops with all the duties done usually by a four man crew,veh maintenance,guard stags,radio watch and a whole host of other things that keep you awake!
Yes, that is why I mentioned two crew above. I remember when Dern explained to me about the varied jobs when laying up that with only two people are problematic.
Reply
Yes, that is why I mentioned two crew above. I remember when Dern explained to me about the varied jobs when laying up that with only two people are problematic.
I wouldn’t read too much into Jim’s ‘the most capable system on the planet’ comments, he’s saying things like this about everything at the moment. The other day he said something like, ‘Our ration packs are the tastiest and most nutrient dense in the universe.’
Reply
Are you trying to say he isn’t on this planet?😂
Reply
To be fair, he did say ”… and that was only the cardboard packaging they came in…”
Reply
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
I wouldn’t read too much into Jim’s ‘the most capable system on the planet’ comments, he’s saying things like this about everything at the moment. The other day he said something like, ‘Our ration packs are the tastiest and most nutrient dense in the universe.’
Are you trying to say he isn’t on this planet?😂
Reply
Are you trying to say he isn’t on this planet?😂
To be fair, he did say ”… and that was only the cardboard packaging they came in…”
Reply
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
To be fair, he did say ”… and that was only the cardboard packaging they came in…”
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
You mean, there’s something Inside too ?
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Reply
Oh.
Reply
Edible crayons if bound for consumption by ROYAL, so as to better assimilate them with their US cousins.
Ukraine have officially ordered 54 units. But have said they will order more depending on its performance. I heard that they initially got six from the production line to train with in Germany. The rest of their order will be going to Ukraine, where I expect them to be fielded this summer.
Reply
Ukraine have officially ordered 54 units. But have said they will order more depending on its performance. I heard that they initially got six from the production line to train with in Germany. The rest of their order will be going to Ukraine, where I expect them to be fielded this summer.
Jacko, the army were denied the competitive evaluation of a number of SPGs when Sunak directed that we would co-develop and buy RCH-155. One reason that the RAC never wanted a tank autoloader was that it would cut the crew to 3 and that would play havoc with undertaking all crew duties especially when leaguered up. No idea how a 2-man artillery crew can do everything – and sustain effort over even a few days, let alone weeks.
Reply
👍
Reply
Probably by having a Battery TCV with a load of blokes to do harbour duties, hoping that one day they get to be on one of the guns. I remember back in the day I spent an exercise alongside 26RA, as was then on AS90, anyone who wasn’t actively firing guns, including medics and clerks where humping 155 shells forward to the gun line.
Reply
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process. Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
Jacko, the army were denied the competitive evaluation of a number of SPGs when Sunak directed that we would co-develop and buy RCH-155.
One reason that the RAC never wanted a tank autoloader was that it would cut the crew to 3 and that would play havoc with undertaking all crew duties especially when leaguered up. No idea how a 2-man artillery crew can do everything – and sustain effort over even a few days, let alone weeks.
Probably by having a Battery TCV with a load of blokes to do harbour duties, hoping that one day they get to be on one of the guns. I remember back in the day I spent an exercise alongside 26RA, as was then on AS90, anyone who wasn’t actively firing guns, including medics and clerks where humping 155 shells forward to the gun line.
Reply
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process. Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
Probably by having a Battery TCV with a load of blokes to do harbour duties, hoping that one day they get to be on one of the guns. I remember back in the day I spent an exercise alongside 26RA, as was then on AS90, anyone who wasn’t actively firing guns, including medics and clerks where humping 155 shells forward to the gun line.
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
Well it had better be a tight and well run unit! If not all sorts of resentment and gripes will surface.you can see them now, I’ve been here longer than him yet he gets on a gun, We do all the work and they get the fun, Those will be top of the list for a start!
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
Reply
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
Yup. I had a whole line about retention concerns, so very much agree with you, but deleted it because it rambled a bit and I veered a bit off topic.
TCV?
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
MAN SV variant.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process. Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
I’ve not seen a resupply vehicle for the RCH yet. I do wonder if they’ll have something like what Archer uses, which automates some of the reloading process.
Other news from Sweden, is that they aren’t happy with the Archer’s Volvo tractor unit. It can’t be used across deep snow – who knew! So the Swedish Army are looking to purchase a number of K9s based on Norway’s experience with them.
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
Reply
I’m going to guess they’ll use EPLS like AS90, and Light Gun use.
So 72 is really good news but 100 was a fantasy. Can you not leave party politics out of anything. Please try.
Reply
Yes, a fair summery. 116 was the original requirement. The Army went a different path. It’s basically the same as the 8 T26 5 T31, it’ll be spun as a vast increase, it’s actually enabling the bare minimum benchmark. Same case here, the Army doesn’t even have the RA Regiments to furnish all its Brigades without serious reorganisation of roles that is very unlikely. But, that’s ignored and everyone is happy with the smallest ever number of guns. It is what it is, hope the Drones and MLRS make up for it.
Reply
It’s probably all we’re going to get. I would have preferred a few more but given the army we now have? As you say the old 3X6 configuration for three regiments or I suppose 4X6 for two? It would work, I think. I don’t know where we at with drones I confess. A bit outside My sphere really. Anyhting you can tell me would be good. Cheers.
Reply
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
It was originally reported as a £3Bn program back in mid 2024 although the reporting was pretty loose in some aspects, there is a potential for follow on orders, the focus for now could be the bare minimum to get 3 Div equipped, but without the DIP who knows it could have just been revised down, maybe they’ll go for some tracked too with the discussions around tracked 3Div.
Reply
Worth noting Germany ordered 80, and is expecting a follow on order of another 150 or so. So it’s not impossible that we will order a batch 2.
Reply
Truth. Fingrers crossed but as Daniele says do we have homes for more than 100 or so perhaps.
