The Mobile Fires Platform project is moving forward but remains in the concept phase.
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, said in response to a series of questions asking about what platform will replace AS90, the cost and when the platform will be brought into service:
“The process for the identification of the mobile Fires platform, the successor to the AS90, is well underway, but not yet complete. A number of solutions remain under consideration but it would be inappropriate to comment on these until this process is complete.
Quin also added:
“The Mobile Fires Platform (the principal project within the Close Fires Programme) remains in the Concept phase. It is, therefore, too early to understand the whole life cost of the Programme.”
Initial Operating Capability for the Mobile Fires Platform will be achieved in 2029.
What might replace AS90?
Well, one heavily publicised option is the Hanwha Defense K9. The firm recently announced that it would join with UK suppliers to compete for the UK’s ‘Mobile Fires Platform’ programme.
“Hanwha Defense has begun formal discussions with UK partners to arrange for a ‘Made in the UK’ variant of its K9 Self-Propelled Howitzer”, according to a news release.
“The K9 is operationally proven and will be put forward by Hanwha Defense for the UK’s Mobile Fires Platform programme to equip the British Army with a world-leading artillery capability.”
More than 600 units of the K9 artillery system have been sold to nations around the world. The K9 self-propelled howitzer was developed jointly with the South Korean Agency for Defense Development in 1998. The builders say it offers the world’s highest level of performance with a maximum range of 40km and maximum speed of 67km per hour.
You can read more about the K9 by clicking the link above or by clicking here.
Apparently the Aussies have just ordered the South Korean offer, which has also been put forward to the MoD.
I believe the same Hanwha company is also offering the Redback IFV vehicle too. Might we good for the UK to look at that for post Warrior.
Wow so if we bought the Korean offering the design would be 31 years old by the time it came into service. Mind you Archer was designed in 1995 and Caesar even earlier. Probably best to go with a known quantity rather than risk another Ajax type debacle.
I’m sure it’s been consistently upgraded since then, digital architecture Excalibur ammunition and all that good stuff.
Ahh … an upgraded Abbot.
No mate, looks like an M109 to me!
Also ancient, but wasn’t Abbot just a 105mm on an FV?
Yep the good old Abbot was a 105mm.
Strangely, the AS90 looks more modern than the Korean machine? Looks like another ‘dithering’ project to me.
Not a valid comparison. Abbot was a 1960s era 105mm SP gun with scant lethality and early versions only had 15km range.
I was not making comparisons of anything! However, being flattened at a range of 15km or 150km, your still flattened.
I have seen a couple of Abbott bombardments. Scant lethality? Right … ok.
The K9 has a range of 30km with a standard HE projectile and 40km with a rocket assisted projectile. The US Army’s ERCA system has already proven itself at 70 km and will be given to an operational battalion for testing next year with expected production in 2025. It’s something to be considered.
The XM1113 round will be compatible with the 155mm of K9, the longer range is achieved by simply having a longer barrel fitted to the M109 (43km with 39 calibre barrel and 70km with 55 calibre). The K9’s barrel is 52 calibre and already fires rocket assisted rounds.
There is a lot of talk that the next upgrade to Paladin will get a 59 calibre barrel. BAe (US) have developed a new lightweight barrel which has been successfully tested.
I am hoping that the UK will buy into the Norwegian Nammo company, and purchase their ramjet shell. With 150km range, it significantly outranges even the best extended range rocket artillery shells.
The distance will increase to 100 km within the next four years apparently. The M1299 is armed with a new 155 mm L/58 calibre long (a 9.1 m gun tube) XM907 gun that will fire the XM1113 rocket-assisted round. This will give a range of over 70 km – much greater than the 38 km (24 mi) of the M109A7 Paladin. When fitted an autoloader will allow rates of fire of up to 10 rounds per minute. Originally the autoloader was planned to carry 31 rounds and be in service by 2024, but as designed it was too large for the vehicle,… Read more »
The Pz2000 etc have been continuously upgraded, whereas the AS90 has not. The cancellation of Braveheart significantly put the Royal Artillery behind the rest of NATO. With both the French, Germans and others all upgraded to 52 calibre barrels. Thereby pushing out the standard HE boat tail’s round range to around 34km, compared to the AS90’s 26km. Perhaps what’s is a kick in the nuts, was that the Polish have basically the Braveheart AS90 turret, fitted to a T72 chassis, that we should of had 20 years ago. Furthermore, the Braveheart’s 52 calibre barrel is used by the Archer system.… Read more »
Thank you for your insight, let’s hope we get it right this time around!
