Archer Mobile Howitzers operated by British troops fired 155mm rounds during a training exercise in Sweden.

Soldiers from the British Armyā€™s Royal School of Artillery are learning what it takes to operate the Archer Mobile Howitzer, say the British Army.

“On the snowy, frozen military training area of Boden, Swedish Lapland, the British Army gunners have been putting their theory into practice, firing the modern artillery platform for the first time.

Following the granting-in-kind of 32 AS90 self-propelled guns to Ukraine, Archer was procured from the Swedish Government as an interim solution for the gap created in the Armyā€™s 155mm Close Support capability.”

British Army accepts transfer of first Archer

The purchase included logistic support containers, an initial ammunition suite, support, and training package. The Swedish Artillery School provided a 14-week T3 ā€˜train the trainerā€™ course, training will start on the next generation of wheeled artillery systems this spring and will be fired in the UK next summer.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

129 COMMENTS

  1. The quick purchase of these was great news. For once the media drummed up an interest about the topic and the goverment was forced to react.

    The major question is how long will it take to fill the gap between the 12 purchased and the 32 given away, especially considering pre war / pre donation, the number of artillery pieces was being flagged as a major issue.

    I fear that we will see what happened in the past, small purchase with promise of more later, and that promise quietly dropped, but here’s hoping.

    • The 32 given away was actually only 20 working AS90 and 12 non operational hulls. The 14 replacements probably provided more capability than the old 20 AS90s. Definitely more are needed but they will need somewhere to go and units to operate them.
      The 14 archer were all Sweden had spare. More Volvo based archers maybe come available as they are retired from sweden.

      • Fair point, especially given the improvement in range over AS90 given the longer barrel.
        I think crews may be smaller on Archer too- so theoretically we could long term increase our fires without it impacting our troop numbers.

      • The 20 old As90 use the same charge system as the rest of national the archer uses a modular system that is not in general use with any other natural country the 20 old As90 have a manual back up for operating the archer does not its fully automated so if it breaks its non operational.

    • Steve, it is not possible to fully replace tracked self propelled artillery systems with wheeled. The roles for each type overlap, meaning they are complimentary but not interchangeable. It just so happens we have decided to bolster/add a wheeled fighting capability built around Boxer. Therefore Archer will be perfect for keeping up with those vehicles. Twelve will not be enough considering the planned number of Boxers but it’s a good start.

      However, giving AS90 away to former enemies will leave our main go-anywhere heavy fighting force (MBTs, Scimitar/Ajax, Stormer, MLRS, mechanised infantry in Warrior, 432 and Bulldog) deficient of another 32 units. When they were already under equipped for the estimated required fire power for a war. Since the harsh lesson from the Ukrainian – Russo squabble, those estimations have risen somewhat. Leaving the rank and file, up piranha infested shit creek without a paddle, on a sinking blood soaked raft.

      Are you aware that artillery tubes/barrels wear out at an alarming rate. Especially under combat usage and they need replacing. We do not have sufficient capacity to replace those of the 32 AS90 sent to Ukraine, never mind the remaining ones used by our own forces. Which is a moot point considering we do not have enough 155mm rounds to wear them out. HM Gov gave them away too.

      That is where GB needs to invest taxpayers money, not give it away to failed former communist states. Re-establishing our once world leading military industrial complex is a national priority. Expanding our military to a size that generates sufficient orders to keep it sustainable is a must too! Even if that means nationalisation of key factories and running at a loss. Defence is the primary duty of government and ours has forgotten. It’s quite simple really. Defence must come first. Ask Poland, Ukraine, Belgium, Holland, Korea etc. They all learned the hard way.

      • Whilst I agree in principle, the fact remains that the decision to replace the as90 has been pending for over a decade since the upgrade program was canned and yet we are still no closer. The as90 is out ranged against modern systems and needs replacing, all wheeled might not be optimal but its better than having yet another capability holiday.

        • True(ish) but replacing 32 actual AS90 with 12 Archers and a promise. Is a poor trade. Even a few HIMARS and more MLRS for the tracked boys would be a bad deal. Given the cost of the missiles. The application of sufficient 155 HE solves most problems.

      • Giving relatively worm out kit to Ukraine to shoot up Russians before they get to us and replacing it with new kit for us is a win win situation.

        • You assume the MOD has the money and political will to replace it. If we end up with a reduced number of totally wheeled 155mm SP artillery. We loose big time. I agree watching former communists destroying each other saves us the trouble. But at what cost and what happens next?

          Ukraine cannot defeat Ivan, if they still exist as half a country after this war, it’s a win for Ukraine. Russia on the other hand will survive this latest border war. They consider it a bigger fight between them and NATO, meaning the end of hostilities with Ukraine is only a ceasefire with NATO. History teaches us that Russians have long memories. Their military is also learning some tough lessons and will change because of it. All soldiers do.

