The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it plans to “invest in the recapitalisation” of its M270 tracked missile launcher system and various missile types.

Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, recently stated:

“The Army’s long-range artillery capability is continually under review. The department plans to invest in the recapitalisation of our M270 tracked missile launcher system and various missile types to complement our current Guided Multi Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) munition stock.”

Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin was awarded a $32mn contract by the UK for “M270A2 MLRS Recapitalization”.

“Lockheed Martin Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $32,979,835 to contract to recapitalize the Multiple Launch Rocket System into the M270A2 configuration. Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas; New Boston, Texas; and Camden, Arkansas, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2026.

The M270A2 Launcher version will be an upgraded version of the M270 with improvements such as the installation of new Launcher Loader Modules (LLM), the installing of the Improved Armored Cab (IAC) and the installing of a Common Fire Control System (CFCS). Fiscal 2022 Foreign Military Sales (United Kingdom) funds in the amount of $32,979,835 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

To increase the compatibility with future MLRS Family of Munitions (MFOM), the upgrade will comprise new engines, improved armoured cabs and the modern Common Fire Control System (CFCS). Lockheed Martin has partnered with the Red River Army Depot for the effort. Multiple Launch Rocket System M270 launchers will also be able to fire the Precision Strike Missile and Extended-Range GMLRS rockets, both currently in development.

MLRS is a heavy tracked mobile launcher, transportable via C-17 and C-5 aircraft, that fires Guided MLRS rockets and Army Tactical Missile System missiles. MLRS will also be able to fire the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and Extended-Range GMLRS rockets, both currently in development.”

The UK has around 40 of these systems, and they are operated by the 26th Regiment Royal Artillery.

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

189 COMMENTS

  1. So we’re not getting any more despite evidence in the war in Ukraine of their significance, and were not even getting any to replace the ones we donated to Ukraine?

      • The Norwegian ones, as offered, were original models and replaced by the later model the UK has. The UK model was the one sent to the Ukraine. The ex Norwegian ones will be upgraded to the new common standard per this article.

        • I read we donated 6 out of the 44 the Army has and Norway replaced 3 of them from its stocks before t of an older model requiring more of an upgrade.

          • Tell me if I’m wrong but the way I read this is that we will receive new/enhanced kit it is just the method of payment will be so convoluted nobody will be quite sure what will be paid, when where or why. Suddenly one day we will have kit & it will be costing 3% GDP. The next Labour Government should probably be aware that they could close down the Armed Forces completely and the 3% would still need to be paid for the next 30 years or so.

    • Kinda depends how you look at it, we have twice as many as Ukraine currently has, and yet their 20 odd appears to have turned the tide of the war, after taking out ammo deposit, command and control hubs and key bridges. 40 would cause serious issues.

      Whilst I do agree that we need to invest in our long range fire options, I feel the money should first go with upgrading the conventional artillery pieces.

      Saying that I wonder how many of the 40 are actually operational and how many have been used for parts.

        • It wouldn’t have taken you more than a few seconds to search and find out that HIMARS (M142) and M270 are the same core platform.

          The M270 can fire twice as many rockets/missiles without reloading, though it is bigger making it slower and slightly harder to maneuver. It’s also tracked, so can off-road better (especially when the ground deteriorates, as it will soon in Ukraine), but is at a disadvantage on-road (so being able to get between locations quicker and with less wear is an issue compared to HIMARS).

          HIMARS just gets more press because they arrived first, more were sent than M270s, and they came from the US.

          • Exactly pr was an important factor I’m sure for US political and Industrial interests. Allowing M270 to get in there first would have confused the message of US support and leadership. Seems trivial but is rarely not a factor esp with the US for domestic reasons.

          • Yes as I say above for their own reasons the US made sure they were delivered first and with greater publicity. I guess that’s your privilege in being the head prefect.

          • Also worth noting that Germany has sent a few too, which also have their own name (which I have forgotten) but basically also the same platform as the M270

        • I think that is because the pr is very much aimed at the US and indeed passed around by US news sources. Fact is the US is the prime supplier of support and availability in particular of HIMARS and of course it is very much in production. No surprise then that that derivative for those reasons is the focus of the publicity behind their success and proving to the US that are used responsibly aren’t wasted and are worthy of more being delivered along with the missiles they use. If I remember correctly we were held back from suppling our unit’s until we were given US permission which ‘coincidentally’ coincided with the big announcements of the US delivery of HIMARS.

          Doing it that way and concentrating the focus no doubt on HIMARS has also more than helped in the prospective sales of the product for US industry that’s still available.

      • £32m for 40 upgraded M270 seems really cheap. Be as well to do every single M270 the uk has lying around at that price. Can always put them back in storage or loan them to Ukraine. Get them back when operations are finished or after a set time.
        New vehicles probably cost quite a bit more to buy.
        Fingers crossed that 155 artillery is next on the upgrade/purchase list.
        105mm still has its place but shouldn’t be the main gun.
        I wonder how light and better you could make the 105mm gun by giving it a M777 style make over?
        I’m
        Still hopeful for an actual CVRT replacement that is as light an deployable. Seeing them whizzing round Ukraine shows there is still a use for small, fast, tracked vehicles.

