BAE Systems, Babcock and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) are joining forces to offer the ARCHER wheeled mobile artillery system to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as the replacement for the legacy AS90.
The firm say in a news release that the ARCHER Artillery Alliance will offer “the proven, advanced technology system which presents the lowest risk solution for the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) programme, as the UK aims to modernise its 155mm capabilities. The three companies, each with a well-established supply chain in the UK, plan to work with other UK businesses as plans progress”.
“The ARCHER, already in service with the British Army as its interim solution, is one of the most advanced, fielded artillery systems in the world today. Working with our strategic partners in the UK, we believe that an ARCHER-based solution would allow the British Army to significantly accelerate the delivery of the Mobile Fires Platform programme,” said John Borton, Managing Director of BAE Systems’ Weapon Systems UK business, based in Barrow-in-Furness.
“Our aim is to deliver a long-term homegrown artillery solution for the UK, which will safeguard, sustain and grow a critical, specialised British industrial capability and an opportunity for exports.”
BAE Systems will provide and integrate the weapon system, including the barrel, as well as the gun control system. In addition, BAE Systems will set up and manage the Assembly, Integration and Test (AIT) facility. Babcock International Group will hold responsibility for the consolidation of the superstructure and ammunition resupply system, sharing its significant manufacturing and maintenance capabilities.
Chris Spicer, Managing Director of Engineering & Systems Integration at Babcock said:
“In line with the MoD’s Land Industrial Strategy, Babcock is pleased to be working with BAE Systems to bring to the UK and the British Army this market-leading capability. Our skilled teams and facilities in the South-West and West Midlands will deliver important elements of the engineering expertise, system integration and innovative technology required for system assembly that will enable the ARCHER Artillery Alliance to provide the British Army with this exciting capability.”
RBSL will be the UK lead for the RMMV HX 8X8 truck chassis, and prepare the cabin for integration with the ARCHER artillery system.
BAE Systems, which recently secured a contract for an additional 48 ARCHER systems for the Swedish Army, plans to transfer technology from its existing production line in Sweden to the UK to establish a UK-based MFP production line.
The work across the Alliance and its supply chain would create more than 350 new high-skilled jobs in the UK.
“ARCHER is a fully automated system, purpose-built to keep pace with fast-moving land forces. It is designed for rapid deployment to quickly respond to threats and deliver superior mobility, lethality and survivability. Operators control the entire gun system from the safety of ARCHER’s armoured cabin. In only 20 seconds, the vehicle can stop and fire its first round. After completion of the fire mission, ARCHER is on the move again within 20 seconds. In less than two minutes, ARCHER can fire six rounds, displace and move 500 metres, making the ARCHER the ultimate shoot-and-scoot system for soldier and platform survivability.
As well as being selected by Sweden and as the UK’s interim solution, Switzerland recently down selected ARCHER for the country’s procurement of new artillery. Sweden has also donated a number of systems for use by Ukrainian armed forces.”
Hopefully Archer is a no brainer for the British Army, selecting anything else seems stupid at this stage given it’s probably the best in class, built by a British company and we already operate it.
Hopefully we can put the tracked artillery debate to bed once and for all and operate cheaper more deployable and mobile systems going forward.
Would be nice if we can see some export potential to from it. Seems many are looking at it now.
Yes, not sure why they even need a competition, rather than just announcing a contract. Archer seems a really useful system, no point buying anything else for more
Advantage of competition if run correctly is it shouldn’t cost the MOD much, can potentially drive down the costs of offerings as the companies are competing for a contract and opens up the options of different systems if they are proved to be superior
The problem is that advantage is always lost in post contract negotiations.
Tendering is a fallacy unless you are buying beans, sausages, widgets or bullets. Less so for London busses or Olympic swimming pools which are always out of spec and/or over budget.
It works for things you have a very tight spec on and buy in huge numbers regularly.
Competition will indeed drive down cost and that will lead to a loss of quality or some desirable features.
Maybe, in the competition, if the current solution still fits the spec that AW release, the Archer team can keep everything the same and remove all risk contingency from their price. That would be enough to win.
A grown up Abbey Wood decision would be just to order a fleet of Archers and support from this team.
Nail hit firmly on the head. Give the man a prize! Here are just two of those options. Archer adapted for the wheeled and tracked Boxer platforms. Plus the KMW Boxer Automated 155mm Gun Module. It’s going to be a tough and very interesting decision.
