The British Army has reached an agreement with Sweden for the procurement of modern artillery platforms to replace the equipment that was previously supplied to Ukraine.
As part of this agreement, the British Army will receive the first 14 Archer artillery systems, with full ownership transferred this month and full operational capability expected by next April.
These systems will act as an interim replacement for the 32 AS90 artillery systems that the UK had gifted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The Archer artillery platform, designed and manufactured by BAE Systems Bofors in Sweden, offers improved operational mobility, greater availability, and reduced time into action compared to the AS90.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:
“While continuing to double-down on our unwavering support for Ukraine, itās imperative we simultaneously replenish our capabilities at home. Archer artillery systems are powerful, protective and can be rapidly deployed. This agreement with a close European ally will sustain the British Armyās requirements until the longer-term Mobile Fires Platform comes into service ā a programme we are working hard to accelerate.”
The Archer platform also boasts double the maximum range of the AS90, with a firing range of 50km using extended range ammunition, and a higher top speed of 70kph compared to the AS90’s 53kph. It can be operated with a smaller crew of 3-4 personnel compared to the AS90’s requirement of five.
The Archer 6×6 platform features a fully automated, self-propelled 155mm howitzer gun that is designed for rapid deployment. The loading and firing of the system can be handled from inside the armoured cabin, and the platform can be deployed into action in just 20 seconds. The Archer can fire a variety of 155mm artillery ammunition types, including extended range and precision anti-armour shells.
It can also fire up to eight rounds a minute and has the ability to fire four rounds in a simultaneous impact-mode, allowing several shells to be fired in succession with different trajectories to hit the same target at the same time.
According to a press release:
“The purchase of the Archers from Sweden enables the UK to quickly replace AS90 until the long-term Mobile Fires Platform delivers later this decade as part of the Future Soldier modernisation programme. Archer will contribute to the Close Support capability as part of our commitment to NATO.”
Lieutenant General Sharon Nesmith, Deputy Chief of the General Staff said:
“Archer is a potent, modern artillery system procured at a speed previously unseen in Defence. Todayās agreement took only eight weeks to secure and the guns will be in service with the British Army by next Spring. Archer fires further and faster than any artillery system previously in service with the British Army ā it is a step change in capability and fills a gap left by UK support to Ukraine. It will provide a bridge to the next generation of artillery systems, the procurement of which is being accelerated to speed up modernisation.”
Nothing ever gets replaced on a one-to-one basis. Sneaky way of reducing our Armed Forces
While largely correct, it makes little sense to get a like for like replacement when it’s made clear this is a short term interim solution,
As is the way with the Treasury and MOD short term becomes permanent.
Yep, I fully expect the non-short term solution to take decades to decide on and order. The fact we are getting them fast indicates this was the number that Saab/bae had lying around awaiting a customer. The question will be whether there is a follow on order to make the interim solution add up or if this is it.
Its reported that Sweden is buying 24 more Archers – newer models on a MAN chassis. They have sent some to Ukraine. Maybe they are refreshing / upgrading their Archer inventory.
Whilst they are great platforms, it’s would be a bit depressing with our budget and economy if we are buying Swedish hand-me-downs
Beggars can’t be choosers?
Can’t hit the decision, it seems like a great one just optics of the purchase are depressing, but as you say
They are new, so not exactly hand-me-downs. Norway ordered circa 24, but then backed-out of the deal. These will be the mothballed Norwegian Archers. On another note, the first image in the article is incorrect, as it shows Archer on a MAN chassis. The Swedish/Norwegian Archer are built on the Volvo CE chassis
Those sound way to cheap and easy for us us to buy. š
Or maybe we bought them to gift to Ukraine nearer the next election.
Only because they are permitted to do so. Lumpy jumpers aside, do top brass have their testicles removed above the rank of Brigadier.
Yes we canāt just buy Archer from a British company because itās the best system and itās available.
We need at-least four or five design studies with some cool four letter acronyms then we need to take archer and spend a few billion mounting it on another vehicle to make sure itās āproperlyā integrated and carryās the right number of boiling water devices.
Obviously all this must be done by foreign companies who have āBritishā operations that employ the right number of ex generals on the board.
After all that we have to stick a British flag on the back to hide the fact itās made somewhere else and just marginal assembled in the UK and triple the price.
Once we do that we can go on sky news and bitch that the army is under funded compared to the other services.
Job done.
Not sure weather to laugh or cry. Canāt disagree though šš¼šš¢
Do they come with extra thick cushions lol
And heated seats! Lol š
While Iām inclined to agree with you based on the history of military procurement, the article does say āfirst 14ā implying more may be to follow.
That’s what I read. And ightening speed compared with usual procurement.
Could also be polictical spin to make it sound like there will be follow on orders, which will never arrive. Like the at least 5 comment around the t31 frigates.
Its also a more capable system.
Don’t forget that potential adversaries are also becoming more capable and are improving the capability of their equipment. So the oft quoted claim that improved performance is a substitute for numbers just doesn’t wash any more.
It’s a balance of both. But quality and capability will always trump numbers. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example of that.
How many AS90s have gone to Ukraine so far…..I guess more could go yet
sorry, article says 32
Why would you one to one replace equipment thats already been put into cold storage as surplus to requirements?