          Russia is using up all the old soviet equipment against a poorly equipped Ukraine, while working feverously designing and building new replacements. Cooperating closely with the ChiComs, Iranians and North Koreans to successfully work around sanctions. All of whom hate NATO and can improve by pooling knowledge with resources for better weapons. It’s happening as we exchange these comments.

          Do you remember the Bush term Axis of Evil. It was a bit of an exaggeration back then as they didn’t trust each other and had no reason to start. Well guess what?

      • Apparently BAe and Rheinmetall have formed a team to bid Archer for the Deep Fires requirement. BAe have said their proposal would include a barrel manufacturing in the UK.

        • That would be worthy of serious consideration. I’d go so far as saying it’s a winner. Unless someone else can beat the deal. Read on.

          The Koreans for example. Hypothetically, giving us a factory to make there impressive K9 A2 tracked SP 155mm. Complete with the barrel manufacturing facility. AND swinging a deal to build their K2 Black Panther here too. Either the complete MBT or the hull only so we can mount our world beating turret from Challenger 3. I understand the turret being built by Pearson Engineering owes much to the Vickers MK 7 universal turret updated design. Easy to adapt to other modern MBT hulls.

          It could be a marriage made in heaven or whatever the Korean equivalent is called. What do you think?
          We could still buy more Archers to support our Boxer battalions. Plus negotiate with BAE to replace Warrior with CV90 if the price is right.

          • Agree the BAe-Rheinmetall Archer proposal looks a winner.
            Regarding K9 I would go for something like a UK built AHS Krab. – BAe/RM turret and barrel on imported Korean chassis.
            Keeping with the same UK- German (Boxer) companies, Lynx would be a sensible choice for an IFV; just amend or extend the Boxer contract. I like your idea on the K2 + Vickers turret, but it looks like we are sorted for MBT for a while.

    • In a democracy, weaponising public awareness/opinion is always a good strategy. I hope the top brass grow a pair and turn up the heat under Westminster before it is too late. Stuff carbon neutral and woke agendas. The country and our interests need defending more than ever.

  2. O/T The Danes have decided to transfer their whole artillery stocks to Ukraine as the logic is they are not in danger at the moment! Canā€™t decide if this is a good move or notšŸ¤”obviously for Ukraine itā€™s good news but?

    • The Danes had ordered 19 Caesar systems, but they are now being directly transferred to Ukraine.

      They will be replaced by 19 ATMOS artillery pieces and 8 PULS MRLS (Elbit Systems)

    • Ukraine are going be in big trouble soon unless the US get more weapons and Ammunition sent over to them.Like to stop now after 2years holding USSR of it’s just been a wasted effort .šŸ™„ We may has told the Ukrainians sorry can’t help šŸ˜•

      • Agree.. Worries the hell out of me.. Frustrating to see certain US politicians slowing the $60 billion package of support. Need to get things moving over there in Washington DC.. ASAP.

      • Putin has taken advantage of the divided politics playing out in the US and Europe. We can see the results of that procrastination this week: Adiivka has fallen to Russian troops.

        Adiivka was taken at great cost to Russia in personnel and equipment, but still, they advance, and this is the attrition game that they are playing, wearing the opposition down by outnumbering and outgunning, and not caring about losses because they have reserves.

        The attrition game is not just about the number of destroyed personnel and equipment, it is also about how rapidly you can manufacture/ procure/ repair replace military assets and get back into the next battle.

        What bothers me is that Putin has now ramped up Russia’s GDP % spending on defence and we in the West do not seem bothered about increasing our defence spending or increasing our military-industrial capacity.

    • Their logic being – why worry, Uncle Sam will always bail us out if the **** hits the fan. It’s a belief that is both self- serving and naive, given the US predisposition to always act in their own self-intetest, and its a belief held by too many countries in Europe.

      • Think you are doing them a disservice mate,,they havenā€™t said they are doing away with the capability! Just at this moment in time they have the time to restock where as Ukraine has not.

      • They are making and receiving new ammo so they are not in need of it right now.
        It makes sense. Whoā€™s going to invade Denmark in the next few months.
        The U.K. can supply some of what it has in the cupboard as orders have been placed and new shells are incoming.

    • They are in a different position than us. They are secure in Europe and so are we, but the UK will no doubt get involved in more US proxy wars where the kit may be needed. If it wasn’t for that I would full agree with giving everything to Ukraine and rebuilding after, as the only serious threat to the UK is Russia and they will be no threat after they are done witj Ukraine

    • Itā€™s a great move. Germany also is giving more guns, 120,000 155 shells, anti air missiles etc.
      Ukraine needs stuff now. The U.K. and other nations have time to reorder, restock.