Reply
I did consider if this was the first batch, but dismissed it for orbat reasons and that when is it ever Christmas in Defence? Bare minimum always seems the way.
Reply
So 72 is really good news but 100 was a fantasy. Can you not leave party politics out of anything. Please try.
Yes, a fair summery. 116 was the original requirement. The Army went a different path. It’s basically the same as the 8 T26 5 T31, it’ll be spun as a vast increase, it’s actually enabling the bare minimum benchmark. Same case here, the Army doesn’t even have the RA Regiments to furnish all its Brigades without serious reorganisation of roles that is very unlikely. But, that’s ignored and everyone is happy with the smallest ever number of guns. It is what it is, hope the Drones and MLRS make up for it.
Reply
It’s probably all we’re going to get. I would have preferred a few more but given the army we now have? As you say the old 3X6 configuration for three regiments or I suppose 4X6 for two? It would work, I think. I don’t know where we at with drones I confess. A bit outside My sphere really. Anyhting you can tell me would be good. Cheers.
Reply
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
It was originally reported as a £3Bn program back in mid 2024 although the reporting was pretty loose in some aspects, there is a potential for follow on orders, the focus for now could be the bare minimum to get 3 Div equipped, but without the DIP who knows it could have just been revised down, maybe they’ll go for some tracked too with the discussions around tracked 3Div.
Reply
Yes, a fair summery. 116 was the original requirement. The Army went a different path. It’s basically the same as the 8 T26 5 T31, it’ll be spun as a vast increase, it’s actually enabling the bare minimum benchmark. Same case here, the Army doesn’t even have the RA Regiments to furnish all its Brigades without serious reorganisation of roles that is very unlikely. But, that’s ignored and everyone is happy with the smallest ever number of guns. It is what it is, hope the Drones and MLRS make up for it.
It’s probably all we’re going to get. I would have preferred a few more but given the army we now have? As you say the old 3X6 configuration for three regiments or I suppose 4X6 for two? It would work, I think. I don’t know where we at with drones I confess. A bit outside My sphere really. Anyhting you can tell me would be good. Cheers.
Reply
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
It’s probably all we’re going to get. I would have preferred a few more but given the army we now have? As you say the old 3X6 configuration for three regiments or I suppose 4X6 for two? It would work, I think. I don’t know where we at with drones I confess. A bit outside My sphere really. Anyhting you can tell me would be good. Cheers.
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
Not 4×6 in only two, as 3 Regiments are scheduled to receive the gun. It was meant to be 4 once. I’m not up to speed there either mate, only that they exist, the Modini Dart 250 is one of them, and the CGS has been photographed in the field with one of the catapult type launchers. Thousands of varied types are being procured. You know me, I like the nitty gritty details, who, how many, what Battery set up. A veil of secrecy has descended there, outside the army at least.
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
Reply
I obviously double subtracted. I wasn’t sure whether they were going to 2/3/4 regiments. There is a lot of droning on about drones which I cannot keep up with. There seems to be a different on for every day of the month!
It was originally reported as a £3Bn program back in mid 2024 although the reporting was pretty loose in some aspects, there is a potential for follow on orders, the focus for now could be the bare minimum to get 3 Div equipped, but without the DIP who knows it could have just been revised down, maybe they’ll go for some tracked too with the discussions around tracked 3Div.
Reply
It was originally reported as a £3Bn program back in mid 2024 although the reporting was pretty loose in some aspects, there is a potential for follow on orders, the focus for now could be the bare minimum to get 3 Div equipped, but without the DIP who knows it could have just been revised down, maybe they’ll go for some tracked too with the discussions around tracked 3Div.
Worth noting Germany ordered 80, and is expecting a follow on order of another 150 or so. So it’s not impossible that we will order a batch 2.
Reply
Truth. Fingrers crossed but as Daniele says do we have homes for more than 100 or so perhaps.
Reply
I did consider if this was the first batch, but dismissed it for orbat reasons and that when is it ever Christmas in Defence? Bare minimum always seems the way.
Reply
Worth noting Germany ordered 80, and is expecting a follow on order of another 150 or so. So it’s not impossible that we will order a batch 2.
Truth. Fingrers crossed but as Daniele says do we have homes for more than 100 or so perhaps.
Reply
Truth. Fingrers crossed but as Daniele says do we have homes for more than 100 or so perhaps.
I did consider if this was the first batch, but dismissed it for orbat reasons and that when is it ever Christmas in Defence? Bare minimum always seems the way.
Reply
I did consider if this was the first batch, but dismissed it for orbat reasons and that when is it ever Christmas in Defence? Bare minimum always seems the way.
One of the reasons why missile equipped wheeled/tracked effectors were previously in inventory – they are light and you can get a lot onto air transport. So there are distributed effectors.
Reply
And I would imagine why drones will make a huge difference.. how many one way drones even larger longer range versions could you fly in via a A400m
Reply
Side note, I believe Exator is still in service.
Reply
Another of my question marks. I thought it was still around, but now concentrated in but a single Battery rather than spilt into 3 Troops in 3 Batteries as before.
Reply
One of the reasons why missile equipped wheeled/tracked effectors were previously in inventory – they are light and you can get a lot onto air transport. So there are distributed effectors.
And I would imagine why drones will make a huge difference.. how many one way drones even larger longer range versions could you fly in via a A400m
Reply
And I would imagine why drones will make a huge difference.. how many one way drones even larger longer range versions could you fly in via a A400m
Side note, I believe Exator is still in service.
Reply
Another of my question marks. I thought it was still around, but now concentrated in but a single Battery rather than spilt into 3 Troops in 3 Batteries as before.
Reply
Side note, I believe Exator is still in service.
Another of my question marks. I thought it was still around, but now concentrated in but a single Battery rather than spilt into 3 Troops in 3 Batteries as before.
Reply
Another of my question marks. I thought it was still around, but now concentrated in but a single Battery rather than spilt into 3 Troops in 3 Batteries as before.