š
Deep strike brigade and AS90 range is abysmal
World has changed and the decision to cut artillery numbers has become clearly the wrong call. Not sure the world has really changed but Ukraine war has demonstrated that not having artillery would be a major issue.
You honestly think it’s being done in a sneaky manner. This is blatant in your face PI55 taking. Why are senior officers not shouting and screaming, handing in resignations and threatening to lead a mutiny?
Bloody politicians, enough is enough.
Worried about their pensions, no doubt.
I wonder if those 32 x AS90 came from cold stores or from current regimental stock? 32 guns is just over 5 Btys in old money where as 14 platforms comes out at just over 2 Btys in old money. What are the other 18 gun crews going to do in the meantime?? Thats 1 Regiment without equipment.
I hope I’m missing something.
I’d be very surprised if any of our donated equipment came from UE (Unit Establishment) of Field Force units. As you say, to do so would leave our crews without their kit.
Probably a rummage sale at Ashchurch?
Ha! Probably.
Im not so sure that that is necessarily the case. We currently only have 2 x Artillery Regiments equipped with AS 90 guns 2 x 18, so 36 in front line units. Might be wrong but we had somewhere in the region of 89ish guns left, which left us with some 53 guns as spare. Gifting 32 to UKR, should mean we still have some 21 or so left as spare. The actual numbers I have quoted might be slightly out, but not that far.
I dont think that these 14 guns we are receiving are new builds either, believe they are legacy guns from Sweden’s current stock of 48 systems. If we were not going to increase the number of AS90 regiments, not entirely sure why we need these as an interim solution, as they would only give us 2 batteries worth of guns as you say? Might be off on a total tangent here mind, perhaps @DM could possibly shed more light on the issue, as hes far more up to speed on these things then me.
I think they will have been front line units.
If front line kit is sent then Treasury pays full wack to replace it.
So I’d be pretty clear, in my mind, that this is how these replacements have been funded.
These are a step change for the better anyway and we have plenty of AS90’s kicking around if we need more AS90’s for our own use?
Quite clever of army if they have gifted the old font line kit and replaced it with something much better using the inputted cash?
If that’s the case, then what a way to run things!!
Agree that it will be a step change, but only 14, perhaps @Airborne is on the right track?
Only 2 Batteries mate , possibly going to RSA with 14 Reg for training and preparation for future orders?
Will your bro be able to get any info?
Already txt him mate!
Some of our regs only have 2 fire batteries already.ļ»æšļ»æ
It’s pathetic isn’t it? 14 units of Archer. The rest of NATO, even US buys the British-made M777, the US has just ordered a load more and we have none, zero, nada, not a single one of them.
Does anyone still have their peg gun from when they were kids?
That’s a good shout mate, never enough info to actually see what’s going on. Leaving us to join the dots…. often in the complete opposite direction!š
I’m pretty much lost where the RA is today, from when I joined in 73′ to when I left in 93′ we still had decent numbers of gun Regts, but it seems to me they have been pretty much gutted now.
Hope things will improve down the line with the likes of Archer, improved MLRS and K9? as you say I’m sure DM has a handle of the state of play.
Of the 6 AS90 regiments, 2 became LG regiments post 2010 cuts, and another that was at Paderborn ( 20 A Bde ) re rolled as MLRS more recently when our final brigades withdrew from Germany. Another vanished much further back in time when 19 Mechanized Brigade became 19 Light brigade, stationed in NI, and was then disbanded entirely.
That leaves the 2 AS90 remaining, one per HBCT.
And of those LG regiments ( at Topcliffe and Harlow Hill ) one is scheduled to become a 2nd MLRS Regiment, or maybe already has done. The other supports 7 LMBCT, which I’d hope gets the future MFP too eventually.
Other LG regs remain 7RHA and 29 RA with paras, marines.
On the ball as ever mate!
I’m in agreement mate. We had a decent number of surplus AS90 and those totals are what I would quote. They are there or there abouts as you say.
14RA will also have a complementfor training.
It should also be noted that the army plan to uplift MLRS batteries to as many as 10, up from 6 ( 2 of which are reserve ) so it’s hopefully not an endless downward spiral.
We’ve reduced our mechanized and armoured brigades from 6 in the late 90s to just 2 now, and the corresponding reduction in AS90 regiments from 6 to 2.
Seems to me the master plan is to hide behind the RoI as they are in the front line of the Atlantic side!
Hmmm…ok, officially confused. HMG Treasury will fully defray the cost of acquisition of a ‘form, fit, function’ replacement item of donated equipment, if it has been withdrawn/donated from an operational unit, but will only provide an XY%? (possibly 0% ?!?) credit for an identical equipment item from any form of storage? Does the Treasury also retain the right to either compel the sale of these replacements (presumably similar to UOR), or reduce the approved number of the long-term replacement items on a one-for-one basis? Actually believe the MoD may need to augment it’s accountants/auditors in order to do battle w/ the gentlemen from HMG Treasury wearing bowler hats. Believe, as the American cartoon ‘Pogo’ once stated, ‘we have met the enemy, and they is us.’ š¤š³š¤š±
And there you have it! Haven’t got a clue how HM Treasury goes about its business wrt defence equipment! Personally can’t see what the difference would be, but then again I don’t work for them. It’s enough to drive a grown man to drink – bottle of red always hits the spot.š·š¤£
š¤£šššš»
Sorry Deep, didn’t mean to put you on the spot, actually intended to reply to post of Supportive Bloke from above. Thanks for being a sport and taking a cut at an outside curve ball! Was simply trying to follow and extend the logic of his argument. Have a Master’s degree in engineering, and gotta admit, am totally nonplussed by the intricacies of your acquisition system; actually familiar w/ USAF’s in a previous life.
