The Ministry of Defence is exploring the accelerated procurement of the Mobile Fires Platform Programme, the long-term replacement for AS90.
This development was brought to light during a recent Parliamentary written question session.
The question, posed by Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, was answered by the Minister of State, James Cartlidge.
In the session, Healey queried about the out of service date for the Archer artillery systems and the planned delivery timeline of the Mobile Fires Platform Programme. Cartlidge revealed that the new artillery system is planned to reach Initial Operating Capability by 2029 and Full Operating Capability by 2032.
However, he added, “options are being scoped to accelerate the procurement process where possible.”
The likely contenders include the latest version of the Hanwha K9 Thunder 155mm/52cal tracked self-propelled howitzer (SPH), and the KMW Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 (RCH 155) mounted on the rear of the ARTEC Boxer 8×8.
For the present, Cartlidge clarified that the Archer 6×6 artillery systems would continue to be utilised as an interim solution until the Mobile Fires Platform is fully operational. “The Archer 6×6 artillery systems will remain in service as an interim capability until the Mobile Fires Platform enters service,” he stated.
Seriously, please just go off the shelf, no need to mess around with this and zero point in trying for a UK bespoke manufactured solution when your looking at just a few dozen units. As parliament points out in its report the MOD should take advantage of the UOR system for procuring such systems.
The Boxer based solution sounds great but it will come with years of delays and cost overruns for no benefit.
Archer is a great system made by a British defence contractor and its already in partial service. Job done.
I was about to post the same thing Jim. Buy the best now and in decent quantities. We all know what will happen with ten years. It’ll become twelve and then fifteen.
What comes as something of a surprise to me, given that we already have a Ā£800 + million funding line in place for future artillery (Mobile Fires – so American) requirements, is why we just haven’t already purchased what we want/need.
It can’t be that difficult, 155mm, min 52cal, auto loader, shoot + scoot ready, min 20 rounds onboard. That surely just leaves tracked or wheels as the choice, given that both systems will be in the Ā£7-10 mill a pop category. Cant really see us buying more than 60-70 units, obviously re-supply comes into it, which I’m sure is also a specialist vehicle. Why do we need to wait, in fact why did we need an interim buy of Archer 6×6 if we already know what we require?
Whatever the choice is, should already have been purchased and equipping our RA regiments.
I agree, Archer be it mounted on the Volvo 6×6 or the Man 8×8 truck, is I feel the better solution that meets the depleted state of the Army and its expeditionary requirement. This is partially based on the crew size. If the K9 was chosen, then that requires a crew of 5, whereas the Archer has 3. This is especially pertinent due to the reduced manpower and cuts the Army is facing.
When doing a top trumps comparison, both systems cost a similar price $4m+, whilst both carry a similar number of shells in the auto-loader, i.e. 21 for the Archer and 24 for the K9. The Archer has a faster rate of fire, as the autoloader and magazine are fixed to the gun’s breech. Whereas the K9 needs a mechanical sled to move the ammo from the bustle, then align itself to the breech for loading. So an Archer has a faster set up, shoot and scoot time than the K9. One of the main differences though is the overall mass, where the Archer is 34t whilst the K9 is over 47t. Which means an Archer can be airlifted by a A400M, whereas a K9 cannot. Plus another big advantage is that the Archer doesn’t need to be road transported, as it can self ferry to where its needed.
You havenāt updated for K9a2 which is the version the UK will buy.
K9a2 has a crew of 3 and carries 48 rounds all for the autoloader. The rate of fire of K9a2 is also the fastest of the three choices at 10 rounds/min max.
Additionally whilst Archer takes 10 minutes for all rounds to be loaded by the resupply vehicle, K10 has a conveyor belt with a rate of 12 rounds/min and carries 104 rounds.
K9 also has a BCV variant- the K11 which will increase commonality in the artillery battalions which otherwise would have to use Boxer or Ajax.
Hi mate, tend to broadly agree ref wheeled version whichever it might be, but some of the pluses are also drawbacks.
Having a crew of 3 whilst helping with manpower is potentially a negative when it comes to sustained ops. They will be ‘knackered’ after 24 hrs or so, will require rest, whereas a larger crew can overcome this and has potentially more availability. Of course, only really an issue when you are fighting!
Agree that the wheeled version is air transportable, but, that ship sailed years ago with the demise of FRES. I dont think that this should even enter the equation when it comes to choosing which type to select. The real advantage is that it can cover some 400 miles in a day if roads/conditions allow, unlike a tracked version.
My personal preference is for some of both, keep the tracked with the ‘heavy’ formations and use the ‘ wheeled’ with the Mech/Light formations. Same goes with the Missiles, GMLRS for the ‘tracked’ units and a HIMARS version based on our Supacat 6×6 ala LIMAWS(R) for the wheeled lot.
Yes it will inevitably cost a bit more, but surely is a much better fit and gives the army far more options then just having one size fits all!