I don’t so much mind a very quick procurement exercise…that just helps keep BAE honest…it’s the concept work and thinking about it that needs be cut short…
Amen to all that Jim.
All the Best
The return to producing 155mm barrels would be a strategically important capability, that alone makes it a no brainer for me. However, there are other options here. Archer adapted to fit on both the wheeled and tracked Boxer platforms. The practical benefits of such an acquisition are obvious and offer the benefits of either wheeled or tracked SPGs. Will BAE Systems be submitting such a beast for consideration in the competition? Then there is the KMW integrated 155mm artillery gun already available on the Boxer platform to consider. The Boxer Automated Gun Module uses the proven 155mm/L52 barrel from the… Read more »
Agree. Archer surely should win. I don’t care about tracked Vs wheeled when a proper 6×6 or better yet 8×8 wheeled vehicle with off road run flat tyres and locking front, rear, central differentials will get to 96.8% of the terrain a tracked vehicle can. It’s only really horrific quagmire or deep deep snow that might be a problem. In which case bung some chains on, job done.
Your figure of 96.8% is interesting. Where does that come from?
NATO analysis
I wonder if that was a generalised figure across all seasons, across all weather types, across all countries in the NATO area.
I bet the figure specifically for the Rasputitsa period in eastern Europe would not be so favourable.
Hopefully the Archers that we are getting has all those technical characteristics you mention. The MAN HX has all the diff locks but CITS and run-flat inserts are options.
Run flats are readily available, and normally fitted when the truck is up-armoured. The question is will it be the HX77 be to the same build standard as the current vehicles, or will it be Euro 5 meaning it will need ad-blu, or they may even go for the HX3 fully armoured cab variant.
Was first shown mounted on an HX77 at DSEi back in 2017.
Thanks. HX77 was an Australian cargo truck. I understand Archer has been based on Volvo A30D, then MAN HX2 for Swedish Army.
Archer being offered for MFP is based on HX2. Maybe HX3 is for a future Swedish Army purchase of Archer.
Surely HX2 has fully armoured cab, not just HX3?
Hopefully they’ll be some tracked as well as wheeled in the mix. Same with the IFVs and Boxer. Surely it’s nuts to send just wheel based vehicles into the battlefield. Need to see and learn from Ukraine what works, what doesn’t and don’t order the later!
Problem is as soon as you add it yet another system you substantially increase the cost and reduce the numbers for a small increment in capability. I can see the argument for tracks for tanks for sure and probably IFV’s but when it comes to artillery these days it’s much less important verses deployability and speed.
Tracked 155mm systems are a nightmare to move.
How are tracked 155mm SPGs more of a nightmare to move than tanks and IFVs?
I’d like to hear on the US and Aus thinking on this because they’re tracked as far as I know and also have towed artillery which is another thing again.
All the evidence from Ukraine is that wheeled artillery systems, combined with long range guns are as survivable, if not more so, than tracked. Caesar, Bohdana, Zuzana 2 and now Archer are wheeled 58 cal 155mm systems. A couple of Caesar have been lost. No losses reported on the others. Pzh2000 and Krab are the tracked 52 cal 155mm systems, no Pzh2000 have been lost, but quite a few Krab (i.e.AS90 Braveheart) have been lost. The comparison isn’t perfect, Krab in particular seems to have seen action closer to the front on the hardest fronts for longer, and in all… Read more »
Sorry should read ‘wheeled 52 cal’ regarding Caesar etc…
Both sides are using the existing road system. That’s why it appears they are working with their mobility. Push 500 miles to the east in Russia where there are no roads, or during the winter where there’s heavy snow and it’s a different story.
As for Boxer, why not tow a M777 instead? Decamp, use it and scoot. No need to redevelop two systems then is there?
With fires, why even bother with tracked…tracked is for tactical mobility…fires need strategic mobility and wheels are far better than tracks for that…also speed of redeploying is key for survival and again wheeled systems are just quicker to redeploy.
Jonathan, if what you say is true, why have we had (and still have today) tracked SPGs in the Orbat?