        • Its not the unit cost itself it’s the cost of the ammo. The way Ukraine is using them is tactical strikes, whilst using their traditional artillery for the breaking down enemy position approach which requires volume of strikes rather than just accuracy.

        • Appreciate what this system brings to the party, but have often wondered why we don’t also procure a cheaper unguided version for blanket bombardment, thus leaving all that precision strike stuff to systems like M270/HIMARS?

          • Wasn’t there a ‘dumb’ round originally for the M270? I seem to remember it was possible plonk an awful lot of fire in a short period on an ‘area’. I get the impression the rounds have gone from ‘relatively’ cheap to rather expensive as they gold plating process has got to work.

            I’d just give M270 the option of firing dumb rounds and buy more launchers rather than buy another system…

            Cheers CR

          • They use to be cluster rounds but we stopped using them and started using GPS guidance due to treaty. Use to call it the grid square remover.

          • Hi CR, the original M27 round had 644 submunitions, dispensed at height over a target grid. This had the effect of covering something approaching a football field with anti personnel / anti material munitions. 12 rockets (unguided) x 644 = 7728 reasons to kiss yer arse goodbye. Now banned.
            Cheers

          • Yup, but only the US use(d) them.
            The system’s Alternative Warhead rocket is a large airburst fragmentation warhead that explodes about 30 feet over a target area to disperse solid-metal penetrating projectiles to destroy enemy soldiers, armored vehicles, command posts, and other battlefield targets.

          • Yes, there is / was.

            Ammunition accountancy is an interesting subject.

            Is 1 No round that takes out 98% of targets. Is it better value than 100 rounds at 100th of the price that are required to take out the same target?

            Joking apart there is also the time, logistics and delivery factor for the 100 rounds. So when you account for those costs the real cost benefit changes massively.

            Now given the costs of the logistics chain the 100x better 98% accurate missile then starts to make a lot of sense……

          • Hi CR, was about to say I believe you are correct. Others with far more knowledge of this then me have posted a far better reply.
            Believe going back to some form of ‘dumb’ round if applicable would also work, especially if we also purchase something like HIMARS, or dare I say dust off the original LIMAWS,(R) plans from the early 00’s that were dropped. It would add some credible punch to formations such as 16 AMB or whatever they are now called!

          • I suppose we generally look at likely scenarios in which we are fighting on or defending friendly ground, so the focus on precision fires. No point breaking everything your are trying to defend.Just look back to the Second World War, to liberate France the allies ended up killing around 60-70 thousand french citizens and wounded about 100,000 in the bombing of towns and cities, pretty much obliterating around 15-20 towns and cities.

          • Hi fella. I get that side of the arguement, wasn’t where I was going with it. Sometimes nothing but a lot of HE will do the trick – just thinking B52s and ‘dumb’ bombs!
            Everything has/is going precision, with all the expense that involves. Sometimes simple is good enough, especially lots of it.

          • very true, it really depends on where your fighting, Europe’s a bit crowded so precision is needed, but if your fighting in a wilderness with little or no innocent population with lots of places to hide as you say, weight will matter over accuracy.

          • It doesn’t appear to be able to do much of anything at the moment, given the state we are in wrt our kit!
            Unacceptable or not, we need to provide options when required, we can’t afford for everything to be precision guided, going down that route will only result in less of every thing.

          • We’d also never have a conflict without air superiority, so tactics are different from Ukraine is employing.

        • Shouldn’t we be looking at a larger bore solution and establishing a new standard? 155 has been around for a while has it not, won’t people be looking at alternatives by now??? Would not buying new 155s now be tying us into a platform that’s nearing its end-of-life (though not support) dates and will gradually become redundant?

          • Going much above 155 starts to go beyond what crews can load. Rate of fire drops heavily. I don’t think we’ll regularly see field artillery going much beyond 155 in the near future.

          • 203mm (8”) exists but is basically phased out, but a few countries still field some. I think in NATO, Greece still has some tracked SP ones. Turkey may still have some as well, but were phasing out to their version of the Korean K9 in 155mm. In Asia, I believe Japan may still have some.

            Some 203mm shells were actually nukes. The catch cry these days is precision fires to avoid collateral damage. If a 105 can’t kill it than a 155 should. If it requires a 203 to do it, then it’s likely cheaper & easier to use something else entirely for the odd times that’s the case.

          • Think we have seen a few pics of 200mm artillery pieces in Ukraine they are massive and I thought pretty much pointless in modern artillery terms (unless you have them available). Surely a 155mm with gps and progressively rocket assisted projectiles makes anything bigger 99% pointless. Indeed it starts to become arguable that smaller than 155mm calibre would be increasingly desirable for lightness, size and mobility, if it gains those new projectile technologies. Which I believe is being considered in the US for their new prototype rocket boosted projectiles now that they have been successfully tested.

        • Thought I read past few days that the US is indeed introducing a light tank much lighter than the Abrams with a 105mm gun so they seem to think such a vehicle and such a calibre has its place esp for the marines.