The Archer is a stop gap solution until a proper replacement system is available. It’s not a choice between the two. Also units need spare crew to do all the other jobs. Were then immediate crew reduced they would need more following behind in a support role
7-10 million GBP per pop. That was the cost of a 10 x 14″ Battleship back in the day. We bought 5.
Can’t see us buying many more guns either!!š
I think you have answered your own question.
āIt canāt be that difficult, 155mm, min 52cal, auto loader, shoot + scoot ready, min 20 rounds onboard.ā
PzH2000 not full auto loader
RCH155 only prototype
K9A1 no auto loader
K9A2 only early prototype
Caesar not full auto loader
Elbit only prototype
Krab no auto loader
Archer ticks all the boxes you mentioned, however it has a non NATO standard 25 litre chamber, meaning new ammunition types have to be individually certified for use on Archer rather than using a standard NATO type certificate, which might restrict the use of new ammunition currently being developed, being used with Archer until either we or the Swedes pay for certification.
As I see it there is currently no OTS solution which meet all the Armyās requirements and the best fit are a few years away, or we comprise somewhere else.
I was bought in, at a good day rate, in 2015 for the ‘urgent job’ of identifying the replacement for AS90. Two years of muddle, contradiction and confusion later, I was invited to seek other employment because the Army had ‘higher priorities’ than replacing obsolete, useless 20th century heavy-metal capabilities that would never be needed again…
I’m not sure the requirements are much different now than they were eight years ago, the problem remains just buying something ‘good enough ‘ rather than seeking gold-plated perfection (while avoiding “I’m bored, here’s the answer, buy it” which got us Archer- not without value but is only a short-term expedient)
Morning mate, tavm for a more detailed insight, as you can probably tell, its not really my area so to speak.
Personally I think that the army should actually grab the bull by the horns and go for both a tracked and wheeled version. As either way it will be a compromise – tracked/wheels, both have advantages and disadvantages. Costs are increased I appreciate, but more versatility/options for the army. Same for the missiles as in GMLRS and our version of a HIMARS setup(LIMAWS(R)). IMO one size doesn’t fit all, we need to give the army a fighting chance by providing them with versatility/options when deploying.
Not really bothered what the eventual choice/s are, select, purchase, introduce and get on with it. At this rate we will still be dithering about it next decade.
I have to agree on getting someone to āgrab the bullā. My fear is that chasing perfection against a set criteria will result in either no order being placed or we order something so bespoke that it will end up being called Eurysaces! (Son of Ajax in Greek mythology).
I like Archer, it works, itās available, the RA are using it and apparently like it and BAe could bring production to the UK.
We’re not using archer at all in the ra we don’t even have any compatible ammunition for it
I can understand that we may have donated a good portion of our ammunition stock, but I canāt imagine weāve given away all of the L15ās.
We probably donāt have any Bonus or Excalibur, not sure we ever had those in inventory.
Archer uses a modular charge system that we don’t have apart from that there hasn’t even been any training on it yet . At the end of the day As90 is a good platform it just needs a longer barrel with a deeper chamber and some software upgrades it’s not rocket science. We’ve already given Ukraine As90 and they already had krab which has the As90 turret configuration.
Why one and not the other? A useful mix of wheeled and tracked might be very useful! And halve the timeline and get it done asap as we’re all getting very frustrated waiting here on UKDJ! Lol š
Morning Q, totally agree, see my post to @Daveyb above.
Evening Deep, yes, good points and other good posts here too. Not really a one type fits all ops is it? Just look at the Ukrainian battlefields. Talk about a real live scenario. Poor buggers. Such brave people. Must be bloody awful.
Like to see the Ukrainian’s get some ASW helos too and get those pesky subs.
Evening Q, obviously down under, hope its a pleasant one?
See your point ref ASW Helos, but, unfortunately of little value by themselves, especially in the Black Sea. Its still a Russian ‘pond’ so to speak, they can base the subs out of either Sevastopol or even Novorossiysk. They have the range and endurance to lob cruise missiles at will, whereas Helos just dont have the range, speed or armament to get to them. Probably better trying to hit them in port with long range missiles/drones, which to be fair they have had some success with.
Enjoy your evening.
Yes, Evening from Sydney, sunny, high teens to low 20s, still a bit fresh at times but not too bad for winter. Yes, Ukraine needs long range weaponry and drones to strike ships, subs in ports. They sure have the motivation! Just worried that with more Ukrainian success what form some new Russian retaliations will take. It’s a long fight and it’s all in their back yard! Easy to comment from the couch here, but pray that Ukraine can successfully surge forward and stay strong and reclaim the Zaphirista nuclear powerplant, Mariupol and Crimea and have access the Asov Sea. Strength to Ukraine šŗš¦!
