On 21 January 2025, James Cartlidge, MP for South Suffolk, raised two written questions regarding the procurement and potential lessons from the use of the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) by the British Army.
Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, responded with insights into the collaborative approach between the UK and Germany.
In response to whether Germany’s decision to provide the RCH 155 to Ukraine would affect the UK’s certification process, Pollard stated:
“The Mobile Fires Platform project will deliver the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) Calibre Wheeled Artillery System through a jointly led collaborative procurement between the UK and Germany.”
He further confirmed:
“The project does not anticipate any direct impact to RCH certification following Germany’s decision to provide Ukraine with RCH 155.”
Pollard elaborated on the importance of the collaborative procurement process, noting:
“Underpinning the collaborative approach of the UK and Germany is the commitment to exchange project-related information that may afford a deeper understanding of the capability, to inform wider integration considerations.”
Cartlidge also asked whether lessons could be drawn from the RCH 155’s deployment in Ukraine. Pollard highlighted that this collaborative framework may include assessing “potential lessons from the training and use of RCH 155 by Ukraine.”
The excellent BFBS Forces News youtube channel has just uploaded an outstanding vid covering the roll-out of Ajax to the Royal Lancers and the Queens Royal Hussars.
Its seems that Ajax has been worth the wait
👍👍
Ah, cheers mate, I’ll have a look.
Collaboration in this case means buying German kit off the shelf with some bits made in the UK.
Sunak signed us up to this gun without the input of the RA! ‘Off the shelf’ has been the mantra of some on here so what’s it to be?
Good point, You are caught between buying an off the shelf (ish) design and buying a bespoke design and the costs of that. then you get people complaining it isn’t built fully in the UK.
Well said I always said it’s a Sunak deal . When has Sunak been a expert on Artillery, frist point of call British Army . Not a deal to make himself look good and to keep the Germans happy . 🙄
Well when people gripe about the army not doing procurement don’t be surprised when politicians take it into their own hands.
Grinch, the non-artillery Boxers that we have ordered in 2 Tranches totalling 623 vehs are all, bar the initial small batch, being made in the UK. Why are you so convinced that RCH-155 will be made in Germany?
Not sure on Boxer artillery platform think it’s a quick fix has not originally planned as Artillery system. But hopefully it succeeds it would of been Archer for me personally. 😏
There is clearly a support advantage in having just one platform, Boxer, for the MIV and the RCH-155.
True but as per conversations on another page, you end up with a SPG that has to withstand direct 30mm fire, instead of just splinter proofing.
Andrew, Boxer RCH-155 has undergone quite a bit of development in Germany. The German Army evaluated the platform in 2023. However Sunak told us that it needed further Anglo-German development.
Any rethink of also getting a tracked spg system for a mixed fleet or is it still an “all wheeled” solution? Many allied countries are still going for tracked including the US and Australia and India are building the K9 under licence.
Sunak selected the RCH-155 to meet the MFP programme to replace AS-90. The army was not permitted to assess in detail other options, such as K9, by physical evaluation
Absolutely bonkers and blinked to not even listen or to get any input from the Army who are the end users! Maybe getting feedback from Ukraine and seeing our allied acquisitions might or might not, have some influence with this and future decisions. I’m just a man in the street but this RCH155 looks totally top heavy! A big torso with skinny legs…LOL.
Arguments regarding the wisdom of which gun system would be preferable miss the key point here – i.e the fact of the matter is that AS90 is all but out of service with the British Army – donated to Ukraine. So, as I understand it, our tube artillery park will soon be reduced to a few recently delivered ‘Archer’ wheeled 155mm systems and old towed 105mm light guns of very limited effectiveness on the modern battlefield. While it has is blindingly obvious that the Ukraine needs everything it can get at the moment I don’t really understand how any of our mechanised brigades can be considered combat ready when there is so little heavy artillery available to them? Yes we still have MLRS and are investing in the modernization of these weapons, but tube artillery is still a vital battlefield capability is it not?
We need new 155mm artillery and we need it yesterday.
Moonstone, Many consider the artillery to be the ‘God of War’ – certainly the Russians do. Yes, a mix of large numbers of tube and rocket artillery is vital, and always has been.
Our two armoured brigades (or BCTs if you like US terminology) have no permanantly assigned artillery. Within 3 Div, it is all in 1 DSR Brigade. However for specific operations armoured brigades may be assigned some of that artillery in support.
Hi Graham, regarding current arty dispositions, what’s your opinion on best setup?
1) Siloing all guns in DSRB as per future soldier plans
2) assign rgts to brigade level to give organic fires
3) retain at divisional level, and assign to bdes when and where needed (which I believe the US Army has reverted to, after post-cold war decades of arty embedded in BCTs)
And as a follow-on, what is the purpose/expectation of DSRB? Is it supposed to self-deploy as a self-contained, coherent combat formation? In which case, shouldn’t it have some infantry support and other enablers? Or is it a brigade of convenience, acting as an in-theatre sustainment brigade that can provide divisional HQ with recce and arty where needed to support the combat brigades?
Artillery regiments are rarely held directly at divisional level (in the US Army they are grouped into an artillery brigade which in turn is assigned to the division). In practice having your artillery grouped in a DSRB or Artillery brigade allows the divisional commander some flexibility with their arty that they might not otherwise have (eg he can easily assign 2 regiments to a brigade, or focus on deep effects while his brigades are not fighting in the divisional close). The downside is the working relationship isn’t as close between an artillery regiment and it’s habitual brigade commander. (On the plus side you elevate artillery as a career path as you create more opportunities for artillery COs to become 1*s).
DSRB has 3 basic components,
1 Find and Screen – 2 Ajax, 2 Jackal and 1 STA regiment, whose job loosely is to fight for information and deny enemy that information. Effectively this the old BAOR screening force.
2. MLRS – 3 regiments of rocket launchers, these support the Find and Screen (along with air assets) and are probably more at the divisional commanders discretion.
3. Guns – 3 AS90/Archer/RCH155 regiments habitually support the AI brigades but can be used by commander DSRB/Divisional command if deemed needed.
In a lot of ways it’s similar to an old US Army cavalry regiment (which consisted of 3 “recce regiments” an “mbt regiment” and an “artillery regiment” (not really it actually had 3 identical battalions, but each consisting of recce, mbts, and artillery in those proportions)) with an artillery grouo mixed in. It’s should be able to fight, and either delay or hold ground, but not to the same extend as a full fat brigade.
I’ve said elsewhere I’d like to see the split formalised, with a Cav Group and Arty Group within the brigade for easier control, and one of the Jackal regiments on Cr3 to emulate the more fighty oompf that the American armoured cav used to have… but the concept isn’t completely out of left field (Also more drones, the brigade is a perfect place for drone troops imo).