Yes, article said “until RC155 in service” so unlikely.
Reply
Yes, article said “until RC155 in service” so unlikely.
I’d be very surprised if Archer went to 7 Para, as it can’t be lifted by chinook, and would put some rather hefty operating constraints on the unit.
Reply
So would I, they love their underslung Light Guns, same for 29 in arctic role.
Reply
Do wonder what BAES could do with redesigning the L118/9 using experience from the M777, by incorporating titanium alloys to save weight?
Reply
I’d be very surprised if Archer went to 7 Para, as it can’t be lifted by chinook, and would put some rather hefty operating constraints on the unit.
So would I, they love their underslung Light Guns, same for 29 in arctic role.
Reply
Do wonder what BAES could do with redesigning the L118/9 using experience from the M777, by incorporating titanium alloys to save weight?
Reply
So would I, they love their underslung Light Guns, same for 29 in arctic role.
Do wonder what BAES could do with redesigning the L118/9 using experience from the M777, by incorporating titanium alloys to save weight?
Reply
Do wonder what BAES could do with redesigning the L118/9 using experience from the M777, by incorporating titanium alloys to save weight?
Is the Archer order still expected to get to 24 as originally planned once more become available from the Swedish as they replace the Volvo Tractor variant with the newer version on the Man HX Truck ? It would be a small but reasonable pool.
Reply
I’d not heard it was meant to be 24, only the 14. Maybe my memory is hazy there… It would, I’d like the Army to keep them.
Reply
It was in a couple of articles back in 2023, not widely reported, supposedly Col Stuart Nasse said that a further 10 would be purchased for a full regiments worth, although not really seen anything since so it’s probably gone the way of rapid ranger. Seems like a good way to keep numbers up with the shortage of funds and would have been on par with the ‘active’ AS90 numbers before donations to Ukraine.
Reply
Is the Archer order still expected to get to 24 as originally planned once more become available from the Swedish as they replace the Volvo Tractor variant with the newer version on the Man HX Truck ? It would be a small but reasonable pool.
I’d not heard it was meant to be 24, only the 14. Maybe my memory is hazy there… It would, I’d like the Army to keep them.
Reply
It was in a couple of articles back in 2023, not widely reported, supposedly Col Stuart Nasse said that a further 10 would be purchased for a full regiments worth, although not really seen anything since so it’s probably gone the way of rapid ranger. Seems like a good way to keep numbers up with the shortage of funds and would have been on par with the ‘active’ AS90 numbers before donations to Ukraine.
Reply
I’d not heard it was meant to be 24, only the 14. Maybe my memory is hazy there… It would, I’d like the Army to keep them.
It was in a couple of articles back in 2023, not widely reported, supposedly Col Stuart Nasse said that a further 10 would be purchased for a full regiments worth, although not really seen anything since so it’s probably gone the way of rapid ranger. Seems like a good way to keep numbers up with the shortage of funds and would have been on par with the ‘active’ AS90 numbers before donations to Ukraine.
Reply
It was in a couple of articles back in 2023, not widely reported, supposedly Col Stuart Nasse said that a further 10 would be purchased for a full regiments worth, although not really seen anything since so it’s probably gone the way of rapid ranger. Seems like a good way to keep numbers up with the shortage of funds and would have been on par with the ‘active’ AS90 numbers before donations to Ukraine.
Its good news, 72 replaces the AS90 near 1 for 1, would of liked more but its still good news. I hear a rumour that the UK might buy Himars ? As for Archer it will either go for use air mobile type forces or be gifted to Ukraine, As RCH155 is too heavy for airlift unless its a C17.
Reply
The AS90 fleet that had reduced from 6 Regiments to 3 with the yearly Regimental salami slicing, yes. Not the original fleet. The Regiments were also 3×8 Gun once, I was told by a gunner on here that that’d not been the case for some time though. Assuming 3×6 gun Batteries.
Reply
72 is a good number, not sure we need more with Archer and extra, MLRS coming on line. Be interesting to see whatt happens to Archer as it is more air portable then RCH 155. Still a concern that we will gave no heavy tracked gun that may be a problem on some deployments. HIMARS would go well with all wheeled units we have and makes sense in a up to a Regts worth. Unless there is a Boxer MLRS which is possible.
Reply
Where did you hear about a HIMARS purchase? News to me.
Reply
no purchase, more a would like on the Arty shopping list, makes sense for all Boxer units as an addition to RCH 155, but then a lot of rumours about even had one about buy K9s, you know what the Army are like for rumours but was from a service person.
Reply
MilTwitter has discussed it a few times, people like Nicholas Drummond have argued for it for 1Div but I haven’t seen anything tangible beyond that anywhere.
Reply
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
Its good news, 72 replaces the AS90 near 1 for 1, would of liked more but its still good news. I hear a rumour that the UK might buy Himars ? As for Archer it will either go for use air mobile type forces or be gifted to Ukraine, As RCH155 is too heavy for airlift unless its a C17.
The AS90 fleet that had reduced from 6 Regiments to 3 with the yearly Regimental salami slicing, yes. Not the original fleet. The Regiments were also 3×8 Gun once, I was told by a gunner on here that that’d not been the case for some time though. Assuming 3×6 gun Batteries.
Reply
72 is a good number, not sure we need more with Archer and extra, MLRS coming on line. Be interesting to see whatt happens to Archer as it is more air portable then RCH 155. Still a concern that we will gave no heavy tracked gun that may be a problem on some deployments. HIMARS would go well with all wheeled units we have and makes sense in a up to a Regts worth. Unless there is a Boxer MLRS which is possible.
Reply
Where did you hear about a HIMARS purchase? News to me.
Reply
no purchase, more a would like on the Arty shopping list, makes sense for all Boxer units as an addition to RCH 155, but then a lot of rumours about even had one about buy K9s, you know what the Army are like for rumours but was from a service person.