    • It’s rank stupidity. NATO is willingly sending it’s only artillery systems to be fed into the metal crusher that is Ukraine. The sensible thing to do, would be to only part with the weapons when the replacement is procured, tested and in service. On a “one on one basis” and not before. Next summer GB would have 12 SP90 to sell to Ukraine. Note; sell for top used price. .

  3. Will be interesting to see what the government do wether buy more Archer or go for the Korean K9 platform .Half and half maybe ? Or are we better off with just one type for cost reasons..Although Track and wheeled have benefits in different ways on the Battle field ,don’t really think there’s much between them in fire power. Archer has always been a personal favourite of mine šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§

    • I’d prefer the K9 for the ABCTs, but 7 Bde surely needs better artillery support than the LG, and I cannot see K9 trundling around in a Light Mechanized Brigade.
      3 Regiments are needed, 4 if they ever sort out 4 Bde and give it the regular CS CSS it requires.
      I’ve no real idea on their comparative capabilities, I just want the RA given new equipment quickly without the usual years of delay as the procurement stages churn away.

      The RA has been neglected for decades. No Fire Shadow, no updated AS90, and other things they asked for binned or deffered.

        • I’d read, I think, the original Future Fires requirement was for 116 guns. If each Reg still has 3×8 gun Batteries, so 24 per Regiment.
          Making 72 for the more realistic 3 Reg purchase or 96 for 4. Leaving 20 for small reserve, SofRA at Larkhill ( 14RA ), RATDU, and so on.
          I’d also read guns 7 and 8 were manned by the reserves on mobilisation when we had a larger AS90 force, so maybe the regiments are down to 3×6 now, and they’ll take that low as the new benchmark.
          We see it all the time with the MoD and new kit. In which case it will be fewer.

          The RA Regiment in the AR that trains on AS90 and provides individuals and crews to the regulars I don’t think has its own guns. Never known AS90 issued to the TA or AR. Interestingly, the AR does have the LG and MLRS.

          • Cheers Daniele, we might possibly hope for about 90 then, for three regiments and a small reserve….

        • Kind of depends if you want the Army Reserve to be deployable as individual formations or if you want them to just be individual augmentees.

          • As it stands they’re a bit of both.
            Certain specialist nationally recruited units of the RS, and RLC, RAMC, REME as stand alone formations augmenting 101,102,104 and the Infantry, RA as individuals or formed Batteries into existing regular regiments, such as 101 Reg with its MLRS Batteries augmenting DRSB.

          • Yes, now that they’ve put the Divisional Fires into DRSB it would provide greater mass like 101RA does. Unless they still form individual replacements or man guns 7 and 8 in existing Regiments that I mentioned to John further up? I’m unsure on that at the mo.

          • Just checked Wiki, not the most accurate, but it’s changed since I last looked? Where is the AR Reg for AS90 crews?

          • I lose track sometimes. Whichever, to your original point, if 4x is in 1 then yes 103RA should be able to form as a full regiment.
            As should 104 if that’s the one supporting the ABCT/DRSB regs, unless they cannot form 4 6 gun batteries and need the Reserve increment.
            Unless, as we hope, 4 is either given a full set of regular CS CSS or it’s moved into a lower formation like you suggest and it’s place taken by a more fighty formation so 1UK can have 3 proper brigades, as 3 should.
            The other Division, did you name it 2 Div, I forget, could then take the AR fighty elements such as 103 and either place them in 4x as now or even give 19 Reseve CS CSS? Giving us 11 the regeneration capability that 2 4,5 Divs had pre 2010 and 19 as the initial reinforcement.
            As you were discussing with the other poster though, just how much of the AR is ready to be used as a formed unit or even deployable?
            I’m going off on all sorts of tangents here but love discussing this stuff with someone who understands my language.šŸ˜†

      • I agree that the K9 would be needed for the ABCT as it has different requirements than other brigades but with the shrinking size of the army’s armor fleet they might just turn around and say the don’t need an armourd tracked gun.
        Considering we can barely field an armoured brigade at all (and I use the title Brigade loosely considering whats in it) we will just have to see if the politicians see whats happening in Ukraine and relise having an armoured gun is not just a thing of the past