That is a very good question Graham, a very good question indeed. Especially when you consider that the following are the firing times for: AS90 deploy into action:1 min fire 6 rounds 1 min Ready to move 1min speed to redeploy 34 mph Archer deploy into action 20 seconds fire 8 rounds in 1 min ready to move 20 seconds speed to redeployment 43 mph As you can see archer can fire 25% more rounds ( 8 rounds in a minute vs 6) and be deployed and gone in around half the time ( 1 min 40 seconds vs 3… Read more »
Hi Jonathan, I would expect that an artillery system fielded in 2023/2024 by the RA would be better than one (albeit different ‘running gear’) fielded in 1992 in very many ways. Certainly the metrics you quote bear that out, in those areas that you have selected. But you perhaps suggest that tracked SPGs are no longer worth having in the armoured brigades. As you allude to, the main reason we have had tracked SPGs has been their excellent mobility over bad ground (exacerbated by bad weather) – as you say. That is not a factor to totally disregard. Artillery needs… Read more »
Don’t get me wrong Graham, they should go for the most effective option…but I do think they need a reasonably priced off the self solution ( that could have work share in the UK) and not a bespoke one ( the army is very good at over complicating and messing up those procurements) if you can find a tracked version that is just as fast to deploy and run ( running is very important in the drone age) at a reasonable cost..with the same gun options that would be fine and there are a few that are good. As far… Read more »
Definitely the most effective solution should be selected, particularly as budgets are tight and I doubt we would buy as many as we really need. The selection process should end up with the selection of the solution that can meet the Staff Requirement at the lowest cost, but politicians get horribly involved and other factors get considered such as UK workshare. [It is widely understood that the army considered Leopard 2 to have won the Chieftain Replacement competition in the 90s (ie to replace the residual Chieftain half fleet) back in the day but politicians forced CR2 for UK content/UK… Read more »
To be honest Graham, I think the key issue is mass, I suspect the actual differences between the modern 155mm systems is marginal at best. So purchase cheap and get more…although the capital cost is only one half the equation and there is still staffing to think about..but I think the army is really far to lean on fires especially 155mm self propelled type.
I totally agree. We are woefully short of artillery, and what we have is very dated and largely unmodernised. It would be good if our Light Guns were portee style, rather than towed. (Interesting factoid – Fully 25% of the army (manpower) strength in WW2 was artillerymen. Of course we don’t need that %age now as lethality and range have improved and per gun manning reduced, but we need more than we currently have). If we warred against Russia (or most other peer foes) we would need one heck of a lot more than we have now. Another factor is… Read more »
I used to think we needed tracks as well but France has been operating wheeled everything for decades and feels it’s up to the job I will say if we are going to save money then buy more of them I don’t want to see cutbacks by the backdoor
Looks like with the majority of evidence is that wheeled gets the vote! I guess similar thinking on Boxer too. I’ll take a back seat now…. Lol 😁
Thinking on Boxer was not…”Wheeled APCs with just a mere MG are better for the armoured brigades than tracked IFVs with 30mm or 40mm cannons because they go a bit faster on roads” but…
“F**k. The army has gone and deleted those 2 strike brigades General Carter wanted, from the Orbat. What the f**k are we going to do with hundreds and hundreds of Boxer MIVs now that are on order. I know lets shove them into the 2 armoured brigades. Might as well cancel Warrior WCSP then!…”
Indeed, I’m not convinced on the wheeled option APC for a combined arms force….tracked, with a main gun that can engage other infantry fighting vehicles..is a sort of minimum standard really….they have to manoeuvre and fight with the heavy armour….they need to manoeuvre in the same mud and fight the same targets.
Exactly. Our Infantry will be at a disadvantage if they cannot take out enemy IFVs and strongpoints at distance with cannon fire – and to use that cannon to provide covering fire whilst the dismounts dismount and move to cover.
What is the budget? how many less artillery numbers with a double buy?
What is better 100 Archer or 25 Archer + 25 tracked? just speculating.
100 Archer is much much better than 25+25. A wheeled off road orientated chassis with the right differentials eg front, central, rear and all driven wheels will get to 96.5% of all terrain a tracked vehicle can get too. For worse terrain then you can bung chains onto the meaty off road tyres, job done.
Reminded me that Hyundai are experimenting with automatic snow chain deployment built into tyres. Wonder if technology of this nature could ever find its ways into military wheeled vehicles.
link
An OA study would determine which is better. But surely 100 tubes is better than 50, assuming Archer has excellent terrain access/mobility and its survivability is sufficient to meet the threats it is faced with.
It’s quite a price difference archer comes in at about 4.5million dollars the tracked options come in at 15-18 million dollars a pop….so tracked is three times the cost.