Reply
MilTwitter has discussed it a few times, people like Nicholas Drummond have argued for it for 1Div but I haven’t seen anything tangible beyond that anywhere.
Reply
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
The AS90 fleet that had reduced from 6 Regiments to 3 with the yearly Regimental salami slicing, yes. Not the original fleet. The Regiments were also 3×8 Gun once, I was told by a gunner on here that that’d not been the case for some time though. Assuming 3×6 gun Batteries.
72 is a good number, not sure we need more with Archer and extra, MLRS coming on line. Be interesting to see whatt happens to Archer as it is more air portable then RCH 155. Still a concern that we will gave no heavy tracked gun that may be a problem on some deployments. HIMARS would go well with all wheeled units we have and makes sense in a up to a Regts worth. Unless there is a Boxer MLRS which is possible.
Reply
Where did you hear about a HIMARS purchase? News to me.
Reply
no purchase, more a would like on the Arty shopping list, makes sense for all Boxer units as an addition to RCH 155, but then a lot of rumours about even had one about buy K9s, you know what the Army are like for rumours but was from a service person.
Reply
MilTwitter has discussed it a few times, people like Nicholas Drummond have argued for it for 1Div but I haven’t seen anything tangible beyond that anywhere.
Reply
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
72 is a good number, not sure we need more with Archer and extra, MLRS coming on line. Be interesting to see whatt happens to Archer as it is more air portable then RCH 155. Still a concern that we will gave no heavy tracked gun that may be a problem on some deployments. HIMARS would go well with all wheeled units we have and makes sense in a up to a Regts worth. Unless there is a Boxer MLRS which is possible.
Where did you hear about a HIMARS purchase? News to me.
Reply
no purchase, more a would like on the Arty shopping list, makes sense for all Boxer units as an addition to RCH 155, but then a lot of rumours about even had one about buy K9s, you know what the Army are like for rumours but was from a service person.
Reply
MilTwitter has discussed it a few times, people like Nicholas Drummond have argued for it for 1Div but I haven’t seen anything tangible beyond that anywhere.
Reply
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
Where did you hear about a HIMARS purchase? News to me.
no purchase, more a would like on the Arty shopping list, makes sense for all Boxer units as an addition to RCH 155, but then a lot of rumours about even had one about buy K9s, you know what the Army are like for rumours but was from a service person.
Reply
no purchase, more a would like on the Arty shopping list, makes sense for all Boxer units as an addition to RCH 155, but then a lot of rumours about even had one about buy K9s, you know what the Army are like for rumours but was from a service person.
MilTwitter has discussed it a few times, people like Nicholas Drummond have argued for it for 1Div but I haven’t seen anything tangible beyond that anywhere.
Reply
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
MilTwitter has discussed it a few times, people like Nicholas Drummond have argued for it for 1Div but I haven’t seen anything tangible beyond that anywhere.
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
Ohhh, Mr Drummond. I used to follow him, but he came out with orbat charts that were so fantasy fleets I stopped. CS CSS here there and everywhere that does not exist and is not likely to if HMG don’t get a long term plan together.
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
Reply
He’s a lobbyist now so I’m sure it was more aimed at raising awareness for what could be possible with modest increases, but they are increases nonetheless when even recapitalising the current force structure is appearing to be unachievable.
This should have come out in the DIP, along with other orders such as the Leonardo helicopter order. If Jess Phillips resignation letter is accurate, Starmer desk’s is where things grind to a halt without being progressed. It seems like any orders coming now are being forced by external events, eg Leonardo threatening shutdown etc.
Reply
This should have come out in the DIP, along with other orders such as the Leonardo helicopter order. If Jess Phillips resignation letter is accurate, Starmer desk’s is where things grind to a halt without being progressed. It seems like any orders coming now are being forced by external events, eg Leonardo threatening shutdown etc.
72 is a useful number. A field artillery regt has 18 guns 3 batteries of 6, so 72 will equip 4 regts. Assume three of the brigades will get a regt.each, 7 Lt Mech, 12 Arm, 20 Arm. Would be good if 4 Inf Bde got a regiment too, probably a reserve one less one battery for trials and Phase 2 training. 16 Air Assault Bde will continue with the L118 105mm howitzer, which is airportable by Atlas.
Reply
72 would give 4 Regiments, but leave none for the rest. So I’m assuming 3×6 for now in 3. 4 Brigade is the constant elephant in the room. The British Army lacks the regular CS CSS even for the few Brigades that it has. I’m still waiting for a proper plan to uplift a few thousand pids to enable that Brigade, seeming as it forms part of 1 UK Division, which HMG is masquerading to NATO as a full Division.
Reply
I doubt that the.numbers needed to provide regular CS and CSS.units for 4 Bde could come from switching some pids. Additional numbers are needed for Cyber and no doubt for the various UAVs in the pipeline. 4 Bde would need around 2,400 extra regulars just to add the necessary field artillery, field engineer, logistics, REME and medic battalions. Core problem is that army numbers were cut far too far in 2021 (?), we can’t man two combat manoeuvre divisions and corps troops plus the Stratcom and UKHF component parts, with 73,000 personnel. It is just Treasury-led make-believe. The numbers need boosted to 80,000+ or we will forever have this incomplete and gapped ORBAT. Can’t see any money being available to do so, as the army has such a big backlog of elderly and gapped equipment that will have to be replaced over the 10-year plan.
Reply
Agree, sadly. They’ve been forming additional Gurkha sub units to move people around, but, as you say. Rumours persist of a third GBAD Regiment as well, a high priority.
Reply
Ghurkha’s have Subs ? 🤔😁
Reply
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
Reply
They also have Doms.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
I don’t know how SHORAD hasn’t been discussed more, considering the impact of drones. The Germans are considering upto 600 Skyranger mounted on Boxer, you would think it is a major need for the army right now.