      • I’m torn in terms of the LG- it seems the Ukrainians have been doing quite well with towed M777s, but not hearing much about 105s. It may be that the reduced range on a towed 105 brings it too close to the front to be useful given its lower mobility. I’d be up for switching to Archer on whichever truck chassis we already use for moving our light brigades around- or maybe 120 mm mortars. I know, they don’t have the same range as even a 105, but I’m not aware of a self-propelled 105 mm gun. I’d be up for K9 as an AS90 replacement, as long as it uses the same gun / ammunition as the Archer; apparently not all 155 mm NATO ammunition is common… but I’d probably think about a 3:1 ratio Archer/K9 for cost and manpower reasons.
        Whatever they get though, you mention Fire Shadow, but they will absolutely need drones for target identification and fires correction, organic to the battery in my view.
        No idea how any of that would work out in terms of regiments though, that’s your department! ļ»æšŸ˜‹ļ»æ

          • That makes me happy! 82 mm mortars are, I’m sure, great. But there seems to be a huge variety of ammunition, plus the additional range in favour of the 120 mm. I understand that the 82 mm is already normally trucked around in/on a vehicle anyway, so the additional weight of the 120 mm tube and ammo doesn’t strike me as a major problem.

          • Yes, interesting situation. remains to be seen if we take advantage of the newly fired up production lines.

        • The problem is: Archer weighs A LOT. There’s no point replacing 105’s with Archer in 16AA since it won’t be airmobile, which means the Brigade can’t be airmobile, and similar for 29 attached to 3 cmdo, much harder to get ashore.
          So realistically the only 105mm regiment that would replace it’s guns for Archers is 4 Regt RA.

          • Ah, I hadn’t realised where most of our 105s were to tell the truth- thanks.
            If it’s air assault and commandos, then I’m kind of inclined towards the 120 mm mortars than towed 155s or 105s then; get everything on vehicles that can be both air lifted and fired without unhitching; if there’s anything that Ukraine is teaching us, it’s that you can’t leave your indirect fires in place for long- especially if your mission is to be up close and personal like 16AA and 3 Cmdo.

          • Yes mate, that was my main point in my original post further up. 4 RA is the LG Reg for 7 LMBCT. I’d hope that is uplifted, and it can be IF enough Archer are procured. IF that ended up being the chosen gun. But not K9, that is the province of the armoured brigades.

            And why I’m torn which is best, as I’d like to see 7 LMBCT get heavier artillery that is wheeled and can self deploy without HETs.
            But no point with 7RHA and 29RA, those Light Gun regs are fine for 16AA and 3 Cdo for the reasons Dern describes.
            For info, other LG are in the Reserve regiments and also used for saluting at locations around the UK.

          • Thanks for clarifying- you were always the man to check in with regarding force structure!
            For me, towed guns that have a shorter range than 155 mm (and potentially even them) are in too much danger of getting whacked- or that seems to be a lesson from Ukraine.
            So, 4 RA gets Archer, with a further (ideal) split of Archer and K9 for the rest of 7 LMBCT. If no funds, then Archer?
            To me, a vehicle mounted 120 mm mortar is preferable to a towed 105, from the perspective that the mobility makes it more survivable and that is better benefit than the range difference. Especially for outfits like 16AA and 3Cdo, who’re theoretically in thick of it anyway.

          • Posters have mentioned that 120mm Mortars might go to those LG units, I’d not heard that specifically, so lets see.

          • Sorry I’m a bit late for the topic but regarding Mortars, I’m a big fan, but not at replacing the 105mm. A few reasons, range, 105mm up to 17K on charge super, a number of better fuse options and a secondary (decent) DF mode. I’m Inf, and love my mortars, and a 120mm is needed in the ORBAT, but owned by Battalion. However the 105mm still gives the Rifle Companies a decent level of essential support, out to a decent range. Cheers.

          • Rather worrying then concerning these stories that they’re looking at 120mm for some LG units.
            To be fair, I first saw the report on X thst MoD were sniffing around but LG wasn’t mentioned.
            DSTL have a system of their own as a LG replacement so I do hope the 120mm are additional.

          • Never too late for some end-user feed back!
            That’s interesting, and I take your points on the range and the DF option with 105 mm. Anyone making a self-propelled version?!

    • We have always had both tracked SPGs and towed or portee artillery. Now an option exists to have truck-mounted artillery.

      There are very obvious reasons to have both tracked and wheeled options – you can’t just have one type.

      • Morning Graham, what would your split between Archer and K9 be?

        I’m sure I’m asking a stupid question here, but surely Archer is designed as a go anywhere system?

        As a layman, I can understand that it might struggle with very deep mud, but I would assume tracked self propelled artillery is significantly heavier, that must impinge on mobility too?

        Archer has the ‘get out of dodge’ edge over tracked regarding counter artillery I would think.

        • Not familiar with exactly how mobile Archer is, but either version is a really heavy beast anyway (we’re talking 30-40t here) and is not that fast (top speeds are around 45mph). It probably can get out of dodge faster than a K9 if there is a road there, but if you’re firing point is off road in any way I’d probably give the speed edge to the K9 tbh.