Technically speaking Archer is the weapon system that can be moved to other platforms. As BAe are doing moving from the Volvo six-wheeler to MANs 8×8 truck chassis. So in essence, you could tailor it to be fitted to Boxer. It would be significantly lighter than the current SPG offering for Boxer. Perhaps this could also the tracked variant of Boxer.
I am sure you know that the UK is ending its use of tracked IFVs. Boxer will replace the Warrior/upgraded Warrior.
Afternoon Graham, yes, we’ve had this discussion before. I’m many miles away in Aus, just like many here, let’s truly hope the right decision is being made by those in the know that should know best. I’m a total non military outsider and to me I’d also like to know why/what the US and Aus thinking on this too including SPGs. Right decisions need to be made for right vehicles for the right mix of scenarios. Things need to be got right for the UK Army and artillery. Will be good for morale too.
Hi Quentin, I think the decision to replace Warrior by Boxer rather than upgraded Warrior (WCSP) was political. Rather than a 40mm cannon, Boxer will undoubtedly have less firepower – so far RWS that can onlt take MGs have been ordered, although supposidely the army is undertaking a styudy to see how Boxer’s fire power can be enhanced! I also have reservations about Boxer having good mobility in deep mud,snow and ice – and being able to keep uo with the tanks in the two armured brigades. Glad to see we are finally making some headway with artillery – 12… Read more »
Why was it made as a “political” decision, when it will come down to soldiers lives here, effectiveness and agility on the battlefield and a sensible mix of tracked and wheeled is always an option. Some really good posts here by yourself and others. Lots of things to consider. I also know nothing of Australia’s Abram’s tank purchases with the latter more digitised model. Must be some similarity with logistics, supply chain and commonality) again) with the US and short delivery time. I’m not sure that Aus can land Abram’s from their Canberra LHD’s, or not yet anyway. Maybe they’re… Read more »
Thanks Quentin. Sadly politicians – MinDP, SofS, Chancellor, PM – always have their say on the bigger procurement projects and it is the final word on the matter.
Massive problem if Aus still has trouble strategically deploying their M1s – they have been in service since 2007, I believe, and replaced the much lighter Leo1. I had my doubts as to whether it was the right tank for Aus at the time.
Glad you guys are sticking with Hercs!
What I meant was, if the UK ever ordered too many Boxers maybe it can sell some of them off or as you suggested replace them with tracked Boxer or other tracked vehicles. Here’s hoping for a good outcome for the Army.
I have never heard of ordering too many AFVs and then having to sell some of them off. We usually order far too few. We did not buy enough Warriors back in the 80s to fully replace the FV430 series and so have many hundreds of 60-year-old 430s running around. We are only buying 148 CR3s to replace the 213 CR2s that are on the active list. As it stands we have ordered only 623 Boxers, of which very few are infantry section carriers, just 85 in the Tranche 1 order of 523 vehicles, barely enough for 2 out of… Read more »
I get confused but the Baltic States are buying Boxer and a Finnish variant. Think the Latvians actually went with CV90 (tracked). When it comes to tough roads, terrain and weather, I’d go with what the Finns have.
Not disputing the arguments in favour of Archer. But i continue to wonder if in fact the army should make a decision to go all in with Boxer and just assume that the first choice for any new equipment will be the boxer version.
Imagine the logistics and engineering benefits of a having a largely standardised fleet of vehicles all based on boxer – one set of spares, engineers know the vehicles better. Anyone can use any vehicle, bodies can be swapped out to keep key capabilities mobile, etc etc
Surely that would be worth something?
Boxer is not cheap and the 155mm artillery system would have to be developed. Archer is off the shelf
The Artillery Gun Module on the RCH155 has been around for over 10 years. It’s pretty well known…
But…Boxer isn’t cheap. And we have a whole lot more MAN HX for commonality than Boxer…
A 155mm artillery system for boxer already exists, it’s called the RCH 155 and is made by KMW in Germany.
There is a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Archer is a purpose design and can be made in parallel with Boxer and probably delivered earlier, and by UK industry. The Boxer build rate looks glacial and perhaps needs to focus on replacing Warrior. Choosing Archer and cracking on with it looks like a low risk decision to solve an urgent and important problem,
Boxer is replacing Warrior – decision was made in March 2021 and announced in Defence Command Paper.
Decisions can be changed, modified, and cancelled. Okay, some people might get upset and it could cost. Here in Aus the IFV Redback order was reduced from over 400 I think, down to 147. The K9/10s was kept to the just one batch. Money to be used for purchasing other platforms.