Money allocated and money being released by the treasury are two very different things. Would only be a guess but I would guess the treasury has stated the money will be released in X years and the mod is using the interim period to explore options and generally cover for the treasury.
Agree, Jim.
The Boxer version. You can just see them going for that, no doubt the most expensive option there is, considering the cost of a standard Boxer, and years down the line. Why not something cheaper, and OTS, MoD? For a change?
Like the medium heli requirement, just buy something OTS, in the numbers needed. The Koreans are offering UK build for the K9 too?
Anyone know which has the best rate of fire, number of reloads, time to shoot and scoot, and at the cheapest price? Assume all much the same?
Got to say the Boxer does look fantastic but understand the reservations. Arrive, 9 rounds fired and scoot all within about 2 minutes, 4 rounds within around a minute, compact, great mobility and the ability to fire on the move too. Impressive but I agree costs, availability etc are vital considerations too.
Link
It looks weirdly top heavy to me? Though I know nothing on that and just an uninformed observation,.
I totally agree funny enough when seeing original imagery a while back, which is why I tried to check it out just now and found that site. The videos seem to show it surprisingly mobile and stable but who knows for sure. What surprised me was the fire on the move ability though I suspect only forwards for stability reasons. Seems to defy the laws of physics to me but all very impressive if it can get away with that top heavy look.
Hi Spyinthesky,
I also note that the gun module stores 30 rounds in the ready to fire position as part of the autoloader. That will enable the system to maintain freedom of movement for longer than many legacy systems, including the AS90.
It strikes me as a good option for the army as it will be operating the Boxer anyway so spares, training, etc. will be simpler and cheaper although I except time is a serious consideration given the lessons from the Ukraine War and the current state of the RA.
Cheers CR
The downside to the Boxer RCH is weight, for long distance strategic lift. It weighs over 39t, which means it has to be airlifted by a C17. Still lighter than a K9 though.
I am led to believe that it also doesn’t fit the standard European rail gauge, so the “module” would need removing before transportation. Happy to be educated if that is not the case.
Yeh, lots of little things need checking when you are trying to buy kit. Simple things that no one talks about, but they are the ones that can make a procurement team look like a right bunch of idiots if they don’t spot them before stuff is bought and paid for.
Defence procurement ain’t like popping down to the super market that’s for sure. Interesting though..!
Hope well, mate.
Cheers CR
The standard European loading gauge is 3.150m (width) x 4.280m (height).
Boxer RCH is 2.99m wide 3.6m high. K9 is 3.4m x 2.73m high. Boxer fits fine, K9 would be restricted to specific wide gauge routes only, similar to most MBTās.
So you are assuming that the rail-wagon load bed height is no more than than 680 cm, most sit at around 1.04 mtrs
You would need low loader wagons, which are limited in number and have their own issues when it comes to loading vehicles, but it can be done. My point was that a lot of people use the size of Boxer RCH and say itās outside of the loading gauge as an argument as to why it should not be considered against the K9.
K9 is also outside gauge and you canāt make it fit.
There are proās and conās for both Boxer and K9 but I donāt think loading gauge is a useful metric to choose between either.
Hi DaveyB,
There are always compromising to be made. As Mark points out the module may not tfit standard European rail gauges and Pongoglo suggests Boxer may not fit under bridges with the gun module fitted…
Someone has got to work out what they can and cannot do without. For me I’d say not being able to fit under bridges is the one on my simple list that would eliminate Boxer just think how many UK rail bridges have dents in them because some idiot HGV driver hasn’t paid attention. If you are under fire and trying to do a scoot you haven’t got time to check the map for low bridges!
Complicated ain’t it š you can see why mistakes sometimes happen in procurement.
Cheers CR
Boxer RCH is 3.6m high (11ft 9in)
Average curtain side HGV trailer height 4.0m (13ft 1in).
Standard road bridge height in Europe is 5.03m (16ft 6in).
Hi Darren,
Thanks for information, interesting. It is a high vehicle…
Cheers CR
Apparently whilst the Boxer option looks sexy and offers commonality with MIV etc one of the main reasons not favoured by RA is it doesn’t fit under a bridge. Very high profile while Archer either Volvo 6×6 or MAN with barrel lowered below cab very much does.
Not idea about rate of fire, the longevity of the barrel is likely the more important aspect.
The biggest differentiator between Archer and K9 will likely be the mobility, Archer has better strategic mobility, but once its on the field K9 probably has been tactical mobility.
Some very good points.
This might answer your question, Daniele.
LINK
Unfortunately our political classes will use any overseas purchase as collateral. So any logic or common sense goes out the window. So that means bespoke, expensive and delayed
After being involved in the VC10 project in the 90’s and having a number of first hand stories relating to such; I am now convinced that the government procurement goes something like this…”We need some new artillery systems, let’s buy some off the shelf systems. That way, we could save money and obtain many more for the same price!”. Gov Minister – “No, I have a good friend in VicAe and he said he could build us a bespoke super system for the same price”. VicAe gains contract, inflates the price and the only way the MOD can afford them is by buying less numbers. Army has a system that it does not want, with far fewer than it needs and is no better than the off the shelf solution already available. Rinse and repeat!