          • Interesting, cheers Dern, what’s the cost difference between them and why the Archer purchase over K9 I wonder?

            I would suppose it’s because a limited Archer purchase was available immediately.

          • This is why I’m torn on K9. Big logistical problem to deploy those in a LMB. Unless they cut the FMF order to just 2 Regiments and leave 7 as is. Which is surely not enough?

          • Whatever happens the with the old guns they need put in underground storage with spares for a rainy day.
            What would be a good idea is having tracked vehicles together and wheeled together.
            If the truck mounted can use the same gun, systems, ammo as the track mounted it would make things a lot easier.
            I would think artillery has more options on where to set up to fire to cover a certain zone?

          • Hi MS.
            Don’t know the operational aspects re fires, that’s for professionals.
            Agree on wheels, tracks, wheels should be in one brigade to ease deployment, having said that, the Russians mixed wheels with tracks easily enough in GSFG.
            On storage, you know they’ll just give them all away we don’t keep out of service stuff to any great extent any more. I did, funnily enough, speak to an ex RA guy who told me back in tge 90s that there was indeed such a reserve kept under ground, at a location I’m not mentioning, as I’m still looking into the veracity of it.
            Contrary to popular opinion regards reserves, we have larger reserves of certain itens, munitions than many. Why else is it that we supplied the likes of NLAW to UKR pre February 22 so rapidly.

          • At least with the impending procument of a new rifle in the next few years (5.56mm apparently being retained according to most sources), there is the opportunity to store refurbished L85A3’s.

            Unlike other countries, the UK won’t supply small arms to Ukraine, as once issued, they are dispersed and will highly likely eventually reappear in criminal hands in Western Europe.

            Where European law enforcement currently have to contend with drug gangs tooled up with ex Eastern block AK variant’s, Vz58’s, Scorpion SMG’s and the almost universal ‘gang’ Makarov pistol etc, in the future, we can unfortunately expect a wide verity of Western ‘gift aid’ to appear in the hands of criminals.

          • Archer has not been purchased instead of K9 Thunder.
            We gifted 30-odd AS90s to Ukraine. They have been partly replaced by a limited Archer purchase, early Archers on a Volvo chassis being sold off by Sweden – this was an opportunity ourchase by MoD. This is an interim measure until the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) delivers AS90 replacements. There is speculation about a future K9 Thunder purchase within MFP but it is just speculation.

          • Understood Graham, interesting info, artillery isn’t my strong point, it’s all very interesting….

        • Afternoon John. It is not a foregone conclusion that the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) programme will select the Korean K9, no matter that a lot of folk like it.

          Classically Self Propelled Guns (SPG) were tracked and armoured and were concentrated in the Divisional Artillery Group (DAG) of an armoured division. Change to structures means that the artillery for 3rd (UK) Div, our armoured div, is no longer in a DAG but is to be found together with armoured cavalry (in Ajax) in 1 Deep Recce Strike Brigade. We have three field regiments curently equipped with AS90 (RHA/RA).

          Archer therefore would be found in 1st UK Div with the lighter forces.

          Archer is of course a go anywhere system with good mobility on paths, tracks and cross-country. The vehicle can reach road speeds of up to 90 kilometres per hour (56 mph),and is capable of traversing snow up to a depth of one metre (3.3 ft). It can come out of action in 30s.

          Armoured tracked SPGs have better cross country mobility, especially in deep mud, and snow and ice. They can come out of action quickly – about a minute probably.

          • Begging your pardon, Graham, AS90 regs have reduced to 2. 1 RHA and 19 RA.
            The 3rd, 26 RA, became the GMLRS Regiment after the experiment of putting GMLRS Batteries ( with an Exactor Troop ) within 1 RHA, 19RA, and 26RA in 2010.

            Real musical chairs stuff and in effect, trying to hide defence cuts, as previously GMLRS sat in it’s own Regiment, 39RA, alongside the 6, then 5 original AS90 Regiments.

            Putting the artillery in 1 DRSB is seen by many as another attempt to keep brigade numbers up, as it was a perfectly good Armoured Infantry Brigade until the fallout after the failed 2015 SDSR Strike Brigade nonsense, and they “merged” it with 1 Artillery Brigade, an administrative formation.
            1 Bde should be sitting next to 12 and 20 in a proper 3 manoeuvre Brigade Divisional formation, with the artillery on top, be that in a DAG or in novel ideas like DRSB.

          • Thanks Daniele for the correction – that’s the last time I get info from the current MoD/army/artillery website! Someone should keep that up to date.