Reply
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
The number cuts happened long before 2021, we’re looking more at 2010-15.
Reply
72 is a useful number. A field artillery regt has 18 guns 3 batteries of 6, so 72 will equip 4 regts.
Assume three of the brigades will get a regt.each, 7 Lt Mech, 12 Arm, 20 Arm. Would be good if 4 Inf Bde got a regiment too, probably a reserve one less one battery for trials and Phase 2 training.
16 Air Assault Bde will continue with the L118 105mm howitzer, which is airportable by Atlas.
72 would give 4 Regiments, but leave none for the rest. So I’m assuming 3×6 for now in 3. 4 Brigade is the constant elephant in the room. The British Army lacks the regular CS CSS even for the few Brigades that it has. I’m still waiting for a proper plan to uplift a few thousand pids to enable that Brigade, seeming as it forms part of 1 UK Division, which HMG is masquerading to NATO as a full Division.
Reply
I doubt that the.numbers needed to provide regular CS and CSS.units for 4 Bde could come from switching some pids. Additional numbers are needed for Cyber and no doubt for the various UAVs in the pipeline. 4 Bde would need around 2,400 extra regulars just to add the necessary field artillery, field engineer, logistics, REME and medic battalions. Core problem is that army numbers were cut far too far in 2021 (?), we can’t man two combat manoeuvre divisions and corps troops plus the Stratcom and UKHF component parts, with 73,000 personnel. It is just Treasury-led make-believe. The numbers need boosted to 80,000+ or we will forever have this incomplete and gapped ORBAT. Can’t see any money being available to do so, as the army has such a big backlog of elderly and gapped equipment that will have to be replaced over the 10-year plan.
Reply
Agree, sadly. They’ve been forming additional Gurkha sub units to move people around, but, as you say. Rumours persist of a third GBAD Regiment as well, a high priority.
Reply
Ghurkha’s have Subs ? 🤔😁
Reply
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
Reply
They also have Doms.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
I don’t know how SHORAD hasn’t been discussed more, considering the impact of drones. The Germans are considering upto 600 Skyranger mounted on Boxer, you would think it is a major need for the army right now.
Reply
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
The number cuts happened long before 2021, we’re looking more at 2010-15.
Reply
72 would give 4 Regiments, but leave none for the rest. So I’m assuming 3×6 for now in 3. 4 Brigade is the constant elephant in the room. The British Army lacks the regular CS CSS even for the few Brigades that it has. I’m still waiting for a proper plan to uplift a few thousand pids to enable that Brigade, seeming as it forms part of 1 UK Division, which HMG is masquerading to NATO as a full Division.
I doubt that the.numbers needed to provide regular CS and CSS.units for 4 Bde could come from switching some pids. Additional numbers are needed for Cyber and no doubt for the various UAVs in the pipeline. 4 Bde would need around 2,400 extra regulars just to add the necessary field artillery, field engineer, logistics, REME and medic battalions. Core problem is that army numbers were cut far too far in 2021 (?), we can’t man two combat manoeuvre divisions and corps troops plus the Stratcom and UKHF component parts, with 73,000 personnel. It is just Treasury-led make-believe. The numbers need boosted to 80,000+ or we will forever have this incomplete and gapped ORBAT. Can’t see any money being available to do so, as the army has such a big backlog of elderly and gapped equipment that will have to be replaced over the 10-year plan.
Reply
Agree, sadly. They’ve been forming additional Gurkha sub units to move people around, but, as you say. Rumours persist of a third GBAD Regiment as well, a high priority.
Reply
Ghurkha’s have Subs ? 🤔😁
Reply
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
Reply
They also have Doms.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
I don’t know how SHORAD hasn’t been discussed more, considering the impact of drones. The Germans are considering upto 600 Skyranger mounted on Boxer, you would think it is a major need for the army right now.
Reply
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
The number cuts happened long before 2021, we’re looking more at 2010-15.
Reply
I doubt that the.numbers needed to provide regular CS and CSS.units for 4 Bde could come from switching some pids. Additional numbers are needed for Cyber and no doubt for the various UAVs in the pipeline. 4 Bde would need around 2,400 extra regulars just to add the necessary field artillery, field engineer, logistics, REME and medic battalions.
Core problem is that army numbers were cut far too far in 2021 (?), we can’t man two combat manoeuvre divisions and corps troops plus the Stratcom and UKHF component parts, with 73,000 personnel. It is just Treasury-led make-believe. The numbers need boosted to 80,000+ or we will forever have this incomplete and gapped ORBAT. Can’t see any money being available to do so, as the army has such a big backlog of elderly and gapped equipment that will have to be replaced over the 10-year plan.
Agree, sadly. They’ve been forming additional Gurkha sub units to move people around, but, as you say. Rumours persist of a third GBAD Regiment as well, a high priority.
Reply
Ghurkha’s have Subs ? 🤔😁
Reply
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
Reply
They also have Doms.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
I don’t know how SHORAD hasn’t been discussed more, considering the impact of drones. The Germans are considering upto 600 Skyranger mounted on Boxer, you would think it is a major need for the army right now.
Reply
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
Agree, sadly. They’ve been forming additional Gurkha sub units to move people around, but, as you say. Rumours persist of a third GBAD Regiment as well, a high priority.
Ghurkha’s have Subs ? 🤔😁
Reply
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
Reply
They also have Doms.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
Ghurkha’s have Subs ? 🤔😁
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
Reply
Yes, like the Italian midget subs. Two men, for attacking Riverine targets.
They also have Doms.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
They also have Doms.
Just wrong the pair of you.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
Just wrong the pair of you.
We don’t yuck yums here.
Reply
We don’t yuck yums here.