The use of artillery fire has been given a new lease of life by the Ukrainian issue. We need lots and lots of it and top quality too
It’s not in service in the uk we might be better off going straight for k9 or better still just upgrade what we already have
Ukraine shows that artillery is still king and it’s ridiculous that it’s taken a major land war in Europe to push the MoD into updating ours.
Is Archer not being considered as a long-term choice as it’s wheeled rather than tracked?
Will the army only want a tracked solution to work with Challenger/Ajax and if so why is Archer being used as an interim in the first place?
If Boxer is in the running it can’t be a wheeled vs tracked issue.
Whatever we go for, please god make it an off the shelf, proven system, don’t let the bloody tail wag the dog again with a gold plated UK solution that turns up 10 years late and cost three times the projected cost….
Absolutely! We’re going to be ordering well below 100. I’m all for UK designed and produced kit when economies of scale and the potential for exports apply but here it needs to be off the shelf.
No UK designed option available is there, unless some SuperCat mash up is considered but canāt see that happening, UK built (or more likely assembled) is a must though I think. Surely Ukraine is being assessed to consider what factors are priority in terms of rate of fire, track v wheeled and set up, range (gun and vehicle) and shoot and scoot time.
Also armour. Shoot and scoot is great but I think the ability to tank a hit from a Lancet is not to be underestimated.
I saw the vid from UKR showing the Lancet hit.
Do we have anything like Lancet? Is Switchblade of the same type, range, and explosive power?
Yes but: There are two versions. The larger version is more like Lancet, but I’m not 100% whether the UK has both or (if not) which version, I’ve not done the course and on exercise “Switchblade” was a tube filled with sand. (You tell the DS you’re setting it off and then they simulate it having an effect through TES in the war room.) And at the time I wasn’t interested in which version it was lol.
Right.
Hi Daniele, I thought you might be interested in this along with Graham M.
Hanwha Defense Australia with Redback IFV selected as preferred partner for Land 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle programme.
LINK
Image courtesy of Joint-Forces.com
https://www.joint-forces.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/00-Hanwha-Redback-IFV.jpg
Being built locally here in Aus too, in Geelong, along with the K9 SPG & K10 supply vehicle. I don’t know if the British Army sees its IFV requirements as being uniquely wheeled only, and I don’t know of any other country going all wheeled. Someone earlier did mention France. Why are the vast majority of countries still sticking with tracked IFV then? Including the US?
Good evening Quentin,
An excellent question! Personally, I would have opted to go all in with Hanwa/Hyundai Rotem and built a working relationship with them and included their MBT as well.
Commonalty of parts springs to mind as well as excellent kit at a much faster pace!
Yes, I saw that report elsewhere online.
It looks a bit like a Warrior?
But not Ajax!
“Two examples of the AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) were recently displayed at Lulworth during a Pre-DCP23 Capabilities Showcase.”
LINK
Image courtesy of Joint-Forces.com
https://www.joint-forces.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/00-VIRTUO-20230713-014-009.jpg
Shed we should have bought cv90
That was my first thought DM very surprise Redback beat the German Lynx .
Nothing comparable to Lancet in UK.
D ajax has proved that already we should have bought c 90 off the shelf
Actually Boxer can come in tracked form… However I doubt that is the version they car considering.
I wish they’d evaluate the tracked base, but as they are going for Ajax, it’s unlikely.
Archer is a really good piece of kit, not sure about mobility vs tracked solutions, but it is good to have all the same.
Looks like HiMars / MLRS is King in the Ukraine war, it appears to be outranging anything Russia has
I think I read that 8tonnes per axle was the limit for wheeled vehicles wanting cross country mobility. If this still holds up does anyone know how is Archer in 6×6 form managing in a European theatre and can anyone give a steer if the 8×8 will be better.
Ukraine show artillery is king when you don’t rule the skies. NATO has assumed air superiority would come first. We need to be careful we’re not designing a military around a conflict which is different to the way we would fight in the future. Ukraine Russia are almost fighting as we did 100 years ago at times. As they say best to plan how to fight the next war not the last one. That doesn’t mean artillery is obsolete btw.
Artillery is still king in Ukraine purely for 1 reason. NATO will not or cannot enforce a no fly zone.
Give yourself a tea break me old China with that chuff! If NATO wanted to enforce a no fly zone the Russian 60 hrs PA pilots would last 5 minutes, 4 minutes to get off the ground safely, 30 seconds trying to use the knee mounted go outdoors GPS and 30 seconds under a canopy as they get blown out of the sky (5 seconds if their ejection seat fails as per 40% do) Maybe make an effort at defending your rather random and illiterate posts mucker gee!