It’s hard to know how many we actually have servicable and how many are just on paper. It was very telling when the stories of only 100 odd chally 2 being functional. The way that the mod responded was curious, they effectively indicated thst the number wasn’t exactly right but wasn’t far off.
Typical bit of MOD misdirection perhaps?
Probably a combination of both with the realisation it will take months to refurbish enough replacements from the cold stores.
Mate Daniele with probably find out the right answers, but most likely operational stock, wagons from 14 Reg Larkhill and vehicles assigned to the Reserve Batteries maybe. As there are only 2 regular Regiments remaining with the nasty there are more then enough knocking about to give away. The interesting thing here is seeing it’s an “initial” order for the Archer and will this decision force the issue on the nasty replacement being the Archer? That was a possiblty when we had the waste of time strike concept but now that’s been binned, we still need a tracked platform for our BCTs. Cheers mate.
AB, thanks for that. I never at the time saw a real upgrade from the M109 to AS90, smaller crew and better armour but not much else. If we have more MLRS fine but what is the cost of that type of ammunition to conventional gun ammunition? and I’m pretty sure most of our fires would be mid range. I’m sure there was something on here earlier last year saying they were going for the K9? anyway, I’m sure when the Oracle (DM) gets on he’ll spell it out for me/us.
Surprised you think AS90 is little better than M109. AS90 has better suspension (more comfortable and faster cross country), greater vehicle range (45 more miles), faster burst fire rate (3 rds in 10 seconds), faster maximum rate of fire (6rd/min rather than 4rd/min), faster sustained rate of fire (2rd/min rather than 1 rd/min). Greater range (25km versus 18km).
You are right that AS90 armour is far superior – it weighs 18t more than M109.
Ah, I forgot about the ROF and Sustained rate. As for the ride I wouldn’t know, most of my time on tracks was bombing around in CVRT or 432.
Working in the CP on Cymbeline and FACE by any chance mate? š
AB, I trained and spent most of my time on the MK1 (towed) Cymbeline, but finished up with the Mk2 (432 variant) but then spent most of my time running the RCP in a boring 432 which I hated.
Graham, knowledge is power lol especially from the REME lads!!!! (Best home made drinking dens in any organisation lol)
The amount of yellow handbags (boxes of Hertfordshire Pils) that I had to buy our REME support for digging me out the poop, blowing engines, throwing tracks and the like. Cost me a small fortune.
I concur this REME lads are top of their game, in every sphere, which includes alcohol šš
Hi Cymbeline, I used to replace the tip rotors on the Wankel generators for the radar sets, what a job! They were good for warming pies as well. BTW, it’s Herforder Pilsļ»æšļ»æ
Ian, yes mate, that seems to have been a stupid autocorrection.
š¤
Ian, Have to say our REME techs were brilliant, especially when we used to have our own front line support. Then things changed and we lost them and ended up with second line support who we only got to see once a week and invariably they ended up taking the duff kit back with them for repair so we’d either be off the road or without spares for a couple of weeks.
I was a Tech with the RA in Paderborn for a while, 8 guns, PADS, gennies, radars and most importantly BVāsš. I have to admit though, I didnāt always see eye to eye with the SMIGās thoughš¤Ø
45 Regt? I instructed on a basic Radar course down at Barker Bks for 6 weeks I think around 1990. They had some nice people down there in their Troop.
The mid 80ās. 25 Fld Regt š and then 3 RHAš¤¬ 7 months of the year at Munsterlager, Oh joy!
Great to hear your comments about REME (my old Corps). Its a shame that your first line support was reduced – I remember the phrase ‘salami slicing’ to indicate ‘small but repeated cuts’.
Graham, REME were always top draw, whether it was vehicles, guns or tech kit. They used to work all the hours god sends especially on exercise and never moaned. I guess your guys have been cut back the same as everyone, which is bad as it would be relly hard to replace those skills in a time of need.
Yep, REME has never been immune to cutbacks.
Also, I remember that an Adjutant General once decreed that REME must never be allowed to exceed 10% of the army’s strength – think that was in the 60s or 70s – this was when equipment was getting more complex and numerous and REME really had to get larger – but he feared too big a tail on the dog.
Thanks mate. I thoroughly enjoyed working with and supporting 16 AA Bde in 2006-2009 and was never once slagged off for being a crap hat!