When I bought my first car as a young man, my landlord told me ‘ you’ll never have any money now’. I think it works the same way with nuclear submarines 🙂
Decisions can be changed. True, and many examples of that in British experience. But IR23 Refresh and associated Defence Command Paper did not change the March 2021 decision to replace Warrior by Boxer. Boxer programme is well advanced too.
Morning Graham. Yes, I understand that’s the case. I didn’t express it very well but my point was; when? Putting aside questions of cannon armament, I’m not convinced the current Boxer build rate and the propsed Warrior OSD are consistent.
True. Boxer build rate is slow, some say glacial. Warrior OSD was I think about 2025 (or ‘mid 2020s’) originally but is now set back and money now has to be found to keep it in service for quite a number of years – no money in the current Equipment Plan to do that, so Warrior run-on is one of the black hole programmes. Warrior needs to run on as the infantry carrier until Boxer is fielded as we know and as we have said, but also has to run on to replace Scimitar (withdrawn about Mar/April 2023) whilst army… Read more »
I think we increased the Boxer order by 100 after we donated some protected patrol vehicles to Ukraine. It’s as if the answer is Boxer…what was the question. As you say the impression is that it’s not well thought out. Similar to the T23 lifex cost issue….difficult to see a way out of the hole we got ourselves into. Santa Claus is not coming with a brace of new frigates and a couple of hundred new IFVs.
The question must have been…’We have ordered Boxer for those two strike brigades, you know the ones that General Nick Carter wanted, for them to work alongside Ajax, but the army has now deleted those brigades from the Orbat. What shall we do with them now?’
There is no way out!
The army must soldier on with Boxers in the armoured brigades – and rue the loss of the 40mm cannon that WCSP would have given them – and hope they don’t bog in, in that gloopy mud.
Don’t mean to stir the pot but there is still an option to sell some excess Boxers or convert to other roles, and order some tracked IFVs or order both and keep the lot!
Who has got excess Boxers to sell to us? Or have I misinterpreted?
Clearly tracked IFVs will not be ordered for all five infantry battalions in the two armoured brigades – as that would mean just about all the 623 ordered Boxers were redundant.
Intriguing though if some of those five battalions were designated armd inf and got a tracked IFV and others remained as mech inf with Boxer. But has HMT got the money for that?
If we have an all-Boxer force in those two bdes, then we need a lot more than the 623 Boxers ordered so far.
Yes guess so. As long as the boxer has a module with the longer cal 155mm system. 55 or 58 cal is superior for range, accuracy Vs 52 cal, especially with extended range and special shells.
That really is a no brainier…already operating, one of the best fires on the market..it’s off the shelf, low risk and the creation of a production line and tec to the UK….the Army needs fires ASAP..let’s not spaff away millions of pounds and years thinking about it.
Agree if mobile fires is intended to deliver 96 systems in total let’s just get Archer on 8×8 chassis and get it done for the least risk, delay and cost.
How much would 96 Archer 8x8s cost?
Well you could get 100 archers for 450million dollars so 96 would be 430million dollars so 330-340 million pounds….so not a bad deal….a tracked option is north of 1.25 billion pounds for the same number…seriously more money.
That settles the issue in my mind. For a limited improvement in mobility Vs tracked systems , whilst having huge gains in speed of deployment, transition between firing positions, speed of bringing into and out of action and now clearly cost we have to go for Archer. 100 artillery systems for say £400-450 million pounds with training and spares is a bargain and will sort out this issue for a generation. Squandering billions on trying to get a tracked version is unnecessary and ultimately going to be counter productive and impact the number of systems the UK can afford or… Read more »
If its already in service as an interim artillery piece along with the AS 90 and it has a proven track record then just do it which will also create more jobs in the defence sector .Which will undoubtedly upset the loud minority ,so what .
Not sure about this. My first question would be can a wheeled system do everthing and go everywhere in the same terrain conditions as a tracked system. Can Archer follow an Armoured Brigade into and out of a battlefield. A muddy axle deep battlefield. From my experiance the amount of times my comms truck would get stuck in the mud or snow during a Wintex leads me to believe no.
For me I would prefer to see the K-9 A2 Block-II 58 cal, and M-270 working with Ajax and Ch3s. Archer, (which I do like ) working with Boxer.