        • Makes more sense to me to fit pods to a standard rack and then use a drops vehicle. Commercially available vehicles nothing fancy and expensive and reduces the reload time. Effectively converting any standard roll on roll of truck into a launch platform. Just a thought.

      • We also have about 30% as many as Germany have –

        UK – 42 M270 B1.
        Germany – 114 M270 stored, 40 MARS II

        Both minus unreplaced systems sent to UA.

        IMO, this is one where we could do with some more.

        • However lesson from Ukraine war, first priority has to be to fit every armoured vehicle with active defense and not just the tanks.

          • Is the active defence really that good? It must have weaknesses somewhere you would think. Reload time maybe? If it only carries 2 defence launches easy defeat with 3 missiles etc
            I don’t know enough about them to actually answer those questions.

          • No one really does, as they haven’t been fully battle tested. If however it stops one missile, that is still one more chance for the vehicles crew to survive, which a lot of dead Russians have found would have been very useful.

        • The Germans are on continental Europe, so need more ground forces.

          And you you need only look at the state of other parts of the Germany armed forces (especially the Luftwaffe) to see that they are also in a somewhat sorry state too.

          • Yes even the Germans admit they are in a parlous state in many regards. What amazes me is what Poland is doing, which truly shows the stupidity and counter productive nature of Putin’s war. They aim to have the largest forces in Europe by decade end and judged purely on what they are already ordering they would pretty much eliminate Russian forces on their own pretty soon if they have retained their legendary fighting spirit. That alone is a spur to Germany to re-arm. Certainly they will have immeasurably greater numbers of assets than we can expect by mid decade. We should be looking to cooperate wherever we can on as much as we can beyond present agreements just to get on their future bandwagon before the South Koreans get too entrenched.

      • During the Cold War the MLRS used to conduct a Grid clearing operation where a battery of concentrated MLRS would literally remove a grid box from the map 1km by 1km I think and literally destroy everything in the box… superb support weapon

    • It means to replace or refurbish these key assets. It is a word borrowed from accounting. Say you’ve bought a fleet of taxicabs for your hire car company – that is your primary capital for your business. 10 years on, you’ve lost a couple to traffic accidents, and the remainder look a tad dingy after years of fetching drunk lads and lasses home. As a result, your business isn’t operating at 100% any more – less money is coming in.

      So, you need to renew your capital – your taxi fleet – by replacing lost vehicles, reupholstering, fixing up the wonky lights, and so on; to restore the full operating capability of your business. That is “recapitalising”.

      It’s a word that is instantly recognisable to businesspeople and useful in condensing several ideas into one, but I suppose smacks rather of jargon.

      • Although in the context of a UK announcement some might baulk at the “…ize” spelling. In fairness most dictionaries list both the “…ise” and the “…ize” variants as acceptable British spellings but I’ve never quite been able to come to terms with the “…ize” version in British documents.

      • Sounds logical, though knowing the MoD I suspect the lack in preciseness in the term will be very useful to them in claiming they eventually stick to the implications therein. Replacing at one end and minimal upgrading at the other both seem to be covered which suggests Accountancy might play an important role over time in determining what and how many we eventually get if one takes a cynical view.

        • Using the “z” is just lazy, unless this really is the US Press Release. One simple setting change. Besides, many other areas of government, even those in the defence and intelligence arena use the correct “z” and “s”, spelling.

    • Good. There’s a LM turret “centre of excellence” not doing a lot while the Ajax decision goes unmade. Perhaps they can turn their hands to some other engineering.

      • Centre of excellence. How many turrets have they fitted? Apprentice workshop maybe.
        I will help. The big pointy thing goes at the front.

      • That, I suppose, will depend on whether there is a financial benefit to the UK government and whether US Congressmen kick up a fuss about potential US jobs going overseas. I did link an article in Jane’s about it but George doesn’t like other websites getting linked on here so it was blocked. Just go on Jane’s and search Lockheed Martin M270 Ampthill

  6. It is an asset that clearly works perfectly well against and Russian garbage equipment.

    So refurbishing them and bringing them up to a current spec makes a lot of sense. It is a battle winning tested and proven system. So spending money updating what we have already got is very sensible. It isn’t as if there is anything massively better out there apart from the full fat HIMARS.

    Reading between the lines a bit, the press release, is also suggesting that more up to date mentions would be purchased.

    And I would very clearly state that the effectiveness or otherwise of these kinds of systems is mostly down to the munitions……

    • Whilst they are great, they are insanely expensive compared to traditional artillery. My feeling is that in the wars that we are likely to get involved in, we won’t be able to afford to use them, and so first upgrading the conventional artillery is a better use of cash. Saying that we should do both.

      • That’s a worrying comment. “ My feeling is that in the wars that we are likely to get involved in, we won’t be able to afford to use them”. You have to fight what’s in front of you. If we need to use such capability and don’t. That will be at the expense of lives, objectives and war aims.