I concour, my first exercise in the army back in 1974 was a big NATO exercise (Dawn Patrol) in Sardinia which involved sailing from Southampton on a LSL with 16 AB Bde and 1 Para. We had to erect a huge tented camp which took about 5 days toil and they looked after us really well. The only abuse was aimed at the RMs as the Para boys were not happy at having to put their tents up. My only gripe was they made us (other arms acting as umpires) go running with them in the morning which involver a big hill half way round, talk about a killer. Things slacked off when a US AB regiment moved in and we didnt have to run anymore. Opened my eyes up to how fit those boys were when they had a race with the whole of 1 Para in and only 5 Americans, basically as they ran as individuals and 1 Para ran in squads.
A modernised M109 have 18km range?!
M109 A1 to A3 have that range – we were talking about the kit the RA had before AS90 – not new M109s.
Mate I’m no ninja on the RA but previously worked with the FST when JTACing etc, I know a little. My bro is RA, GCC and he is my font of all (younger) knowledge…..But knowing what I know, I’ve a,always been a big supporter of the RA, as when shit rolls down nill kts nice to know those lads are dedicated to my patrol/AO….cheers!
Ignore the spelling errors, I’m blaming a nice bottle of Rumbullion……
Nine one Mate – enjoy!ļ»æšļ»æ
Gunnery Careers is the way to go if you are lucky enough to get selected. Cream of the crop.
He is so much smarter than me, but I can kick his ass physically lol šš
Out of interest is his name John and a Sunderland supporter?
Forgetting that AS90 was equipped with an Inertial Navigation System, AGLS a power rammer that worked, the ability to burst fire and an APU. The M109s in UK service were A3s and had none of the above.
I’ll try, though your bro is on the inside!
On tracked, it’s got to be the K9 mate, they’ve even offered UK content and production.
These Archers could then possibly go to 7 LMBCTs regiment, as it’s a wheeled formation and is certainly an uplift on Light Guns.
My thinking mate, replace LGs, with these and go for K9s for the Armoured BCTs.
I like the idea of an K9 & Archer Mix but donāt see it coming from the bean counters. My opinion, this is being treated more like an extended trial before a 2nd purchase on the MAN chassis.
I think you have called it right. This interim buy will generate the need for training, trials, logistics, engineering. The army already uses MAN trucks so the only bit of this buy which will be interim would the Volvo piece.
Agreed mate, reality bites always!
Isn’t the issue when buying the K9 the same as purchasing a tank made by A.N.Other? A country that’s not making that particular important kit is falling down the list of first rate nations.
We make the M270, M777 and could make the Archer in the UK? I suppose a deal with BAE could be done to make the K9, but how many pieces will the British Army buy? The Poles have ordered 212 for $3.4bn. How could the UK even think we could demand it’s UK made when we will buy less than 40 units? A paltry number compared to others.
Then, there’s many other competitors, the Pz2000, K9 or my favourite the RCH 155 (on a Boxer chasis with a higher rate of fire, speed, familiar chasis and cost).
The Archer, Caesar, Brutus etc for fast moving truck based artillery.
Then, in my book, the M777 for towed artillery.
We have seen repeatedly in Ukraine that Russia just chooses to obliterate an area. However, precision is the key almost every time.
4 RA’s ORBAT, AFAIK. May have lost some TG batts since last time I looked at it. Has only 2 Fire Batteries, these Archer would transform it, though as you said earlier some must go initially to RSA/14.
– 94 ( New Zealand ) HQ Battery.
– 3 / 29 ( Corunna ) Battery. 6 x LG
– 88 ( Arracan ) Battery. 6 x LG
– 97 ( Lawson Company ) Battery. ( TG )
– 6 / 36 Arcot ( 1751 ) Battery ( TG )
– 129 ( Dragon ) Battery. ( TG )
– R E M E LAD.
Hell, if the army ever got its house ( and CS/CSS ) in order in the right amounts for available brigades, a 2nd Archer order could go to forming a second reg assigned to 4 LBCT.
As we know, 4 has all reserve CS/CSS at this time.
Spent just over 18 years with 4th. I have to say they are a top gunnery Regt and would love to see them get some of those Archers even if its only 1 Bty.
So would I.
Is this on the MAN or Volvo chassis?
Probably Volvo since we’re getting them so fast.
That looks correct, the Swedish government press release said that the 14 would be from their reserve fleet i.e. these are being sold to UK by the Swedish government not the manufacturer.
HX2 8×8 Archer is already in the works so that’s probably the longer term plan.
6×6 = Volvo, 8×8 = Man. Volvo better for cross country, big balloon tires ideal for winter conditions. Man much faster on the road and commonality with existing UK platforms. One would think Man chassis for commonality reasons.
They are legacy systems, so Volvo chassis.
I asked the same question without scrolling down to here first.
One key lesson from the Ukraine war is the need to ‘Shoot and Scoot’ artillery. Fixed batteries are in modern terms vulnerable to many detection systems and drones being the most recent. Good news for the RA the poor cousin of our armed forces.
Maurice. The RA learned to ‘Shoot and Scoot decades ago.
Yes, even back when I was in they would exercise at Regimental level at 5 moves a day, less at Bde and Div level though.
Yes, yes, but not as fast! It’s called, having the last word Graham.
Mate that’s a concept the RA have been doing and good at since the 60s, hence why the AS90 was designed to stop, fire of 3 rounds and move off. The inclusion of GPS on AS90 and L118, since the 90s makes this happen quite rapidly. Counter Bty fire is the main threat for any OS organisation and they know it. Cheers mate.