France operated wheeled everything for sometime now so I guess it works
Not correct, the French Caeser are recent.
French retained a small number of AMX AUF-1 after Cold War.
The French have used wheeled APCs for decades they have used what they call light tanks which are wheeled and Caesar has been in service if about 15 years the French have been using wheeled vehicles for a long time and they operate all over the world and don’t seem to have problems
Wheeled APC and tank destroyers yes, but a number of have done it too. I was thinking that you were restricting to artillery pieces. Best example of wheeled combat is South Africa since 80’s
Hi Ron, I think we’re in a minority position here. A mix is a bit of a 50/50 position, maybe to expensive to have logistically. Not sure how the US and Aus will go for future, the US is currently tracked and Aus has a competition running where I think the K9 Thunder is the favourite. Hope there’s a good supply of tyres about!
Some interesting news from Aus. An Australian Army AS9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer test fires a practice round at the Proof & Experimental Establishment in Port Wakefield. (Commonwealth of Australia) Hanwha Defense Australia (HDA), Sydney-based HIFraser, and Busan-based DNB tested the Automatic Fire and Explosion Suppression System (AFESS) developed by DNB for the AS9 and AS10 Huntsman family of vehicles, HDA said in a press release on 13 December. According to HDA, the test – which took place in early November at DNB’s facility – was carried out using steel hull constructs designed to simulate the internal volume and layout of… Read more »
Morning Nigel, yes I read this too. Contrasting position with US and Aus going tracked but with likely other wheeled platforms, Himars and Precision Fires. Aus just also recently bought the Redback tracked IFV.
As I have said many times on here over the last couple of years, we need to form a working relationship with SK that will benefit both countries. It would be a shame to miss out on such an opportunity. Hanwha Defense: ‘Arion-SMET’ UGV handpicked for US Army’s field tests “October 11, 2022- Hanwha Defense’s state-of-the-art unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) will join the U.S. Army’s competitive field test and evaluation program. The UGV, codenamed Arion-SMET been selected as one of the equipment for the Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) operated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense under the U.S.… Read more »
I think we might be the only country in the western world replacing a tracked, cannon-equipped IFV with a wheeled MG-equipped APC.
It’s seriously not funny is it? Quite incredibly stupid by the look of it. Lets hope something a lot better comes out from it and the armament levels on Boxer are lifted for the carried soldiers sake. They’ve added NSM’s to T45s, so some miracles do happen! Lol.
Of course not, but does it matter? and if it matters the cost of a tracked system can drown its advantages?
Answer to your queries above re wheeled Vs tracked. This has already been examined by military forces and the capability gap is closing rapidly between tracked and wheeled. Wheeled vehicles have some tremendous advantages. 1) less maintenance then tracked 2) they can keep going with some drive wheels blown off 3) they have less fuel consumption and better range 4) more rapid transition from firing point to firing point 5) wheeled don’t require as much logistical train or specialist recovery vehicles a man 8×8 truck could tow/ recovery an archer system. I think. Correct me if I’m wrong. 6) cost,… Read more »
Ron, your military experience must mean that you know that a tracked vehicle has better terrain access than a high mobility wheeled vehicle, but the delta is less than it used to be with multi-wheel vehicles of 6 and 8 wheels, runflat tyres, Central Tyre Inflation System etc.
Imported German truck, Swedish gun and casemate steel panels just assembled in the UK with a promise to ‘consider’ UK barrel production.
The K9 Thunder bid seems to be doing the opposite, imported Korean gun and barrels but everything else made in the UK.
What happened to k9a2/3 ? Mixed both archer? Or only archer? Or completion with archer?
I hope mixed I think good idea mixed both K9 and archer (prefer boxer 155mm)
Ideally, I’d like to see K9 in the Armoured Brigades with 2 Regiments on Archer for 7 LMB and 4 LB, if by some miracle they sort the mess of CS CSS out and outfit that Bde with regular support formations.
But it is looking like, as 19 RA is already equipped with Archer, that another buy to equip 1 RHA with Archer, plus others for a small attrition and training reserve, will sort the FMF program out with minimal outlay.
What becomes of 4 RA with its Light Guns I’m unsure, ideally it needs Archer too.
Agreed. I like this direct attack k9a2 with tank formation with uav support with brimstone Overwatch,
With regular infantry support fire gun support with archer is good idea, with hero / switchblade 600
And
To replacement light gun 105mm?