      • Expensive is a relative term. It requires a smaller crew that an AS90, less trucks to resupply it, and more accurately hit a target/ blanket an area. We used to have 3 Regts with MLRS (5, 32 and 39), each with 18 launchers, so a total of 54, which had been ordered when the Iron Curtain was still there, so I think if that was enough for then, then 40 should be enough now, given that over half of the Warsaw pact armies, are now on our side of the fence.

    • I think you are right about MLRS but I think a mixed fleet of M270 armoured tracked MLRS and HIMARS would be a good idea- HIMARS is much more mobile and deployable being essentially a truck vs the very heavy and much less mobile MLRS. Still for exchange battery fire or fighting in contested battlefield space I wouldn’t want to be a HIMARS operator.
      HIMARS is strictly shoot and scoot whereas MLRS could be shoot, relocate, shoot again.

      • Definitely 👍
        There is very much a place for a ‘number’ of HIMARS to be procured and integrated across defence.
        It’s not just the traditional, continental type operations that need consideration, we still need to think about our expeditionary forces, our lighter forces and our littoral strike capability. The HIMARS, or similar, would fit this bill very well. Easier/quicker to deploy, would have an anti ship capability, it can be fired from pretty much anywhere, are a magnitude cheaper, easier to maintain, and in the future will have many other munition types as options which will be far more ‘multi role’ in their application.
        The USMC have them and plan to get more, but having a sovereign capability is surely highly desirable for a nation which is expeditionary by nature? This would then allow the 40 odd tracked MLRS we have to be used as they are intended to be and not leave the heavier less flexible forces having to be used for everything.
        I think it’s an opportunity to ‘recapitalise’ the whole fires capability and not just what we currently field. The 155mm option also needs to be very carefully considered, and as much as it’s nice to have a one size fits all solution, we know through bitter experience sometimes that it doesn’t always work like that.
        Personally I would also like to see a mix of tracked tube artillery and wheeled (GOAT) artillery that can overlap each other seamlessly and also be deployed in whichever guise is needed to give the best chance of success with overmatch at as many levels as possible.
        It would open up a whole new set of options for a much wider and much more adaptable/tailored solution for our forces.
        Here’s hoping for some sensible, joined up thinking…

    • ‘Full fat HIMARS’?
      The HIMARS system is identical in operation and systems to the M270A2 but only carries 1 pod of 6 rounds or 1 ATACMS. So it is in fact ‘half fat’.
      Cheers

          • C-17 max 77k kg so can carry 3 MLRS @ 24.5k kg each or 4 HIMARS @ 16.5k kg each so MLRS max 36 rounds per c-17 where as HIMARS would only provide 24 rounds? HIMARS says C-130 transportable but at that weight not very far!!

          • Hi Steve, I think you are conflating capabilities. Mass does not compare to volume so a C17 can carry 77 tonnes but has space for only 2 Bradleys (same hull as M270) or 3 Strykers similar in volume to HIMARS.
            Cheers

          • physically dimension wise MLRS and HIMAR same length 7M width 7m & 6.4m but C-17’s didn’t come into service until after i left trade so i never saw a TDS/load plan or trim sheet and can’t confirm if putting 3 MLRS in would trim but the bay is long enough 26m also M2 weighs 30t so 3 would make 90t rather than 3 MLRS which make 73t so physically 3 would fit but whether it would ‘fly’ i don’t know.

          • The UK had a single pod on the back of a Supacat vehicle years ago well before HIMARS was a glint in an American Army eye.
            Air-portable?
            You could lift it with a Chinook!
            As with many things involving Army procurement it got to the ready for production stage and …they binned it. it could have been in use from 2008

            LIMAWS(R) Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System – Army Technology (army-technology.com)

            Thinkdefence has some good stuff on MLRS

            Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) – Think
            Defence

            and Airportability

            Vehicle Transportability – Think Defence

          • Cheers GB, useful links. I used to instruct in M270 maintenance so know the system well. I think the UK truck version was called LIMAWS.
            Cheers

          • That system looked far too sensible and useful to have ever got into service. Instead we have no HIMARS while it is now being sold in large numbers to everyone who can afford it and as fast as they can build them.

            Meanwhile Poland look likely to buy South Korean K239 Chunmoo MLRS, not sure if that is as well as the 500 HIMARS they were/are interested in. Opportunity lost? Certainly an opportunity for one leg of an indigenous land vehicle business lost.

          • To make essentially the same thing (with half the rounds) air portable required it to be much lighter and more compact?

            So it is more of an engineering challenge?

          • Rather than being carted around on a modified Bradley (20+ tonnes) it’s mounted on a truck chassis at 7 ish tonnes et voila, weight saving.
            Cheers

          • The LDS (Launcher Drive System) is different because if the weight difference. The current FFCS is the same as the M270 A1 and M270 B1 the UK currently operate.
            Cheers

        • The truck chassis can probably only take the weight of one pod. The tracked vehicle would be able to handle more weight, hence two pods. 🤷🏻‍♂️

  7. After the obvious success of artillery of all kinds in Ukraine, the MOD should concentrate on beefing up our RA regiments with additional units. In recent years I’ve seen a marked decline in the RA’s strength.

    • I do think, before we go scrambling to order more tanks, artillery etc, we need to have a thourgh top down Defence review and work out the necessary size of the Armed forces and it’s make up/ required equipment.