“”This agreement with a close European ally will sustain the British Armyās requirements until the longer-term Mobile Fires Platform comes into service””
Taken from Janes 19/01/23:
UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced to the House of Commons on 16 January that he is accelerating the British Army’s Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) programme, so that it delivers during the 2020s rather than the 2030s. He said he has also directed an interim artillery capability to be delivered, subject to commercial negotiation.
Janes understands that the UK now plans for the MFP to enter service in 2027.
Among the companies competing for the programme are:
1) Hanwha Defense’s Team Thunder offering the K9A2 self-propelled howitzer (SPH).
2) Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) with its Boxer Remote Controlled Howitzer (RCH) 155
3) Nexter with its CAESAR 8Ć8 SPH.
4) BAE Systems with Archer, and Rheinmetall with an HX3 10Ć10 truck equipped with an automatic remote-controlled artillery turret.
The UK is also fielding long-range precision fires. The British Army’s M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is being updated so it can fire Extended-Range Guided MLRS munitions, extending its range to 150 km, and allowing it to fire the US Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), the proposed replacement of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) with a range of 499 km. A total of 44 updated launchers are expected to enter Royal Artillery service by 2025.
Good read.
That’s a good improvement when it comes to the in – service date. 2025 and 2027. Second half of this decade looks rather more positive me thinks.
Thanks Farouk, excellent report
Farouk, thanks. What’s happending with towed artillery?
Little as far as I know. LG will remain with 16AA and 3Cdo, 7RHA and 29RA, and another regiment remains in support of 7 LMBCT and there are reserve regiments too. The 4th regular LG regiment is to be a 2nd MLRS regiment.
I think 104 TA are also LG as well
Yes, there are also reserve LG regs, as I indicated, which include Saluting Batteries. There are also LG at Larkhill with RSA/14 Reg, with the HAC, and at Gibraltar.
Some of our AS90 regs were replaced with LG! Showing the sheer neglect of fires in the RA over the last few decades.
Thanks Danielle. I was also wondering if it will be replaced anytime soon by another 105 or a 155?
No idea, as I mentioned, I’ve heard nothing myself on that front. BAE already have such a replacement but we never bought it.
Which is a crying shame. Especially as we have seen in Ukraine that precision is the key to blunting any enemy hardware.
1. this is the interim solution for those donated to Ukraine, not the actual end system
2. shoot as scoot is becoming more popular after Ukraine.
Shoot and Scoot is really not new. The RA has been doing this for decades.
As far back as Abbot and certainly when MLRS was first introduced. The rocket efflux from a launcher is so enormous the enemy don’t need locating radar!
It is nearly as visible as a Russian tank’s efflux under optimal running conditions.
This is the second army interim buy of artillery. L119 is to be mounted on Coyote initially at least for special forces.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/05/09/uk-coyote-howitzers/
Archer would be described as long range fires. As a laymen can I ask whether there is a case for retaining some of the AS90s āas isā for more forward āmedium rangeā use? In other words does a mix of Archer, AS90 and truck mounted L119 constitute a meaningful artillery portfolio?
We are likely to see AS90 being permanently replaced with a mix of tracked and wheeled platforms. Its worn out and hard to get replacement parts anymore. The Tracked are good frontline units but if you are constantly moving stuff around the continent wheeled offer better mobility.
What tracked arty SP platform exists besides the Korean offer?
PS: i don’t think Germans are still producing the PZH2000
PZH2000 was in production as recently as 2020 and currently in a refurbishment program, the Germans are considering a fresh production order.
Other tracked artillery alternatives in the West are the US M109 built by BAE US which in its latest version switches to a Bradley chassis, the Japanese Type 99 or the Krab which uses a Korean chassis, German barrel and British gun/casemate all locally manufactured in Poland.
KCH 155 (built on a Boxer unit, is bloody fast and impressive (speaking as a layman)).(Germany)
PZH 2000 (Germany)
K-9 (Korea)
Type 99 (Japan)
Zuzana (Slovakia)
M109 A7 (USA (BAE built)
Krab (Poland) (Poland has just brought 212 K-9ās from S.Korea)
That’s about it that are currently tested. The KCH 155 looks a real winner to me.
Understood , so after today it’s looking like a mix of Archer and K9.
A L118 will never be platform mounted mate, on a wheeled vehicle for UK forces. And the RA have close support (105 and 155mm) and depth fire (rockets/extendedrange munitions). They don’t operate a concept of medium support mate, no need to. Cheers.
Thx. So what’s going on with that Coyote thing?
Mate I watched it on YouTube, it was a US thing, good concept but a bit to out there for the Brits lol cheers!
š§ Iām sure us Brits will give it due consideration š
Over a period of 10 years, millions of pounds, a few additional items replaced or screwed on, itās concept and in service date will change continuously and then after 15 prototypes which cost 25 million each, it will be canned in favour of a spring loaded fairground cannon, on time and on budgetā¦ā¦š¤Ŗ
Notwithstanding all the political parties competing plans for ‘growth’ , I think the realisation of reality – impending national poverty – will focus minds. A dozen ‘pre-owned’ Archers from the Swedish charity shop is a good start.