            I fully agree that it is an Orbat cheat to put all of a division’s artillery in a brigade (1 DSRBCT) instead of in a DAG and this has prevented the maintenance of a true third manouevre bde in 3 Div. The Div is severely compromised in being able to operate effectively in the Offence and the Defence.

          • The MoD,Army website??! šŸ˜³ I admit I look at it too, periodically, just to see what’s changed. I often find the info I have myself is far more detailed and up to date , as you say, than their effort.

            The sad thing is with that 3 brigade con trick is that, with a major reorg and reshuffling, retaining KRH as is it might be able to be sorted back to the 3.

            I’d have to study the CSS set up as that’s where we’ve been hammered, but I’m sure I sketched out a rough ORBAT once that seemed to work. I know Dern has.

          • What did you make of the ‘rumour’ that the FS Orbat may change yet again, converting 11th SFA Bde into a Lt Mech bde and together with 16AA Bde now included in the Div, declaring 1st Div to now be a deployable div?

            [Yes I remember your Orbat discussions with Dern and his wiring diagram]

          • I’ve not heard these rumours mate???
            The issue 1 Div has is a lack of regular CS CSS for 4 Brigade, which only has a regular Light Cav Reg.
            They’ve added 16AA, a good move, giving 16, 7, and 4.

            By default though, it seems they are now ok with Divisionsof 2 deployable brigades.

            Even if 11 SFA is converted, a huge undertaking as it’s battalions lost a lot of headcount during the various reshuffles, where are the CS CSS coming from?
            I’d either put 3 Cdo in and restore into a full brigade or, somehow, give 4 the Regular CS CSS elements it needs and leave 11 SFA be, as it has its own niche role.
            And as Dern pointed out, could be a useful cadre if the army needs expanding, like the old 2,4,5 “Regenerative”Divisions used to be pre 2010.

          • 17th or 18th Feb – UK Land Power post (Nicholas Drummond)
            ā€œAlthough it has not yet been publis:hed, the British Armyā€™s revised ā€œFuture Soldierā€ strategy plans to adopt a two division model. 1st (UK) Division will be a light division with two light mechanised brigades (7th and 11th) plus 16th Air Assault Brigade, while 3rd (UK) Division will be a heavy division with two armoured brigades (12th and 20th) plus 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike brigade. This is definitely a step in the right direction, but is not yet an ideal structure. What the revised structure effectively delivers at this stage is an expeditionary division that can respond quickly while having a reduced logistical footprint, plus a manoeuvre division that can bring decisive combat power while being more resilient. The expeditionary division is ideal to fight the First Battle / Deep Battle while the manoeuvre division is suited to fighting the Second Battle / Close Battleā€. 

          • Hi Graham.
            Thanks. Funnily enough, I had seen that, but skimmed through it, missed the 11 Bde reference, and had dismissed it as not serious and just a what if?

            I was having a conversation with Dern on another article about Nick Drummonds ORBATs and he too is sceptical.
            Nick says “yet to be published” though. šŸ¤”
            And again, unless they’re conning people again 11 Bde, or 4 as currently, needs regular CS CSS, otherwise it is not deployable in the true sense of the word.

            What is your opinion on the quality, availability of reserve formations? Assuming they can even form into a stand alone formation? We know many of them provide sub units to other units or themselves form composite units on mobilisation. ( such as the DRSB, which itself is lacking in regular CSS bar 6 REME and which in war has a CSS Bn made up of varied sub units of the reserve RLC and RAMC.

          • And to add, from the article.
            “Expeditionary Division ideal to fight the first battle, DEEP battle”
            Really? With Light Guns, little formation recc beyond Jackals and no GMLRS?
            šŸ˜€

          • I am sceptical about Drummond’s rumour. IR Refresh 23 and associated DCP did not conclude that an Orbat change was required after looking at the war in Ukraine (although 16 AA Bde is being re-affiliated).

            To be pedantic, a ‘formation’ is a term to generically mean brigade, division, Corps, Army or Army Group etc. The term ‘unit’ of course is used to describe an entity of 400-600 ish under command of a Lt Col and a sub-unit an entity of 110-200 or so under command of a Major (in British eyes).

            We had TA divisions in WW2 and I recall deployable TA brigades in my early service, notably 15 and 49 Inf Bde (V) being part of 2 Inf Div and with a BAOR reinforcing role.

            I was familiar with 15x and 49x as I was in the reg bde of 2xx ie 24 Inf Bde. We regularly went on exercise to BAOR – I saw no issues with the TA Bdes. They were keen and adequately trained for their role. However their role was simple – drive to Germany in TCVs, dig in, and assume responsibility for Corps Rear Area security – dare I say ‘static-ish defence’ of a relatively safe but huge area.