      We are sadly in a new Cold War and simply rebuilding our Armed forces to match it’s pre ‘Options for Change’ size and disposition isn’t the answer.

      Just bulking back up won’t do. For example, we’ve seen just how relatively useless mass tank offensives are in the modern age of capable top down attack ATM’s.

      Use our 3% ‘wisely’ and based on a carefully thought out plan.

      Clearly the previous SDSR is now totally and utterly obsolete and dead as a doornail.

      • We had the 2020 IR and then the March 2021 Defence Command Paper. The threat from Russia was well and truly recognised in both documents.
        Page 5 of the latter: “Russia continues to pose the greatest
        nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold
        threat to European security. Modernisation of the
        Russian armed forces, the ability to integrate
        whole of state activity and a greater appetite for
        risk, makes Russia both a capable and
        unpredictable actor”. 

        So, why do we need another SDSR when the Russian threat had been highlighted in 2020-2021?

        • Hi Graham, possibly because there’s a difference in the level of ‘perceived’ threat in 2021 and Putin’s actual European invasion in 2022. This translated the perceived threat into actual direct and very teal threat.

          Also the last SDSR was written with the financial constraints of 2% GDP.

          So, the last SDSR is utterly obsolete in my opinion with a massively increased threat and 3% GDP by 2030 to be taken into account.

          • We seem to have more reviews than actual equipment these days and there seems to be little obvious link to much of the equipment we order/buy more an excuse to cancel for what we order eventually post one review isn’t even delivered by the time a new one comes along by which time the argument arises that it will be delayed until that review gives its assessment. There has to be a better way surely especially as our own design and production capabilities seem to have been crippled in many cases by the long drawn out process. It’s not like you can ask a potential enemy to wait till we work out what our essential defence needs are.

            Yes we need an assessment due to Ukraine but also we need to be realistic and not let it actually obstruct clear and essential programmes of improvement and implementation that it has already provided evidence for the need for. Continuous design by committee is very often counter productive.

          • Absolutely, there is an obvious need to use some of the additional cash to increase weapons, ammunition and spares stocks for systems that will clearly be needed post review, across all three services…

            That would just be sensible.

            It will be interesting to see if a new review now regards dropping to two Armoured Regiments and a really rather pointless 150 MBT’s is still relevant.

            As a wise man once said, “piss or get off the potty” Build back up to a sensible ( let’s say) five Regiment force, with a 350 modern MBT fleet , plus additional AH64E’s and modern Artillery, sized to suit, or just forget it and move away from MBT’s, let others concentrate on heavy Armour.

            Consider Poland is building towards a modern BOAR sized Armoured force that will top out in excess of 1000 modern MBT’s with reserves, backed up with new artillery systems and 90 plus AH64E’s, they certainly don’t think the tank is dead yet!

            It will be an Armoured and airborne mailed fist that could throw any prospective Russian invasion back to the gates of Moscow itself!

      • “ For example, we’ve seen just how relatively useless mass tank offensives are in the modern age of capable top down attack ATM’s.”

        May it correct that?

        For example, we’ve seen just how relatively useless any mass offensives are in the modern age of capable top down attack ATM’s when prosecuted by untrained troops without the communications, battlefield picture or integrated approach between land/air.

    • Looks like it. It takes months if not years to set up this kind of deal and it was concluded “earlier this year”, well before these systems were given to Ukraine and their functionality proven.

      • And for Russia to confirm it’s position in regard to its actions in Ukraine which are both illegal and against the Geneva convention, by recruiting convicted rapists from Russian jails, to serve in Ukraine, in the Mickey Mouse army, and Wagner wankers, tells us all about the quality and reality of what we have been seeing and saying for the past 5 months! And still no comment on current military activities by your Russian mates in Ukraine? Good, as I stated before your silence is now golden! Keep it up.

        • Think they selected reverse gear by mistake. Fascinating how all the boasting about the superiority of Russian high tech weapons has become a lament about how can they possibly succeed in light of all these high tech modern Western weapons Ukraine is using against them. It’s like it’s not Cricket in their eyes. Their history has clearly haunted all rational thought sadly on mass certainly amongst those who exploit power and their paid lackeys.

          • Russia hasn’t tasted the fully integrated effects of NATO air power or masses tanks or Apache.

            NATO air power would have taken out Mad Vlad’s tank museum in days.

            We now know the S300/400 are joke systems. The operators don’t dare turn the radar on says it is just a jolly good homing beacon for incoming.

            I still struggle to comprehend how awful the orca really were when it came down to it.

      • Yes it was first mooted well before Covid came along so really it’s a matter of whether these events just gave it greater impetus or being kicked down the road.

      • That said it is pretty clear the UK knew what was likely brewing for some time before so measured and stores were out in place.

        When the history is written (post 30 year rule) it will emerge that munitions contracts and ramp ups started before the Russians went in. This will have been existing publicly known contracts so it didn’t tip off anyone that we knew.

        There were, if you recall, a very steady stream of defence procurement announcements in the months leading up to Christmas 2021…..