I don’t know how SHORAD hasn’t been discussed more, considering the impact of drones. The Germans are considering upto 600 Skyranger mounted on Boxer, you would think it is a major need for the army right now.
Reply
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
I don’t know how SHORAD hasn’t been discussed more, considering the impact of drones. The Germans are considering upto 600 Skyranger mounted on Boxer, you would think it is a major need for the army right now.
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
The Army seem allergic to AA guns? Or is it just politicians and money.
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds. But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
Reply
Probably a bit of both, like you say though they probably just know there aren’t the funds.
But it does seem to be missing from the defence discussion in general in the U.K. we hear about Patriot because it’s a big ticket item, but with how prolific drones are its weirdly very quiet on the Shorad front, you would think it would be a headline winner considering everyone saying drones are everything now. People want more artillery, but I’d rather see something like Skyranger on Boxer before more artillery. German shorad will likely far exceed their artillery numbers.
The number cuts happened long before 2021, we’re looking more at 2010-15.
Reply
The number cuts happened long before 2021, we’re looking more at 2010-15.
72 to replace the ‘up to 99’ donated to Ukraine? needs to be more.
Reply
72 to replace the ‘up to 99’ donated to Ukraine? needs to be more.
How could we have possibly placed an order without releasing the DIP first? Someone should look into it. If the secret could be found and applied elsewhere, MOD might never need to wait on a plan again. Maybe we could bottle the secret and sell it to our allies so they too wouldn’t need to wait for years on reviews and investment plans. Actually they don’t, do they? Maybe we should have bought their bottles years ago and just got on with it. Does anyone else wonder if the SDR and the imminent DIP changed anything meaningful? Was there anything in the SDR that we now intend to do that we wouldn’t have otherwise? Have we delayed what we would have otherwise delayed? Have we accelerated things that we would not have otherwise accelerated? My cynical self tells me the constraints are only about money, and there’s been no change there. MOD does the best it can, given the money it’s allowed to spend, and reviews just highlight what MOD thinks is best with the hope of a bit of extra money. The SDR gives cover to the politicians to say they are doing something properly, and the DIP is there to give the illusion of control in a sector of the world that has clearly gone out of control (geopolitically, not government spending).
Reply
You could also ask why have we ordered a platform that has not even been trailed and declared fit for use by the RA yet!
Reply
Ukraine are buying and trialing it , but i take your point buy before you try has risks, but is faster as trials would add what 1 may 2 years on to its in service date.
Reply
Because a politician decreed it so?
Reply
🤔👍
Reply
Exactly!!!! Development, test and evaluation program to inform a production decision was announced a few weeks ago. Now comes a production contract before all that stuff even starts. It’s just Starmer demanding some good news stories from his pal Healey. Doesn’t matter if they’re rushed and ill judged just send them out.
Reply
I don’t think we will see the DIP ever being published as a single document. The orders will be announced and budget cash released in priority sequence as each supplier agreement is made, the contract price is agreed and UK partnerships / manufacturing facilities and skills capability are funded and in place. NMH is an example. RCH is the second example and follows previous announcements of barrel manufacturing facilities. They will all happen the same way. Suppliers will have to demonstrate that they have committed to establishing what the govt has decreed to be key sovereign UK design and manufacturing capabilities. Boxer was the pioneer example. That said, obviously there are significant exceptions like Apache, F-35 and P8 where we are buying packages the US.
Reply
How could we have possibly placed an order without releasing the DIP first? Someone should look into it. If the secret could be found and applied elsewhere, MOD might never need to wait on a plan again. Maybe we could bottle the secret and sell it to our allies so they too wouldn’t need to wait for years on reviews and investment plans. Actually they don’t, do they? Maybe we should have bought their bottles years ago and just got on with it.
Does anyone else wonder if the SDR and the imminent DIP changed anything meaningful? Was there anything in the SDR that we now intend to do that we wouldn’t have otherwise? Have we delayed what we would have otherwise delayed? Have we accelerated things that we would not have otherwise accelerated? My cynical self tells me the constraints are only about money, and there’s been no change there. MOD does the best it can, given the money it’s allowed to spend, and reviews just highlight what MOD thinks is best with the hope of a bit of extra money. The SDR gives cover to the politicians to say they are doing something properly, and the DIP is there to give the illusion of control in a sector of the world that has clearly gone out of control (geopolitically, not government spending).
You could also ask why have we ordered a platform that has not even been trailed and declared fit for use by the RA yet!
Reply
Ukraine are buying and trialing it , but i take your point buy before you try has risks, but is faster as trials would add what 1 may 2 years on to its in service date.
Reply
Because a politician decreed it so?
Reply
🤔👍
Reply
Exactly!!!! Development, test and evaluation program to inform a production decision was announced a few weeks ago. Now comes a production contract before all that stuff even starts. It’s just Starmer demanding some good news stories from his pal Healey. Doesn’t matter if they’re rushed and ill judged just send them out.
Reply
You could also ask why have we ordered a platform that has not even been trailed and declared fit for use by the RA yet!
Ukraine are buying and trialing it , but i take your point buy before you try has risks, but is faster as trials would add what 1 may 2 years on to its in service date.
Reply
Ukraine are buying and trialing it , but i take your point buy before you try has risks, but is faster as trials would add what 1 may 2 years on to its in service date.
Because a politician decreed it so?
Reply
🤔👍
Reply
Because a politician decreed it so?
Exactly!!!! Development, test and evaluation program to inform a production decision was announced a few weeks ago. Now comes a production contract before all that stuff even starts. It’s just Starmer demanding some good news stories from his pal Healey. Doesn’t matter if they’re rushed and ill judged just send them out.
Reply
Development, test and evaluation program to inform a production decision was announced a few weeks ago. Now comes a production contract before all that stuff even starts.
It’s just Starmer demanding some good news stories from his pal Healey. Doesn’t matter if they’re rushed and ill judged just send them out.