            There has pnly been one bizrre 18 month period in the 116 years of the TA/TAVR/AR when they were denied deploying as formed bodies and deployed only as individuals – I have no idea what that was about – must have been a silly CGS?

            The TA/AR has deployed on every major operation I can think of in formed bodies and as individuals and the Reg Army could not have done without them. Thousands of reservists were on Op Granby.

            I mentioned before that our FP Coy in Camp Bastion was a TA Inf Coy from the Rifles (TA OC and 2/3 of the Toms were TA, 1/3 were Reg). They were fantastic and much better than the RAF all-reg FP Wing that followed. Many TA individuals worked in the Bastion Role 3 hospital.

            No problem with composite units, provided they get some trg time in together before deployment, which they will get.

            Everyone assumes that the next operation will come out of the blue at zero notice. The Falklands conflict happened out of the blue – I am sure we still got some reservists out there?
            Op Granby had a certain lead time measured in months – and thousands of TA deployed.

            Some roles very good for Inf reservists – Mil Home Defence, relatively static guard/defence roles. Some reservists hugely specialised – doctors, lawyers, – and place well as individuals in Reg units. Equally I am sure some TA/AR med units have deployed over the years?

          • Thanks for that detailed response and the correction re formations mate, that has never occurred to me and I’ll take note of that.

          • Remember Nicholas Drummond is not an insider, although he likes to present himself as one. Take whatever he says with a VERY big grain of salt until it’s officially confirmed.

          • Thanks. I read his profile on defenceiq.com:

            “Nicholas Drummond
            Managing Director
            AURA Consulting Ltd.

            Nicholas Drummond is a defence analyst and strategic consultant who specialises in Land Warfare. He is currently the UK strategic advisor to KMW, part of the ARTEC consortium delivering Boxer MRAV to the British Army. He is a contributor to the House of Commons Defence Committee, an Army Defence Opinion Leader, a defence blogger (UKLandPower.com) and influencer via Twitter. Prior to establishing his own strategic advisory firm, Nicholas worked for McKinsey & Company. Before that he served in the Army as an infantry officer in the Welsh Guards. Nicholas has a Masters Degree in Law and Economics from Trinity College, Cambridge”. 

            Nice profile but the statement he made that we are discussing sounds too ‘left field’, does not fit with the 73,000 constraint or IR Refresh 23 or DCP 23 – and is not being said by anyone else.

          • Agreed 100%. As I said the issues I have with him are A) He basically makes huge wishlists that could only come from large expenditure increases (I mean he given who he works for that’s not a surprise) but never gives priorities. Reading his stuff is an exercise in “We MUST have a Warrior tracked IFV replacement, we MUST have an SA80 replacement, we MUST have a new Tank Program” and never “We need the l85 replacing but we need a new IFV more”

            and B) it feels like he uses his profile to act like his comments on UKLandpower carry more weight than anyone elses, which… well. they just don’t?

          • I too agree that it is advantageous to have 16 AA in 1 Div to add to the Div’s potential deployability.

            19x is also in the 1xx Orbat but is all-Army Reserve.

            If 11 SFA is converted to a Lt Mech bde will they still mentor and train foeign armies (allies?).

            Kit for 11 Lt Mech Bde – Foxhounds ( have to build some more) or Boxers (wait for them to come into service)?
            Could Boxer be called a Light Mech veh?

          • I have wondered that IF the 1,000 plus Boxers ( which we are told are budgeted and planned) actually arrive where will they go? Beyond the 5 Infantry Bns and assorted CS elements.
            May be a new Boxer brigade? One can wish.

          • I recall your concern at the Tr1 order for 523 that there were only 85 Inf section carriers, barely enough for two mech bns. The Tr2 order for a further 100 was once broken down somwhere but I cannot find it now – I seem to recall that with it included it might just equip 5 bns but only if platoon comanders had a C2 veh and not a section carrier vehicle. – not many for Trg Org/RP /Atrrition Reserve, Total ordered now 623. Funding exists for 1,016 or 1,018. I agree it would be interesting to see the breakdown of those c.400 Tr3 wagons.
            I woudld like to see Boxers out of the ABCTs as you know and a proper IFV in place – but that not going to happen. The ABCTs have been designated the new ‘home’ for Boxers.

          • Sadly. I’m in agreement. Boxer should be in their own Brigades for rapid movement over distance, General Carters entire rationale having seen the French in Africa. But not at the expense of an IFV!