    • Sadly, we won’t. Not with the Army still set to be cut in size. Until we hear the politicians talk about ‘recapitalising’ the Army i.e. recruiting more troops, there wouldn’t be anyone to operate the additional systems…

      I was struck by pictures of the last King’s funeral compared to our Queen’s. The RN was lining part of the King’s route spaced apart 6 ft apart (at a guess). These days it is the police who man the route. It suggests to me there are not enough service personnel to line the route and still maintain frontline capability.

      The last Fleet Review was the International Fleet Review to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar.

      Sad.

      CR

      • Any fleet review would be over in half an hour – not much to see these days. I truly hope Liz Truss follows through on her 3% of GDP pledge for defence. The MoD budget has been raided far too many times over the decades and in addition, Osborne had the genius idea of moving the nuclear deterrent into the core MoD budget away from the Treasury. This – by itself – eats up 13% of the annual defence budget. Absolutely insane! It’s no wonder the MoD is skint!

        That said, the MoD really does need to get its act together regarding procurement – they haven’t helped their own cause over the years.

        Still, here’s hoping for the future!

        • Morning David Fleet Review I was proud too have stood on the Flightdeck of HMS Hermes 1977 Silver jubilees Spithead Fleet review , the old Salts said then how small that was as well

          • But in reality how the platforms of the 1950’s -> 1990’s would have / did struggle in the missile age.

            Wasn’t until T22 came along that there was a fully effective platform.

            Otherwise we are saying we would prefer Mad Vlad floating mass scrapheaps to things that work…

          • Cheers SB know what you mean ,when I joined up it was the Leanders that were the workhorse of the fleet with DLGs the Leanders took on all 3 roles Air ,Surface,Sub surface the DLGs were just floating Magazines , but both classes were built over sterner materials, as proved during Corporate

        • Not many number for sure.

          Who has more AAW destroyers other than China and America. I do wonder how good the Chinese ones would be given the Russian ‘tech’….

          Who has two aircraft carriers? America or China?

          A fleet review in about 10 years would be very interesting as it would review probably the most modern navy out there.

          I’d be very confident that RN could take out the Russian surface fleet by itself. We would need P8 help on the subs front from NATO.

  13. I think there is merit in considering a navalised version and also reawakening our project to have a navalised 155mm gun but now base it on the Bae 5″ weapon.
    Interoperability of the Royal Navy and Army would be great wouldn’t it?
    The potential is considerable for ASW.
    I believe the the US Marine Corps tried a multiple launch M270 or M277 aboard one of the USN ships.

  14. I think the effectiveness of MLRS has been reduced, the original rockets dispersed hundreds of submuntions meaning excellent counter battery weapon as 1 salvo of 12 rockets would drop 5k+ bomblets over area killing everything. Now with ban on cluster munition due to amount of unexploded ordanance left a single aimed rockets are good for bridges etc but if trying to counter battery 1 rocket per gun tube seems expensive way to go?
    Don’t get me wrong good kit of which we need more or HIMARS (think need to stick to 1 or other to reduce support costs though

    • What most people don’t realize especially in Europe is that the US never has lost the capability for the fantastically effective cluster munitions that were the original reason for this weapon. There are warehouses full of this round. And actually they have been improved. Most countries signed the treaty the US never did The weapons still exist. In the US. And they have been approved. Someone has to be the adult in case things go really sideways.

  15. A typical example of HMG re announcing old news.

    A second MLRS regular regiment will form, but both regiments will only have 2 fire batteries each.

    • I have high hopes that the next review will increase the size of the Royal Artillery. New regiments are probably out of the question but a third battery for each regiment would be quite simple.

      • You got it.
        Indeed, Hitler did do that, he was deceived by “Division ” numbers.

        This is the usual MoD spin, while regular artillery guns are cut meantime.

        • In fairness with the Panzer divisions it was based on combat experience which suggested that the Panzer division layout had too many tanks and not enough supporting infantry. At the start of the War a Panzer Division had 2 Panzer battalion for each Infantry Battalion, which obviously didn’t leave enough infantry to cover the tanks. By 1943 that ratio had effectively been reversed, meaning a Panzer division had 2 Infantry Regiments and 1 Panzer Regiment.

          It’s a pretty similiar experience that was had by many armies throughout the war, eg the British Army started with Armoured Divisions with 6 Armoured Regiments, and 2 Infantry Battalions, by 1944 that ratio had become 3 Armoured Regiments and 4 Infantry Battalions (and they still struggled with the amount of infantry they had).

    • Yeah I spotted that Daniele and that decision was made before Ukraine. Any idea how many M270 each Battery wil hold, my guess is six so no increase in numbers over the originally fielded 24.

      • No idea for sure, I too assumed 6.
        A 3rd reservist battery for each regiment is provided by 101 Reg I believe in war.

        There were 3 fire batteries previously which were split amongst the 3 AS90 Regiments supporting 1,12,20 Brigades, along with an Exactor Troop when 39 RA was cut.

        I do not recall now whether 39 RA itself had 3 or 4 fire batteries.