Maybe we look at hmt400 or strike vehicle or unmanned wheels with similar system to Hawkeye’s 105mm
or switch to 120mm guide mortar? So it is still light
Or switch to 155mm (m777-er) so all have common 155mm?
Who knows.
I’ve heard the army is still looking at 120mm mortars, the K9, and the Boxer SPG variant.
Whatever, a light Mech Bde needs something greater than a Light Gun!
Yeh, I’m Hope that, they are find right one and better and full equipped support British army as they need it update and upgrade, up to level suit them.
There’s a very comprehensive article from 2022 on Think Defence about possible replacements for the light gun. It covers the options under consideration by the army, but concludes that refurbishment of existing guns and development of new ammunition might be the best way to go.
For light forces, the L118 has the tactical mobility needed and direct fire capability if something unexpected turns up. Whether a vehicle mounted version would be worth the cost, I’m not sure.
Bring back the abbot. 😂😂😂
There’s a few about I think?!
DM if anyone knows it’ll be you, is archer small enough for 16AA to take instead of light guns? Obviously Weighs to much for a Chinook hook but seems to fit in an A400M on the Volvo chassis but can’t find MAN spec.
I cannot ever see an Airmobile, Airborne formation of ours using self propelled artillery of that size.
At most, realistically, we may buy enough for 7 LMB as well.
Cheers, can’t see it myself just thought it’s a bloody nice bit of kit for 7RHA if they could.
Would be a good fit for 7LMB as their whole mission seems to be shifting towards shoot and scoot.
Regards armoured vehicles, most 16AA, 5 Ab Bde had were a Sqn of CVRTs from the H Cav.
7 RHA need something Chinook haulable, the Chinook force is one of our strengths.
Yeah was aware just thought it might be a nice treat for them.
They do but that Chinook requirement really limits the options to the M777 and similar but at least they’d get a 155mm gun.
Yep, that’s the one I had in mind. Our own gun too, and we don’t use it.
Maybe the LG is fine for that role? I know DB and Airborne have praised it on this journal.
I’ve never understood that either home grown and not in inventory. Although thinking about it I suspect Pinz wouldn’t be able to tow it and that might be why. Oh I’ve never heard a bad word said regarding it ops use and their accounts have been similar to what’s been said to me. It’s just Personal opinion we ask a lot from the the Airborne brigade and due to the obvious weight limitations of fast deployments Para/airborne insertion they don’t get much big kit to take, it would be nice to give them a bit more bang. Also the light… Read more »
LIMAWS an M777 portee system using a Supacat vehicle was developed and demonstrated years ago. Lack of funds seems to have killed it off. But it would be an obvious and low risk option if the L118 is judged insufficient for highly mobile light forces. Not cheap- the M777 alone costs over $3.5m.
Every artillery system, whether tube or rocket, should scoot and shoot if the enemy can do CB (counter-battery) fire (by any precision strike asset) – excepting that this is not easy or practical for a towed system to do that to anything like the same extent or effectiveness.
I too cannot see Archer being a good fit for very light forces such as 7RHA or 29 Cdo Regt RA. But a lighter portee gun system could give them an effective shoot and scoot capability.
Mr hewes had one
Never driven one in service but ragging the local farmers one across his fields is great fun and a brilliant place to be during
“punters” shoot days, horrendously painful though at speed. Additionally ergonomics was clearly considered bad spelling by someone in the finance team, according to the Abbot design office. Why the f*ck is there a junction box where my shin belongs.
We need a CVRT successor. Light but still armoured against bullets, fragments. Even a MBT gets killed by some munitions.
Fast, easy to move, deploy.
Different variants. Light recon, 20-40mm cannon, missile launching version, drone defence, APC, ambulance and so on.
Aim for £500-750k a vehicle. Get 1000 for £1 billion with spares. Obviously the more kit added onto versions increase the cost. One with 15 brimstones on it will cost more.
A lighter vehicle to complement the heavy boxer, Ajax etc.
We do but once the MOD boffins touch it, it’ll weigh to much, cost too much and do to little.
I stand by my previous comments over the years, that a 1star should be put in charge of each procurement project until completion and their pension and future promotions should rest on its on spec delivery, unilateral control of said project should be given but the buck stops with them no excuses. Might actually get some accountability and determination from the project leadership then, instead of 2years in the project office then on to the next.