I don’t think we will see the DIP ever being published as a single document. The orders will be announced and budget cash released in priority sequence as each supplier agreement is made, the contract price is agreed and UK partnerships / manufacturing facilities and skills capability are funded and in place. NMH is an example. RCH is the second example and follows previous announcements of barrel manufacturing facilities. They will all happen the same way. Suppliers will have to demonstrate that they have committed to establishing what the govt has decreed to be key sovereign UK design and manufacturing capabilities. Boxer was the pioneer example. That said, obviously there are significant exceptions like Apache, F-35 and P8 where we are buying packages the US.
Reply
I don’t think we will see the DIP ever being published as a single document. The orders will be announced and budget cash released in priority sequence as each supplier agreement is made, the contract price is agreed and UK partnerships / manufacturing facilities and skills capability are funded and in place. NMH is an example. RCH is the second example and follows previous announcements of barrel manufacturing facilities. They will all happen the same way. Suppliers will have to demonstrate that they have committed to establishing what the govt has decreed to be key sovereign UK design and manufacturing capabilities. Boxer was the pioneer example. That said, obviously there are significant exceptions like Apache, F-35 and P8 where we are buying packages the US.
3 Batteries of 6 guns each was the standard peace-time orbit in almost every Field Regiment from the 70s to the late 90s. 2 guns would be added to the orbat, should we deploy, manned by reservists, complemented by BCR (Battle casualty replacements) from other units and utilising one of the two Gun Line Section Commanders (Ssgt) from each battery. This was practiced on a few occasions on exercises in the UK back in the 90s. Things have changed considerably as we had guns to work on every day in camp, carrying out maintenance and dry drills. Not so the case now but 3×6 gun batteries was always the standard orbat and we could man them too as most regiments had a fairly full complement, particularly after options for change cut the number of regiments significantly.
Reply
3 Batteries of 6 guns each was the standard peace-time orbit in almost every Field Regiment from the 70s to the late 90s. 2 guns would be added to the orbat, should we deploy, manned by reservists, complemented by BCR (Battle casualty replacements) from other units and utilising one of the two Gun Line Section Commanders (Ssgt) from each battery. This was practiced on a few occasions on exercises in the UK back in the 90s. Things have changed considerably as we had guns to work on every day in camp, carrying out maintenance and dry drills. Not so the case now but 3×6 gun batteries was always the standard orbat and we could man them too as most regiments had a fairly full complement, particularly after options for change cut the number of regiments significantly.
It’s a reasonable start IMO. I would have liked more as we will get losses, breakdowns etc. A reserve Regiment would have been good for that role and it would provide additional trained personnel.
Reply
It’s a reasonable start IMO. I would have liked more as we will get losses, breakdowns etc. A reserve Regiment would have been good for that role and it would provide additional trained personnel.
So 3 x 24 gun regiments (ie 3 x 8 gun batteries) or, more probably, 3 18 gun regiments plus some spares. That means there is no ambition to increase the Army’s Orbat any time soon and as far as gunnery goes the AR is going to soldier on with the L118 light gun. If we really are getting ready for war in 2 years time then we are going to do it with just one, bareley deployable, division. This is not a serious defence posture.
Reply
Nope, been highlighting for years but apparently I’m negative.
Reply
You’re dead right…it barely replaces what we’ve given to Ukraine and it doesn’t address the lack of gunners to crew the guns. With whole batteries becoming tac batteries, the lack of gunnery trained gunners will be minimal. It will require a training regime to not only qualify drivers and gunners, but fitters too. Add in all the regimental staff that are required to do A/I courses for trickle down training within regiments, and conversion courses for almost all personnel, not too mention training new Gunners on phase 2 training, then Regimental training leading up to live firing and full tactical exercises, which when completed only then will a regiment be deemed fit to operate, you’re looking at two years minimum if the programme begins now. I don’t know the recruiting figures for Gunners as they stand but I do know it takes an enormous amount of work and logistics to stand a Regiment up with new guns. More likely it will be done by batteries at the sub unit level, allowing deployments to Estonia… As a paper exercise it seems great, but the reality is far from that. It is a positive step though as we need to stop mucking about and re-arm the Gunners properly now.
Reply
So 3 x 24 gun regiments (ie 3 x 8 gun batteries) or, more probably, 3 18 gun regiments plus some spares. That means there is no ambition to increase the Army’s Orbat any time soon and as far as gunnery goes the AR is going to soldier on with the L118 light gun. If we really are getting ready for war in 2 years time then we are going to do it with just one, bareley deployable, division. This is not a serious defence posture.
Nope, been highlighting for years but apparently I’m negative.
Reply
Nope, been highlighting for years but apparently I’m negative.
You’re dead right…it barely replaces what we’ve given to Ukraine and it doesn’t address the lack of gunners to crew the guns. With whole batteries becoming tac batteries, the lack of gunnery trained gunners will be minimal. It will require a training regime to not only qualify drivers and gunners, but fitters too. Add in all the regimental staff that are required to do A/I courses for trickle down training within regiments, and conversion courses for almost all personnel, not too mention training new Gunners on phase 2 training, then Regimental training leading up to live firing and full tactical exercises, which when completed only then will a regiment be deemed fit to operate, you’re looking at two years minimum if the programme begins now. I don’t know the recruiting figures for Gunners as they stand but I do know it takes an enormous amount of work and logistics to stand a Regiment up with new guns. More likely it will be done by batteries at the sub unit level, allowing deployments to Estonia… As a paper exercise it seems great, but the reality is far from that. It is a positive step though as we need to stop mucking about and re-arm the Gunners properly now.