Why are Russia still in the game?
Because – despite what some people say – NATO are not in the game.
The Ukrainian airforce v Russian airforce is a different game.
Just RAF Typhoons and F35B could get air superiority. Thatās without German, French , Italian, American , Canadian, Spanish and the rest of NATO Typhoons, F35A, F35B, F16, F15, F22, Gripens, Mirages, Rafales ,etc mucking in as well.
And that is just a few of the fighters, didnāt mention the bombers, strike missiles, etc.
The RUaf isnāt actually in the game, they are staying out of the way! And if NATO gets involved they wonāt even get off the ground my little agenda seller!
Archer fits well within the DAG – Div Artillery Group while AS90 – K2 sit better within the Bde/BG spectrum. Put Archer into 1 Arty Bde at Div level alongside MLRS and keep AS90 upgraded with better ammo – Excalibur etc in support of the Battle Groups/Brigades. Nothing wrong with AS90 a bloody good gun as our Ukraine friends prove every day. Just bring more out of storage to replace those we’ve gifted to our friends and buy more 155mm
Morning mate, an interesting point of view. Its not my field, but assume that by using Excalibur with AS90, you overcome the range deficiencies of having a shorter barrel length when compared to say a Phz 2000, and providing Archer with the same extends the range out even further?
Despite the extra costs involved, would like to think that the RA receives both tracked and wheeled versions of both guns and missiles (eg AS90/Archer and GMLRS/HIMARS(LIMAWS)).
Dont really know enough about the AD side of things, only that we need more and a better selection from short-long range missiles and guns for anti drones etc. Believe that the MOD are also looking at what is required in this area. Not sure what the RA will end up with though.
Totally agree As90 needs a longer barrel deeper chamber and some software upgrades
Why not just order 150x Archer and keep it at that?
Keep it simple, off-the-shelf and buy as many units as possible with the allocated funds, rather than going bespoke and getting half the units compared to OTS.
NO. We don’t need 150 or anything like.We are only looking to field one Armd Div at that. What we do need to do is make it the best Armd Div in NATO and that it sits within the ARRC ( which it does). What we need to do then if course is buy an extra 8 guns or so to field a proper three Bty Regt that sits withing the Div Arty Bde ( 1 Arty Bde) alongside the 2 X Regts MLRS. Then bring the many AS90 now sitting in storage out of reserve to equip 1 X Med Arty Regts each in the surviving Armoured/Armoured Inf Bdes.
We do need 100+
MFP replaces not only AS90 but L118 in some units. That means 3 regular and 3 reserve regiments.
AS90 are very old, best to replace them with the much better K9a2 and buy some more Archer for 7x.
Archer has the same range as as90 it’s as old as as90 and we don’t use the same charge system
I’m in shock the government is taking so much time on these procurement decisions, you would think it would be in their own interest to sign on the dotted line before the next election when they know they are getting booted out the door and can saddle the next government with procurement contracts they can’t get out of.
AS90 replacement, Puma Replacement, Warrior Replacement (Boxer with a Turret or CV90), MRV-P all of this needs selected and signed for, how does delaying decisions actually reduce costs or gain political capital anywhere.
Whatever the decision can i suggest a decent ammunition production facilty with the ability to quickly surge production
Seriously 2029/2032? Surely it’s needed way sooner than that?! Can’t believe these stupidly long time lines. Why so long? It’s kind of needed nowish isn’t it? Why not aim for 2025/26?
They always want something gold plated etc.
Should just buy off the shelf in decent numbers.
UK already using Archer after all.
We don’t have archer in service
Thatās pretty pedantic, considering they have purchased them and will be using them from next year.
They’re not buying the ammunition support vehicle that’s required to bomb up we also don’t currently use the modular charge system that is required it’s also not rated for uk roads because of the width and they actually haven’t bought anything yet
They should just procure Archer in decent numbers and be done. Itās a great system and readily available.
Don’t know why there is always a need to add so many extra requirements and make things overly slow/complicated.
Just get more Archer or K9 ,wouldn’t mess around with Boxer to be honest .Get of the shelf and be done with it.š
Makes sense to just buy off the shelf, but how on earth have we allowed our manufacturing base to be so decimated?
We should have been main contractor and selling to world. Similar with mbt and ifv
Spot on š
I know the PZH2000 is unthinkable for UK but it seems after the teething problems all systems used in Ukraine have now shown their worth.
Indeed – the Ukrainians have understandably given them a proper workout,and they have proved quite survivable too.