I’m sure the Ops R&D cell at C have been all over it for the Mobility Troops! ļ»æšļ»æ
It’s a crying shame. I know we are making light of it, but I’m hoping mad at our entire system. What was once the best country in the world, a real innovator and leader has not just slipped. We have fallen off the ladder and haven’t hit the ground yet.
Hopefully the deal to build the K9 in the UK will still go ahead
It’s a bit pathetic when NATOs second biggest spender and the world’s 6th largest economy ( blah blah) can’t design and build its own artillery. The loss of sovereign capability in land systems is a disgrace, entirely the fault of politicians wanting quick bucks from privatizing and then allowing the capability to be closed down. Rebuilding that lost capacity has given us Ajax- Spanish hulls, French built guns, German engines and transmission- years late and costing Ā£9m a piece.
Any longer term replacement for AS90 has to regenerate sovereign capability. If it is Archer, then BAE should be required to set up a UK manufacturing facility.
What make is your car Peter??
Vauxhall made at Ellesmere Port. Not relevant – the UK car industry fell apart because of weak management and strike prone workforce. The UK land warfare industry largely disappeared because of deliberate government decisions and a lack of long term thinking.
It is economically damaging that we spend so much of our defence budget on foreign made equipment. The private sector has failed to maintain capabilities so we should revert to a state owned operation a la Nexter.
Well said š
100% PeterS
The leftie TV channels and News programmes won’t talk about it though.
Can you imagine this happening in the USA or France? Their industries would have the workers on the streets protesting.
A country that cannot make it’s own Ships, Tanks, Artillery and put on a go show with another in building fighter aircraft, has no chance of surviving a real, close in war.
If the country hadn’t produced its own military hardware from the time of Drake, we would have been invaded and conquered several times by now.
I feel so angry about it.
The thing is, Peter, it isn’t a disgrace as you put it. Not everything has to be custom-made in the UK. We have one of the largest defence industries in the world. And make, design, develop, and build huge amounts of defence equipment that can not be made overseas. And sometimes its better value to buy off the shelf. People moan when we buy expensive gold plated kit from UK companies, yet moan when we sometimes buy from abroad. We live in a global economy. Not all of our industries can be like it was 40 years ago. Just look at the F35 work that other countries don’t have. Or the ability to build Nuclear submarines.
It should also be noted that France does (Shock, horror) but military equipment from foreign companies
The plan is to set up a maufacturing facility here in the UK to build the K9, discussions are underway and visits have been made to Korea to establish how they do it.
What would motivate the Koreans to allow that? It took Poland ordering 646 K-9ās and 1,000 K2 tanks ((820 to be made in Poland).
I can hear the cries already that we couldn’t afford that many. I would think the Koreans might opt to ask Poland to buy the pitiful number we will be shamed to buy. People have pulled numbers out the air with about 40 K9ās as the consensus. No K2ās.
We should be building a good number of our own wheeled artillery like the KCH 155 and around 500 fresh, newly designed British made tank,
Otherwise, what’s the point? We may as well give up the Nucs and use the money saved to get more conventional weapons.
A war is coming. Sunak & whoever follows has 5 years to get moving. After that, who knows. Although it’s 2023, it may as well be 1933 for the good out military and political leadership is concerned.
Good. A sense of urgency will not go amiss.
‘ … continuing to double-down on our unwavering support …’ In plain English please.
Light, mobile and hard hitting at range, whats not to like here. Do we need the heavy stuff when systems such as this makes much more sense as it takes less to give more. I’m sure the RA would welcome such a system to replace the heavy stuff that just does not do the bizz needed today.
British Army to acquire… I thought we were going to ‘relieve someone’ of them. ļ»æšļ»æ
Decent pieces of kit from what I have seen. Good call.
itās good news but what a wasted opportunityā¦
instead of pissing a load of money away by:
1) Operating 2 different self propelled fires with two logistics and training pipelines.
2) spaffing a decade and billions on a procurement process for a Gucci set of self propelled precision fires.
Just retire all the AS90s, give them to Ukraine and equip the army with Archerā¦.Ukraine gets a bucket load of self propelled fires, the army finally recapitalise its long range precision fires with as good a system as you have anywhereā¦does not spaff money on running two separate systems..one being old ans does not spaff pointless money on a procurement that will take a decadeā¦..
The new version of Archer is in the works?
It may very well be the new version they have.with the MAN 8×8ā¦.they have not been clear if these are legacy systems on the Volvo 6×6ā¦. Iām not sure why they would have 14 of the old Volvo based systems hanging around when all those orders have been fulfilled and the new orders are for the MAN.., but the point of archer is that itās meant to be very vehicle agnosticā¦so
They had 24 in storage which were originally produced for Norway who backed out of the contract. They have pledged 8 of these to Ukraine and now sold 14 to us. That leaves Sweden with 24 in service and 2 in storage. They intend to manufacture more to stand up a new artillery regiment towards the end of the decade.