Reply
You’re dead right…it barely replaces what we’ve given to Ukraine and it doesn’t address the lack of gunners to crew the guns. With whole batteries becoming tac batteries, the lack of gunnery trained gunners will be minimal. It will require a training regime to not only qualify drivers and gunners, but fitters too. Add in all the regimental staff that are required to do A/I courses for trickle down training within regiments, and conversion courses for almost all personnel, not too mention training new Gunners on phase 2 training, then Regimental training leading up to live firing and full tactical exercises, which when completed only then will a regiment be deemed fit to operate, you’re looking at two years minimum if the programme begins now. I don’t know the recruiting figures for Gunners as they stand but I do know it takes an enormous amount of work and logistics to stand a Regiment up with new guns. More likely it will be done by batteries at the sub unit level, allowing deployments to Estonia… As a paper exercise it seems great, but the reality is far from that. It is a positive step though as we need to stop mucking about and re-arm the Gunners properly now.
Whilst the order is welcome. I don’t think the design can go straight to manufacturing. Kinks still need to be ironed out. A lot changes in the space of even a few months, supply chains are very fragile. We see similar fragility in supply chain of AJAX. Since there is a priority order, I think these will be relatively low on that scale. Since equipment like everything else in the UK is produced at a glacial pace, don’t be surprised if these don’t arrive by next day in the post .
Reply
Whilst the order is welcome. I don’t think the design can go straight to manufacturing. Kinks still need to be ironed out. A lot changes in the space of even a few months, supply chains are very fragile.
We see similar fragility in supply chain of AJAX.
Since there is a priority order, I think these will be relatively low on that scale. Since equipment like everything else in the UK is produced at a glacial pace, don’t be surprised if these don’t arrive by next day in the post .
I do hope that RCH 155 can do all that we heard it can, but one reservation I have is that it looks top heavy. Will it topple over if fires towards the side, on ground that is anything other than rock solid? Will more troops be provided in logistics vehicles to assist the crew with ammo replen, maintenance and possibly stag? Will counter drone vehicles be provided to accompany these assets? I did presume when I saw Archer mounted on a MAN 8×8 that it would be purchased for the RA. The truck already in service and the system probably costing less than RCH 155. I still think we also need a tracked system for better mobility off road.
Reply
I do hope that RCH 155 can do all that we heard it can, but one reservation I have is that it looks top heavy. Will it topple over if fires towards the side, on ground that is anything other than rock solid? Will more troops be provided in logistics vehicles to assist the crew with ammo replen, maintenance and possibly stag? Will counter drone vehicles be provided to accompany these assets? I did presume when I saw Archer mounted on a MAN 8×8 that it would be purchased for the RA. The truck already in service and the system probably costing less than RCH 155. I still think we also need a tracked system for better mobility off road.
A bit of good news at last, obviously we want loads more and still have my doubts about wheeled vehicles and how vulnerable they are to POV drones but better than nothing and not American so Huzzah!
Reply
A bit of good news at last, obviously we want loads more and still have my doubts about wheeled vehicles and how vulnerable they are to POV drones but better than nothing and not American so Huzzah!
just 72, when Poland for example ordered 600+ K9s and large numbers of rocket artillery systems too.
Reply
That’s never a fair comparison. Where are Polands Carriers, SSBN,,SSN, and overseas bases that they need to fund? Where also is their NHS and varied welfare schemes to fund? Next door to Russia, they’ll likely have a bigger land force, but yes, wow they’re expanding massively.
Reply
just 72, when Poland for example ordered 600+ K9s and large numbers of rocket artillery systems too.
That’s never a fair comparison. Where are Polands Carriers, SSBN,,SSN, and overseas bases that they need to fund? Where also is their NHS and varied welfare schemes to fund? Next door to Russia, they’ll likely have a bigger land force, but yes, wow they’re expanding massively.
Reply
That’s never a fair comparison. Where are Polands Carriers, SSBN,,SSN, and overseas bases that they need to fund? Where also is their NHS and varied welfare schemes to fund? Next door to Russia, they’ll likely have a bigger land force, but yes, wow they’re expanding massively.
Far prefer Patria fulfil the Comd vehicle, ambulance ,role etc in the Armd Inf Bns than push ahead with the current botched plan to have a mish mash of Boxer/Aries and as currently fielded by 1RRF or 1 Fusiliers. Totally negates the value of going for Boxer over tracks, a Battalion able to deploy very long distances on its own wheels without reliance on RLC. A Boxer/Patria mix makes total sense with Patria covering the supporting roles and Boxer doing the ‘ fighty bts’ . I would still rather Boxer for most Support Company roles , mortars, anti tank etc especially if we put a decent 120mm turret, Amos , Nemo etc on the top. Boxer equipped Amos,Nemo 120mm mortars plus now Boxer RCH155mm would certainly get my vote.
Reply
This is my position as well. Boxer for all roles at it’s price seems wrong, just as Warrior couldn’t fulfill all roles in the earlier AI and MI Battalions.
Reply
Far prefer Patria fulfil the Comd vehicle, ambulance ,role etc in the Armd Inf Bns than push ahead with the current botched plan to have a mish mash of Boxer/Aries and as currently fielded by 1RRF or 1 Fusiliers. Totally negates the value of going for Boxer over tracks, a Battalion able to deploy very long distances on its own wheels without reliance on RLC. A Boxer/Patria mix makes total sense with Patria covering the supporting roles and Boxer doing the ‘ fighty bts’ . I would still rather Boxer for most Support Company roles , mortars, anti tank etc especially if we put a decent 120mm turret, Amos , Nemo etc on the top. Boxer equipped Amos,Nemo 120mm mortars plus now Boxer RCH155mm would certainly get my vote.
This is my position as well. Boxer for all roles at it’s price seems wrong, just as Warrior couldn’t fulfill all roles in the earlier AI and MI Battalions.
Reply
This is my position as well. Boxer for all roles at it’s price seems wrong, just as Warrior couldn’t fulfill all roles in the earlier AI and MI Battalions.
LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Notify me via e-mail if anyone answers my comment.