As we donāt have any option for a Uk produced option, I donāt see why they just donāt go off the shelf. As we now have a mix of Archer and AS90..the clever option would seem to be just to procure more Archer and remove the AS90 system completely..it would improve the capabilities as well save money ( one system is in the end cheaper than running two)ā¦finally we can give all the AS90s to Ukraineā¦
Maybe wise ,or a mix of Archer and K9s it’s a case of are we better of with track vehicles or wheels.Not sure about fire power when compared but don’t think there’s much between the two. š¤
The archer has an edge around speed of deployment I think, with the K9 Iām not sure that having a tracked long range fires adds much ( itās logistic tail is not tracked) to be honest.
Let’s hope the MOD get it right š
Itās noticeable that so many posters here are essentially saying the same thing.
But that will end up being far too logicalā¦
Of course we have an option for a UK produced system, it just wonāt be designed.
Both Boxer and K9 options will see significant UK production, with K9 keeping the vital LMUK turret production in business whilst also returning the Armstrong Works to full AFV production and giving multiple other companies smaller work.
We don’t have archer yet
None of these programs take 9 years to reach fruition. This is the problem with procurement and the MOD right there. Extract your digits from your respective receptacles, and purchase the correct 155cm system preferred and in the right numbers. NOW! It really isn’t rocket science. It’s called prudency. Please feel free to proceed.
Iām no expert but I suspect itās a fear of making a decision. Better to have 6 years of committee meetings as it looks like diligence and since 200 people have been involved, no one person can get the blame for cost overruns and delays.
If we are seriously going to buy a new SPG system and we have eliminated the idea of building our own then for me it has to be the Archer but mounted on a 8 x 8 MAN truck just like Sweden is now doing.
The K9 is all well and dandy but it introduces an entire new logistics supply chain for a new hull, transmission, suspension, electronics, engine etc etc and that adds up to high through time costs.
The KMW option is for me a complete non starter because other than using a Boxer hull I just don’t see any real advantage over Archer. In fact just in the opposite as I’m damned sure a MAN truck is cheaper than an APV and we have 000’s in service already.
The other factor is that it is only a single prototype (they’re already building a 2nd improved version) so zero end user knowledge and no customers yet. And to be honest Mr Mandelli is quite right; it just looks plain wrong. It reminds me of the rear end of HMS Furious (C 1917).
Old engineering saying “if it looks right it usually is right”.
Can anyone explain to me why given the timescales we just don’t buy some more Archers and also do what we did with CR2/CR3 upgrade. Take the remaining AS90 hulls; modernise and refit them properly and add the Braveheart Upgraded turret wih a 155mm 52 cal.
Just remember that before the start of the UA war, Poland went through a long series of trials to build their own SPG. They eventually chose a K9 hull with a an updated AS90 Braveheart Turret (over the Pzh2000) and called it Krab.
Now Poland is busy building Krabs for themselves and have their 1st export order. Which for the Ukraine (1st items UA went shopping for with their own money).
Maybe they know something about artillery that we don’t !
One of the really important lessons from the Ukraine war is the fact Ukraine are literarily shooting its fires to bits. If you look at the PzH 2000s, they were designed for no more that 100 shots per day..within 2 weeks to Ukrainians has shot them all to to the point they all needed sending out the country for repair..the barrels had been designed for 4500 shotsā¦the Ukraine PzH2000s had shot 20,000 times. This means any high intensity conflict is liable to shoot through fires very quicklyā¦and the army will need to numbers to rotate out.
Full operating capability in 2032. Obviously they are looking at a tracked, British built solution which is already in production, a proven standardā¦ā¦.how could I have missed itā¦.it must be another vehicle in the Ajax familyā¦.Ajax, Athena, Aresā¦.ARROW! .I think I put my coat down somewhereā¦..:-)
So whatās wrong with keeping and buying more Archers?
What some of you are overlooking is capabilities of the platform, having trialled a similar gun to Archer (Ceaser) there are many firing restrictions and the obvious issue of protection for the detachment, after all 25 pounder was given a front shield to afford so.e protection. Before MOD makes decisions let’s look Backwards a bit before looking forwards.
Archer offers better crew protection than Ceaser because with a full auto loader it can be operated without leaving the cab.
It’s wonderful that we have automated quick firing guns but that brings on its own problems. Rates of fire being demanded from STA assets, hot barrels, excessive wear, barrel changes, barrel availability and not to mention resupply…..this all comes from personal experience of trying to keep 32 AS90 and 24 L118 resupplied. Technology exceeds physical capability??
Who can tell with our government š
The only potential issues I’m aware with Archer is it’s not (yet) well proven in service (only Sweden is using in relatively low numbers) and there may be maintenance/reliability issues with the complexity of the automation.
Apparently the US Army were put off despite being very impressed with the performance. Albeit that might just be some combination of NIH and/or just wanting something more basic due to the logistics of maintaining a huge fleet.
If it’s the latter then I’d say that Archer is still a good fit for RA because our requirements are closer to the Swedes who designed it. i.e. getting the maximum effect from a small fleet with minimum manpower and logistical requirements.