            But I keep saying, he brought Boxer forward, it was meant to be MIV from 2027 ONCE Ch3, Ajax, WCSP had happened, and initially for just 3 battalions that were “Heavy Protected Mobility” on Mastiff, 1 per AI Bde along side the 2 Warrior Bns.
            Bringing Boxer forward, one of the most expensive APCs as you often point out, meant the other programs could not be funded to conclusion. So they lost Warrior. The wrong choice.

          • No bad idea to have a medium weight wheeled force – we did not need Carter to go to Africa to conclude that. The army needs heavy, medium and light forces – always has done, always will do.
            Back in the day, Saxon represented medium weight infantry carriers (wheeled APCs) and more recently PM vehs (Mastiff etc) did. MIVs. Not to be confused with IFVs for the AI in the heavy metal side of things. But we know that.

            I am also saddened by the slowness of the Boxer programme (to deliver them all) thats another story.

          • Lets just quickly acknowledge that the UK was a contributor nation in the Boxer program, withdrew from it, only to decide to buy it after all nearly 10 years later.

          • Yes. The stated reason for withdrawing from the Boxer programme back in the day was so that UK could focus on FRES, a national project. Not a very believable reason.

            The scuttlebutt was that the army was wedded to the idea of medium weight equipment being C-130 transportable and realised too late that ARTEC Boxer would never meet that requirement.

          • Just going to add, in addition to what I pointed out about 11 SFA, that 19X is not a deployable formation, and it’s nothing to do with it being AR, it’s literally a golf bag 2 Yeomanry and 8 Infantry Battalions, with no CS or CSS of any kind, it only serves as a holding formation to parcel out sub units to the other brigades really.

          • Mate, I think you follow me on twitter, go to my profile and check something out, I tried to link it here but nobody is watching the admin side…

          • 11 SFA can’t convert into a Lt. Mech brigade unless three things happen:

            1 New CS and CSS units get established. 11 SFA consists of just 4 Infantry Battalions, which is okay because they’re only supposed to deploy into relatively benign areas with Logistics support provided by allies, NGO’s and contractors.
            2 The Army’s headcount is increased. 11 SFA battalions are the smallest in the army, even smaller than the Ranger Battalions, so unless you suddenly up the armies establishment by a large number of private soldiers you can’t do it.
            3 The Army needs to buy a fleet of Light Mech vehicles for them to ride in.

          • All very true. It seems to be a big step-up in terms of resourcing additional manpower, vehicles, weapons etc. I can’t see it happening.

          • If the Army wants an extra mechanised brigade the easiest way of doing it is adding enablers to 4. So even if there was a push to upgrade a Brigade, 11 is way down the list.

          • Good point. Your advice that we take Drummond’s rumours/revelations with a pinch of salt is sound.

            Even if the Army wants to create an extra Lt Mech bde it is rather up to the politicians and Treasury to allow the additional manpower and the budget for the kit.

          • I think it’s unfair to say that it “prevented” the maintenance of the third manuever brigade. More like the inability to maintain a 3rd brigade resulted in the thinking that created the DSR brigade.

        • The Gunners have always had tracked artillery (in addition to towed systems) .
          But things can change – who could have imagined that after more than 60 years of infantry in armoured brigades having tracked vehicles (APCs then the much better cannon-equipped IFVs) that they would revert to a wheeled vehicle with no cannon!

    • It most certainly will!

      The K9A1 and K9A2 upgrades

      “The K9A1 variant is equipped with improvements such as automatic fire control system, driverā€™s night periscope, and auxiliary power system for enhanced efficiency. The improved K9A1 provides increased range, fast fire rate, and higher mobility during day and night times.

      Hanhwa proposed the K9A2, an advanced variant of the K9 Howitzer, for the UKā€™s Mobile Fire Platform programme that is aimed at upgrading artillery capabilities of the British Army. The K9A2 is expected to enhance the firing rate, automatic ammunition loading, and other capabilities of the artillery. The advanced variant is being tested.

      The development programme is being implemented by Hanwha Defense and the Korean government-owned research and development institution, Agency for Defense Development.

      The proposed solution for the UK programme will feature mine protection kits, unmanned turret, and composite rubber tracks. Hanwha’s robotic K10 ammunition resupply vehicle will also be integrated to provide an automated resupply capability.

      K10 ammunition re-supply vehicle (ARV)

      The K9 Thunder is supplemented by a K10 automatic ammunition re-supply vehicle (ARV) built on the K9 platform.

      The K10 is a fully tracked vehicle that follows the main artillery battery. The K10 ARV can automatically transfer 12 rounds per minute through a conveyor belt.
      This avoids the exposure of crew to the combat environment. Each K10 supports two K9 guns and can carry 104 rounds of ammunition.”

      K9A2 with UK Team Thunder

      https://

      youtube.com/watch?v=p18yqo8qBP0

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here