Cheers, I did not realise Norway had backed out of their purchase. Surprising they could back out after they were builtā¦still thatās our gain, long range precision fires operational within year be it on a 6×6 or 10×10 or whatever really is very good news that was not expected and will be a massive boost to capabilities if the army ends up deploying more than a battle group for any reason. Sort of shows that if you do a more common sense āwe need thisā approach instead of the more foolish āwe would like this and thatā approach to procurement you can get results quickly.
Apart from its mobility, how does the Archer’s actual ability to lob something differ from the M777? If the M777 is better, why can’t the cover get BAE (who makes both) to put the M777 onto an Archer (type) platform for mobility?
The new M777 uses a lot of titanium to make it lighter. The Archer uses an evolution of the FH77. Both use a 52 calibre length barrel. They both lob a shell about the same distance and use standard NATO ammunition. So in essence they are the same.
However, the Archer fully automates the set up and leveling process. It automates the whole loading process, selecting different types of shell and the number of charges depending on the mission requirement.
Whereas M777 is fully mandraulic. It needs a crew of at least 5 to unhitch it from the tow vehicle, level it, set up the shellās fuze, load it, then lay it on the target.
The Archerās crew of 3, once at a fire point, can set up and bang off 6 rounds in less than a minute. Then stow the gun a Foxtrot Oscar in another 30 seconds. Which minimizes the chance of counter-battery fire. The crew of the M777 will be lucky to do the same in 5 minutes.
It will take a lot of work and time to convert the M777 to a fully automated system. It could quite easily be mounted on the back of a truck like the French Caesar system. Which would speed up the set up and bug out time.
Thanks for that mate. Answered the question brilliantly.
I assume Archer can use the guided high-precision projectiles M982 Excalibur?
Yes, it can fire any NATO standard 155mm shell.
Of course. Excalibur is created by Bofors and Raytheon.
The version of Archer mounted on the MAN 8×8 was based on the HX77 Chassis, and had a large overhang on the back. This was displayed at DSEi back in 2019.
Rheinmetall are now offering the HX3 10X10 variant as detailed
https://rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_wheeled_vehicles/radhaubitze/index.php
Excellent piece of kit and quickly acquired too. The article says this is the first 14, does anyone know the total number the Army will be acquiring?
It’s a good choice but are we only buying 14 to replace 30?
If so, why not just save all the money and have the RA throw smiling socks rocks at the enemy. Socks cause less collateral damage and little offence to persons of a fragile disposition. Unlike those very misogynistic and phallic 155mm barrels.
The MOD can reinvest the cash into high profile, virtue signalling trips by ministers to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. The remainder can pay for even more multicultural and gender neutral, remedial training initiatives. Much more in tune with todays military.
Yes I’m taking the PI55 but the MOD started it.
I’d thought they would have gone more for the MAN 8*8 based chassis for truck base commonality and extra stability and agility? Has the exact type been confirmed?
I’ll answer my own question as I see it says 6*6, so i guess it has. š
The British Army will receive the first 14 Archer artillery systems. Full operational capability expected by next April. (First 14 Archers). Implying more will be following in due course. Maybe near to the numbers UK has given to Ukraine.
Just watched a youtube vid on this system. Very impressive. Looks like no more handballing 155 rounds up into the turret. Assume we are getting the full system including ammo truck with hoist?
Yes, the support vehicle is normally part of the package. The Archerās magazine can be loaded manually though. It does take longer clearly, but it does mean that the system can continue fire support when the support vehicle isnāt around.
The gun loading can also be done manually, when thereās a problem with the autoloader.
A lot of “Old volvo version” going on.
A bit out of the box but the RN changed the DG prime movers on Sandown MCMVs from CV8 engines to Volvo truck engines.
Why?
CV8 couldn’t be supported whilst
Volvo has a world wide support network of spares and engineers and you can buy the bits off the shelf from just about anywhere in the world. If you have a big snag you get in the local volvo truck rep with his laptop to diagnose the engine for you.
THE same will go for the Archer prime mover. It’s based on a industrial plant machinery that is used as an all terrain dump truck/forestry truck.
Even if its an old version of the vehicle there is going to be a lot of spares for the chassis and engines available and parts will be still in use on newer versions.
https://regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2023/03/sverige-och-storbritannien-samarbetar-om-okat-militart-stod-till-ukraina/
Swedish press release, not 100% sure I am understanding but seems to imply that the Archer purchase will enable further AS90 donations, Sweden is donating 8 Archer to Ukraine of which 2 are āmaintenance unitsā (ammo carriers?) and Britain purchasing the Archers will somehow increase the logistics and maintenance capability for the Archers Sweden is donating to Ukraine.
Well lets hope any potential enemy goes to sleep until April next year
Do you honestly think if push came to shove we could not use them?š
Quick move by the MOD and dare I say a good one .Will there Get better at this š¤š¬š§
I personally welcome this news. Thereās been a few of us on this site thatās been advocating Archer as a system the Royal Artillery should have got a number of years.
Archer has one of the fastest set up, bang off 6 shells and bug out time, amongst any of its peers. It is also fully automated, which means it can operate with a small crew of 3. Though can be used a by a crew of 2 if needed. Which means it can get to a fire point, bang off a few rounds then get away, hopefully before your enemy can pinpoint your location for return fire.