So it’s the maintenance requirements, reliability and barrel longevity that will be the key things to look at IMO. The truck itself is not really an issue for either the MAN or Volvo option because both platforms are well proven and numerous with good international support, spares etc.
Otherwise I’d agree it’s a no brainier. I’m sure the MOD will be looking very carefully at feedback from Ukraine, where interestingly we seem to have heard very little about Archer, not sure if that’s a good sign or not!
Interesting comments, thanks.
In terms of supporting the Armoured Brigades K9a2 is much better than Archer. Unfortunately a split order is unlikely and MFP also has to replace L118 in 7 LMBCT.
What witchcraft is this? A notification which takes me to a relevant article with a knowledgeable, polite and articulate comment section. Spot on analysis from the previous posters and i really hope we see OTS in volume rather than 20 years of cost over runs and delays for a handful of shiny things.
A very smart move in my opinion, nothing wrong with off the shelf!
“From South Korea alone, the Poles are buying 1,000 (yes 1,000!) K2 main battle tanks, 673 K9 self-propelled howitzers and 48, allowing it to junk (or give to Ukraine) whatās left of its Soviet-era air force. Poland is now the biggest importer of South Korean military hardware in the world.
But the spending spree doesnāt stop there. Poland is also spending more than $6 billion on 366 American Abrams tanks, including 250 of the latest, state-of-the-art model (the M1A2). Combined with its Korean armour, Poland will boast a force of tanks so formidable that it will be unmatched by anyone else in Europe.
It will also be one of the best-equipped, with more than 500 long-range rocket systems (including the U.S.-made HIMARS, which has proved so effective in Ukraine) and the latest air defence protection.
Rearming on this scale doesnāt come cheap. But because Poland is prepared to buy so much of its military hardware off the shelf from tried-and-tested suppliers (unlike Britain whose military still insists on developing so many weapons itself, at enormous cost), the Poles get much bigger bangs for their bucks.”
LINK
24 Mar 2023
Polish army receives more K2 tanks and K9 howitzers from South Korea
Polish Defense Minister Mariusz BÅaszczak on March 22 posted a tweet confirming that a ship had arrived at the port of Gdynia from South Korea, delivering five more Korean K2 tanks and twelve K9 self-propelled howitzers announced on the same day: “(ā¦) We are thus supplementing our military units with equipment from South Korea, which comes as the implementation of last yearās agreements”.
“The Polish Army is getting stronger! This morning, another 12 K9 howitzers and 5 K2 tanks we ordered last year in South Korea arrived at the port of Gdynia. This is a significant strengthening of the potential of our artillery and armoured forces.”
LINK
24 Mar 2023
Polish army receives more K2 tanks and K9 howitzers from South Korea
Polish Defense Minister Mariusz BÅaszczak on March 22 posted a tweet confirming that a ship had arrived at the port of Gdynia from South Korea, delivering five more Korean K2 tanks and twelve K9 self-propelled howitzers announced on the same day: ā(ā¦) We are thus supplementing our military units with equipment from South Korea, which comes as the implementation of last yearās agreementsā.
āThe Polish Army is getting stronger! This morning, another 12 K9 howitzers and 5 K2 tanks we ordered last year in South Korea arrived at the port of Gdynia. This is a significant strengthening of the potential of our artillery and armoured forces.ā
LINK
If we were in Poland’s shoes we’d be doing much the same. We cannot compare our military needs to theirs as the respective requirements are so different.
We have bought equipment off the shelf in recent times. Apache E, Wedgetail, P8, Protector are just the examples that come to mind. The procurement of T31 seems to have learnt from past lessons too.
The army on the other hand has certainly been guilty. We’ll see what happens with the Wavell report and over the next few years as decisions on IFVs/Boxer etc are made. Hopefully they are learning from their mistakes.
Another opportunity missed in my opinion.
HANWHA REDBACK IFV SELECTED BY AUSTRALIA26 Jul 2023
“Media reports from Australia are stating that the Hanwha Redback IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) has won the LAND 400 Phase 3 contract.”
LINK
Another opportunity missed in my opinion.
HANWHA REDBACK IFV SELECTED BY AUSTRALIA 26 Jul 2023
āMedia reports from Australia are stating that the Hanwha Redback IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) has won the LAND 400 Phase 3 contract.ā
LINK
That looks like a ready made Warrior replacement Nigel…..
The political tail that wags the dog just needs to make a couple of ‘tiny’ adjustments for UK use.
A stretch it three feet
B relocate the turret forward one foot
C fit a different engine that won’t fit
D get a Spaniard to badly weld it together
E assemble the mess in the UK
F ensure its at least as loud for the crew as a Vickers MK1
G cancel the whole mess
That takes us comfortably to 2030, we can shovel a few billion into a hole and then we can just order more Boxer and hope all our future wars don’t need tracks!šš
ļ»æšļ»æ The very last thing we need right now is new kit as there is a war on our doorstep and further trouble brewing in the SCS not including Iran of course!