        • I don’t mind so much the split to 2 regiments as now each Armoured Brigade can have direct support from 1 regiment if necessary. I just wish this sort of high accuracy high value asset was supplied to 16AA and 3 Cdo, that is 7 RHA and 29RA, in the form of something like HIMAARS. While we’re at it 7 LMBCT too.

          • I thought HIMARS was? Mobile Brimstone I’d include in that wish. The firepower available to the paras and marines is lacking from a RA viewpoint.

          • Badly expressed on my part.

            They would need HIMARS: the air portable version!

            I agree with a little more firepower RM would be 10x the force they are.

          • Even if we forget about the lighter forces, the “Strike Brigades” if they had survived would have started off with the LG!
            HIMARS seems tailor made.

  16. This war once again showing the importance of long range artillery.

    Now the question is if even it is justified to have non guided artillery at this level.

    • Of course it is, guided projectiles are horrifically expensive and need to be used selectively.

      Unguided arty still has a role. It can be used to harass and suppress the enemy whilst your own forces move or attack. It can cheaply wreck their nerves hitting them 24×7 denying sleep or just the ability to safely nip out of a foxhole to take a dump.

      It’s uses are not to be underestimated and extend beyond just blowing shit up.

      • I agree.

        Dumb rounds have their place and can be pretty accurate over certain ranges in certain weather conditions.

        It is the semi guided rounds that fall into the mid ground between dumb (cheap) and 270 (expensive but accurate).

      • The new Spike NLOS missiles have 30km range fired from land(50km from Helicopter).i. I think from 25km range most of the rounds should be guided probably 70:30 or so.

    • Quite right AlexS ,Artillery can be a battlefield changer if you either place FWD observers too spot or UAVs it would seem that the Orcs use neither or hardly ever they Shell indiscriminately for the terror effect of trying too break the will of Civilians and destruction of non military inferstructer

  18. Just hope they don’t use BAE Systems as they never seem to deliver on budget/on time to refurbish existing/advanced platforms. What Ukraine has shown us is the need for precision strikes or grid square removal still (maybe more) in the new battle space.

  20. While we are very weak in a number of areas, to include OS and AD, any improvement in those areas, regardless of the reason, is good news! What is required is less “area munitions” such as the old rockets for the MLRS, but more guided versions, as we have in the GMLRS. Ukraine has shown, by seeing the number of random impact marks in and around target areas ( as shown by drone footage) 95% of unguided munitions hit fuck all! Yes it’s scary, messy, disruptive and noisy on the EF, but on FF it’s time consuming and logistically wasteful!

    Go for guided every time and, get 16AA Bde and 3 Cdo Bde at least a Bty of HIMARS each to supplement the 105s. But my wish list for the Army at the moment is large in just about every capability, and therefore to expensive! Careful choices have to be made.

    • Agreed.

      Russia uses ten times the munitions of Ukraine and achieves far less tactically because the Russian stuff is unguided or not even accurately targeted.
      Whereas the Ukrainians use their smaller number of guided munitions to far greater effect.

        • They’re probably just relieved the things don’t misfire it’s cook off and kill – like with the Kursk. 🤷🏻‍♂️
          Hitting anything on the other side of the front-line is then regarded as a bonus 😆

      • Correct but the barrels are lifted into quarters and each quarter is calculated in EFCs, equivalent full charges. For example the 105mm is lifed to so many thousands of EFCs, and charge super is equal to one full EFC, and charges 1-5 are less. So a105mm barrel can have a long life, or a shorter one depending on the charges it has used. Barrel wear, as I’m sure you are aware reduces accuracy and range. But spot on as changing barrels can obviously be a long winded and logistics intensive job.

  21. Army priorities IMHO:

    1. AD to include anti drone (RA responsibility)

    2. OS, close support and depth fire (RA responsibility)

    3. ISTAR, by use of new drones to replace watchkeeper, with offensive capabilities (RA responsibility)

    4. IFV, to include 120 mm Mortar and overwatch versions (swingfire replacement) (Inf & RAC responsibility)

    5. Close combat weapon systems, Carl Gustav, 60mm replacement and increase of section firepower (Inf responsibility)

    6. HET vehicle increase (Loggies responsibility)

    7. Increase, or should I say bringing back the CSS units to actually enable BCTs to deploy independently and concurrently.

    8. Active (and passive) defensive systems for all armoured wagons!

    Not in any order of priority as ALL are a priority! Ideas chaps? Agree/disagree?

    Cheers

    (Oh and a massive pay increase for all members of the Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces, to include free drinks in all public houses in Aldershot/Colchester every full moon)

    • On 7, I will add that the change from Field Hospital to MMR’s is more than just a name change. The disbandment of 3 Med Reg (old 3 Med Reg, because annoyingly 4 is becoming 2 and 5 is becoming 3) is so that the maneuver sqn’s from that regiment will be folded into the Field Hospitals which will now gain the ability to give R1 support to Brigades.