Seems like the best way to go ,always been a fan of Archer platform no doubt it’s one of the best Artillery systems in the Defence world .Although K9 has been strongly look at by the MOD. Would we be better of with a mixed fleet of track and Wheeled platforms ? Could just come down to cost .But definitely can’t go wrong with Archer in my book 🇸🇪 🇬🇧 👍
Numbers needed and purchased are the big issue. Devils in the detail. MOD shouldn’t try to hold plate this. Just get the best price possible for say 150-180 systems. Not all needed in service immediately admittedly, but hold some in contingency reserve. Any problems with the Sino-Rusk axis of evil and we dust them off, train up a crew and bingo.
We originally bought 179 AS90 back at the tail end of the Cold War era. I would be amazed if we bought more than 100 MFP replacements.
Agreed! Who would use them.
Those 179 AS90 furnished 6 Regiments, plus 14RA, plus the reserve.
Now I’d bite the hand off if they bought around 70 for 3 Regs, that is assuming that 4 RA also gets some so 7 LMB can get something better than a Light Gun!
Thanks mate. Need of course to buy guns for the Trg Org (RA and REME), Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
More importantly, my sympathies for your loss. I hope the service at the Crem went off alright.
It did, thank you Graham.
I’d included training ( 14 Reg RA ) and a very small reserve in that 70, by assuming 3 Regs of 18 guns, 6 per Battery.
I think they were 8 per Battery once with Reserve inclusion but unsure now.
I recall the original requirement was 116 guns with the 3 AS90 regs post 2010, we know how they order less of everything.
The M270 expansion bucks that trend ( 17 refurbs just acquired from the US reserve ) on way to 75.
Thanks Daniele, the MoD should have you doing their numbers!
It is quite baffling that M270 fleet is expanding – good, but unexpected as HMT and the politicos always want to shrink equipment fleets. I wonder what the ‘Business Case’ looked like to achieve this feat. Was the ‘Ukraine war factor’ at play?
Well,the other option would be the RCH-155 on the back of boxer which seems quite good and obviously we already have that platform as well. 9 vs 8 rounds a min for burst and presumably this is better over rough terrain ?
First and only system that can shoot on the run. That changes a lot and makes counterbattery fire impossible. Only Negative is the price, which is super high. But would help, if other countries would add to the german order, so production could grow from the get go
Not an artillery person, but is it possible as it is BAe making both to bring the desirable characteristics of programmable shells from the M777 and add them to an Archer system(if it’s not already able to programme the shells it lobs)? Second, as Ukraine has shown, in the spring and autumn, mud stops both side’s movement for nearly four months in the year. Adding a tracked version negates that disadvantage, or am I talking out of my rear end?
Reading between the lines: no major elements manufactured in the UK, no UK designed content, no proper plan to make barrels in Barrow again. A quick fix after letting AS90 deteriorate into obsolescence and not even doing the basics of buying enough spares. Nothing learnt from what’s going on in Ukraine, i.e. many artillery systems work well but you have to be able to manufacture and support them yourself if you want to be able to use them, or even supply them to allies, for any length of time.
Would love to see the UK get some production capacity. Will be crucial to have in europe and to be able to quickly scale up if needed.
This seems to be the brave new world of much of UK military vehicle production. Mostly we have Assembly Halls and much ‘subbing out’, rather than full-house manufacturing plants.
For example, GDUK buy-in a huge amount of the Ajax vehicle, including the hulls (from GD Spain) and turrets (from LMUK). At least those turrets are made in the UK.
So BAE Systems, Babcock and Rheinmetall and BAE Systems (land) are going to buy the rights to produce the Swedish Archer Artillery system, and then flog it to the UK?
The Swedish Archer Artillery system is currently made by BAE, specifically BAE Systems AB, from a Bofors design. BAE acquired AB Bofors in 2005.
Oh right. Thank you GM.
An Archer… BASED… system.
We’ll never learn.
There will always be some Brit-specific items that need to be fitted.
Did pretty well at Crécy and Agincourt mind.
Interesting negotiations no doubt went on there, Bae Sweden with Bae/Rheinmetall uk and one presumes Bae itself involved in some form. sorting that one out and setting up production here. Wonder what permissions were required from the Swedish Govt esp if as someone else poses if potential exports might happen. I suspect in reality it must be good working with Sweden who by necessity I guess with their small but sophisticated economy and population, have to be very flexible about transfers of one kind or another. Good that they seem to have historically thrived upon it too, a lesson we… Read more »