This compares very favorably to competing systems like the French Caesar. Which is a lot cheaper, but does not use the same level of automation. So requires a large crew to service the gun who operate in the open, so are unprotected against return fire and near misses.
Looking at the wording used, ie. as an interim solution etc. It has the phraseology used for an urgent operational requirement (UOR). There is no way we can replace AS90s sent to Ukraine with new build AS90s, unless we restart the production line.
The RA has trialed both Archer and Caesar. Clearly the Archer is the better system. But I think we will se a second order, that uses a MAN 8×8 or 10c10 as the carrier vehicle. One is that it adds logistical commonality with the rest of the MAN fleet the Army uses. But perhaps more significantly it means a longer barrel can be used.
The current vehicle is the Volvo 6×6 articulated tractor unit. It has very good mobility. It carries an evolution of the FH77 155mm/52 cal gun in a fully automated turret. It is self-leveling and can be ready to fire in less than 30 seconds. After firing, the gun is stowed lying flat in an armoured box behind the crew cab. This would preclude it from using a longer 58 or 62 cal barrel. Importantly it has a reversionary mode, where if the autoloader fails, it can be manually loaded and fired.
We will be seeing a trial of the K9A2 Thunder later this year as part of the mobile fires platform (MFP) program. I believe it has a very good chance of winning, especially as Australia, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Poland will be operating them. So we will get a first hand look at how they are being used and performing. So far in tests it has outperformed the Pz2000.
Looking forward, I do see a mix of wheeled and tracked SPGs. Made with a mix of Archer and K9, each system has its place. Being wheeled Archer has better strategic mobility, so can be used more rapidly for an urgent response, ie supporting Boxer. Whereas the K9 is better suited in supporting the heavy mechanized brigade.
Seeing as the turret section on Archer is armoured, is there any mileage in getting a tracked unit and mounting the Archer turret on it? Would give commonality of system, just with different levels of operational and tactical mobility. Or is the armour on the turret not as heavy as a full-fat SPG?
No because then you are messing about trying to mate systems that do not match without major changes!
Thanks, I’d not really looked at how it works before- assumed that the housing around the gun was the armoured but for the crew. Clearly now I’ve looked at it, that is not the case! Agreed, integrating the two would be more trouble than it’s worth- although there may be mileage in using the same gun at least.
I am depressed and feel totally ashamed of the United Kingdom. We are rotting from the head and it’s infecting the rest of the body. 14 measily units!!! I just hope that in the event of a defeat, the top brass and every politician is led outside………
That should just be the first tranche – you need 24 guns for a Regiment, plus some for the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
Sadly, some are fewer than that already Graham, like the Light Gun Regiments, with either 2 x 6 gun batteries or, in the case of 29RA, at one time it was thought to have either 2×6 or 3×4, as it was unsure if yet another of its batteries had disbanded or whether they had just reduced the number of guns again.
Thanks DM – I recall when many arty regts were 3×6, I think.
Crazy for tube artillery regts to have less than 18 guns.
Ever the optimist, but what if this could herald is the start of the long awaited ārestructuringā of the Royal Artillery which lets face it, has a lot responsibilities and has to provide for all theatres, not just Europe. We are a global country after all and should we just concentrate on Eastern Europe? Many vital new partnerships are opening up, especially AUKUS and Japanese cooperation. It would be folly to let those relationships wither and die. So having something that is currentlyā excellent at what it does in Europe (Ukraine) and also has very good flexibility and is easily(er)ā¦ by a lot, to move to most placeās in an expeditionary role, is it not just the thing for the job for how the U.K. is posturing? Will it nit. E good enough for right now?
The āproperā (permanent etc) mobile fires solution has been mentioned numerous times, letās see what that isš Thereās already good options, eg Thunder. It seems the most beneficial system for me personally, but there are clearly others too and if a tracked SP Gun is the only option, then I donāt think weād be so foolish to ignore that. Then we have 2 systems, both good and both configured according to role. Whatās not yo like about that? ,
Maybe this choice of āinterimā wheeled gun system did give indication on one thing tho, does that mean Boxer 155 off the table now? There is no need for another wheeled option now surely? It would be good to concentrate on the āpermanentā MFP with a clearer picture, ie the one role it would be used for, combined arms, in Europe.
I think ARCHER will genuinely have to be amazing at everything to win the permanent MFP contest, and if it is, then we re already half way there. But if itās not and everyone indeed agrees that the āarmouredā way is still ātheā way, then an armoured, tracked option would have to procured too. Which is clearly being considered.
And who knows it may also lead to that place most of us think should be reinstated into the future army, an armoured IFV. Whether that would be a full Ajax family (post Refresh, god help us) for everything including IFV, or it could be something else. Itās a slim one atm but it is a possibility..
If wheels are the way to go and we decide to go full fat then this is a new system with new operatingprocedures for the U.K. which is very goodšš¼
if we do see the need for a full fat armoured set up now as well, š ARCHER can still hold its own until that other system is in place, and itās great to transport around the world. šš¼
What’s wrong with the South African G6? Combat proven and still the best all rounded about
I take it that 14 units to be transferred will be original Swedish models, the photo above shows a German chassis? possibly a mixed fleet? expensive just like us to put ourselves in a bad position.