      That gives the RAMC suprising amounts of flexibility in terms of how it provides Medical support with just it’s Regular forces. 1, 2 nee 4, 3 nee 5 Medical Regiments are permanently aligned with 20X 12X and 7X, but 21 and 22 MMR are both under 2 Med X. Pretty much meaning that the RAMC could task org itself to support a single division (21MMR-1DSR, 22MMR Role 2 in divisional echelon), or deploy all it’s regular assets to support both divisions (21MMR-DSR, 22MMR-4 X) and use reserves as Field Hospitals, or support 2 deployments by the currently consituted brigades with a Field Hospital each. All while reducing a few officer pids (I’m sure they found jobs for them elsewhere).

      The army is not often very clever, but I think they have been on the money here, making the best of limited resources. It’s left the RAMC as the only CSS force that can actually field supports to every regular combat brigade in the army at the same time.

      Oh and of course there’s 16 Med Reg too but we don’t talk about those hats.

      • “The disbandment of 3 Med Reg (old 3 Med Reg, because annoyingly 4 is becoming 2 and 5 is becoming 3)”

        I spent years trying to get to grips with that!

      • “It’s left the RAMC as the only CSS force that can actually field supports to every regular combat brigade in the army at the same time.”

        Sobering, but true. The CSS elements have been targeted repeatedly over the years.

        • I think there’s two sides to this: One it’s a enditment of CFA and CGS for the structure of the Army, but also it’s worth noting that the RAMC (which is not the largest of corps) managed to create a flexible system while a lot of the other CSS formations didn’t.

      • Agreed, Med support is an area where we are still able to have an operational CSS without ripping the whole group to shreds to deploy one unit! Although a good amount are reserves, it does sit well! As for 16 Med Reg, like all the 16 Bde, sorry BCT, essential…but still it’s ok to give them a hard time…

        • The only thing I’d say about the Reserves is a lot of them are NHS workers, so I question our ability to draw on RAMC reserves at scale in the event of war.

          As for 16… eh agree to disagree.

          • Yes mate in a full on conflict I would imagine the NHS wouldn’t want shed loads of its surgeon’s, doctors and nurses buggering off to be possibly killed! As for 16 Med Reg, I used to be a very tough audience with the Bde hangers on, but as I matured (promoted) I realised they are essential….sometimes….lol

    • Agreed, similar thoughts to my own, just more detailed based on your real life experience mate. 👍
      Only on full moons ?! 😆
      Putting that lot in order of priority would be hard given all are needed, but pleased to see most are RA and other CSS which you know are also my preferences.

      • On the ball as normal mate, as we need more enablers, more battle wining assets and a continuous understanding of future cocepts. We have enough light Infanry units with little real role. The RA, whether we like it or not will be the organisation which shapes the future battle space.

        • Yes we don’t need another defence review to know this, real life has shown us far clearer answers than a politically biased committee often with outdated retired military input ever will.

    • Lesson of Ukraine Priority 1. One x HIMARS Regt to support 16 Air Assault, 3 Cdo Bde and 2 UK Div light force Bde’s in out of area Ops. 1 x red beret Battery 1 x green, 1 x reserve. 🙂

      In general war re-subordinate to 3(UK) Div to back up 2 x M270 Regts they are now going to have. Oh yeah and before I’m accused , I’m an Infanteer.

  22. It is essential that with a smaller army that the available equipment is kept serviceable and up to date, therefore there is a lot to be done throughout the army we have a lot of kit that was really good about 20 odd years ago that was ever updated. South Africa is developing a long range 105mm gun. The Polish Krab uses an AS90 turret with a 52cal barrel, why this was rejected by Mod for the UK I’ll never know, and warrior could have been as successful as Cv90 if upgrades were made as new technology came available

    • Was going to mention the KRAB, by all accounts an excellent bit of kit . Uses the UK AS90 Braveheart turret with as you say the 52 cal barrel giving 40 km plus . Should present an excellent opportunity to work with our Polish friends to re-capitalise our AS90 reusing their existing turrets and replacing their chassis with the Korean one the Polish use if ours are knackered – although whilst irrelevant I have to admit I rather like their look – ‘son of Abbot’ so to speak !

      • Yes looks good, at least now that they replaced the failed domestic chassis with the South Korean one. Working closely with the Poles now will, even if not immediately the perfect solution, would I think establish great possibilities for the future. Though not sure we are any longer set up to exploit such cooperation as what we have left in ground vehicle production is now as good as controlled by the Germans and adopting German tech sadly.

  23. Going away from Rocket systems ,what do guys think about the French cesars or Archer ,and could one of these systems be chosen for our Artillery to Replace AS90 and if so which would be the better of the two anyone ?

  24. Good to know we are keeping up with the times, I am so proud of our armed forces. The best in the world especially in these dark times.

  25. Question: Does anyone know how the Ukrainians refer ro abandoned Russian equipment?

    Answer:. “Russian Lend-Lease.” 🤣😂😁

    As Lt. General George S. Patton is rumored to have exclaimed at the height of the Battle of the Bulge, “We have to save those eloquent bastards!” 😁

  26. A link poped up on my phone News that seem to suggest that Ukraine had capture a T14 Armata in the counter attack. It was on subscription so I couldn’t read it. Be interesting if it is true

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here