SKY NEWS 28.07.2023
“North Korea deepens ties with Russia – and China’s presence raises ‘serious’ concerns
Vladimir Putin has praised North Korea for its “firm support” of Russia’s war in Ukraine and its attempts to weaken the West.
Chinese officials and a Russian delegation led by defence minister Sergei Shoigu were in the People’s Republic on Thursday to discuss “matters of mutual concern” with Kim Jong Un and review the country’s nuclear-capable missiles.
One expert warned China’s presence could pose a threat to global security.
“China’s representation at North Korea’s parading of nuclear-capable missiles raises serious questions about Beijing enabling Pyongyang’s threats to global security,” said Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul.
“Given Russia’s need for ammunition for its illegal war in Ukraine and Kim Jong Un’s willingness to personally give the Russian defense minister a tour of North Korea’s arms exhibition, UN member states should increase vigilance for observing and penalising sanctions violations.”
In a letter published by North Korean media KCNA, Putin said North Korea’s cooperation with Russia would help undermine Western hegemony.
He said: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s firm support to the special military operation against Ukraine and its solidarity with Russia on key international issues highlight our common interests and determination to counter the policy of the Western group which hinders the establishment of the truly multi polarised and just world order based on the inseparability of the predominance of the international law and security and the respect for the sovereignty and national interests of the states.”
Why not the American ERCA?
Wheels or tracks. If C3, Ajax and Boxer gets mixed because we can’t afford a tracked Warrior replacement ( or wheels suffice) then either wheeled Boxer or K2 would do. Mix and match
Arguably if the range is 50km or more, does it really need the extra mobility of tracks? The SPG just hides amongst road traffic, farm buildings and any road or path.
If we aim to deploy them.to the frozen north then tracks might be better.
Buy both,70 Boxer modules and 70 K2. Then 120mm mortar units for Boxer.
Now if Ares/Ajax were to get a turret and an order for an IFV to replace Warrior, then tracks might get the edge.
Brimstone on Ajax and Boxer to make up for the lack of tanks.
We could have afforded a tracked IFV Warrior replacement – it was called upgraded Warrior (WCSP).
I don’t agree with the armoured infantry operating in wheeled vehicles particularly if they don’t have a beefy stabilised cannon – but the powers that be have decided otherwise. Tracked SPGs have always historically had more protection (armour and CBRN) and better comms than wheeled SPGs (FH70) or towed artillery – and superior mobility to enable it to keep up with the fast flowing manouevre enacted by tanks and AI. However lorry-mounted artillery with some armour protectin has changed the dynamic somewhat.
Tracks are invariably better for crossing wide-ish gaps, deep mud, snow and ice than wheels.
Ajax has a turret!
Recent defence review was as disappointing as almond milk, with what’s happening in Ukraine, yet again we seem to be hoping it will blow away and we can continue marginal investments. I live in the USA now, and seeing the Uk defence procurement from the outside, and from US point of view, its incredibly frustrating.
Not exactly on subject but have just seen the Wofram SuperCat Brimstone platform that has apparently been sent to Ukraine since the turn of the year, shows what can be done when you need to do something in an emergency. Even being offered as a platform for export now it seems.
LINK
Nice GD TRX robot vehecle with Brimstone amongst other weaponry on display there too at British Army Expo too. Hey and a UK Boxer and that vehicle that must not be mentioned.
My amateur tuppenceworth is that such an acquisition must be made in the round…wheeled vjhicles are usually cheaper than tracked to buy and easier and cheaper to maintain so easing logistics….drivers are easier to train with wheeled vehicles (potentially use Reservist LGV drivers as “spares”?), Archer and similar can fit under bridges (a point made by someone else but easily overlooked), they can redeploy themselves if need be. Tactical mobility given by tracks seems a red herring to me. artillery should be miles away from any front line, and given our lack of serious air transport, being able to put it on the smallest possible transport must be good. And if the RA crews actually like Archer that’s got to be a big plus.
Unless we are prepared to buy a lot of systems there is no point developing something else; it just isn’t worth it unless it’s designed with an eye for export. Sometimes good enough is good enough.
We have always had both tracked and wheeled artillery. Horses for courses.
We just brought 14 archers. It would make zero sense to buy anything else as it would just add cost and training complexity of having multiple platforms and surely we aren’t going to just write off the 14 after a year or two of owning them.
Maybe Australia could build them, they are building their own
A bit OT, Australia has just selected the Korean Hanwha Redback IFV, beating the Rheinmetall Lynx. So Korea has done well here also with the Huntsman K9 SPG and support vehicle. Wonder if the British Army top brass are watching this? Might have come as a bit of a surprise first choice.
MoD clearly did not want to continue with a tracked IFV otherwise we would have continued with WCSP. I am still waiting to hear the logic explained of putting the AI in Boxer instead.