Archer is using the FH77BW L52,, which is a Swedish piece of artillery.
Barrel was designed by BAe
An auto-loader sounds great, however it will add another layer of complexity and maintenance. A gun is only ever as good as the maintenance and setting up it receives. At the moment the Army is short on skilled gunfitters.
The XM113 round is American, not Korean.
Does make you wonder as they are 35 years old, and how much service have they seen, K9 is nearly As old a design. i would say upgrade, but we know where that will end up.
The simplest solution is to just go and buy some AHS Krab from our Polish friends,why try and re-invent the wheel all the time – similar Logistics and Training to the AS 90,surely it would offer value for money and a reasonable delivery time.
Never really understood why we Got rid of our M109s really for the AS90 both 155mm ,for the cost of new system don’t think we Achieve much was it a wast of money maybe 🤔
Probably worn out after many years of use,
They were sold to Austria which kept them in service until defence cuts more than halved their inventory. They then sold their surplus to one of the Baltic Republics, so the majority of the British Army’s M109 fleet is still in service, somewhere.
I’ve heard that a Tory MP is lobbying on behalf of Standard Fireworks which now owned by a Chinese company.
I hear the defence sec locally chippie can offer a world beating solution for a bargin price, so advanced that it’s too complex to demo, so cash in advance with no contract would be perfect. His chip fry once exploded, demonstrating ability to deliver.
Reminds me when the order for combat 95 was awarded to an Northern Irish company, who then subcontractored it out to a Chinese company.
It’s a real story well sorta. The pub landlord that had made boxes for Chinese restaurants rewarded with a massive ppe deal with no contract and advance payment. Check the good law website for details of the court case won about it.
Let’s say this or any other option gets ordered, what happens to the SPGs they do replace? I have always thought they should be all or at least some should be modernized/upgraded and kept in service or maybe a reserve of sort. I believe that’s what Finland and Russia are very good at, they upgrade their older arti and order new made ones to increase numbers but then again can Britain even afford that though..
We tend to sell anything once superseded, or scrap it.
Sometimes slowly like submarines and sometimes with indecent haste – like Invincible-class carriers, Panther (401 of these vehicles were procured by 2009, expensively upgraded and yet advertised for sale from 2018).
I think the Finns, who do indeed tend to keep old kit in reserve, tend to bin SPs when taken out of service. There is a lot more involved in keeping a limited number of tracked vehicles ready to go in wartime than in keeping towed artillery in reserve. They had 18 Russian 2S5 152mm SPGs in service but there would be little point in keeping them on as they already canned their 152mm towed weapons. The Finns are currently retiring their 130mm M1946 field guns of which they had a substantial number. Their artillery park is thus shrinking very… Read more »
How can it take 8 years to get to IOC for an existing, in service piece of equipment? A gun on tracks.
It’s in service, it is not a concept. How many weeks would it need for RA SME to look at existing examples, put one through its paces at Millbrook and SPTA and say we will have 90 please?
No wonder the MoD is totally screwed.
By comparison, an aircraft in the form of the P8, a much more complex machine, was ordered and delivered within 5 years.
It can only be money that is delaying this. Despite all the talk of investment in army equipment it is actually being spread over many years. It’ll be at least 10 years before we have the army that the recent review envisaged. Far too long and too subject to changing governments and their priorities.
Boxer is another example. Exactly when will the second “more lethal” batch be ordered? Probably 5 years from now if at all, yet it is slated as the replacement for Warrior. Unbelievable really. Get on with it!
Pause and look at RN procurement.
A lot of semi useful but not to ally obsolete kit has been thrown overboard.
Platforms have been simplified to a basic fit platform QEC & T31 lead the way on that.
The savings are then reinvested in useful things like more ships….and accelerating next gen tech.
RAF got at least part of that memo.
By the time Army got it it was sent to General Disorder.
Not really. The Royal Navy is responsible for more than 70% of the £17bn black hole in defence procurement. It ihas consistently ordered a lot of kit that it cannot afford, and has had to be bailed out by Boris, at the expense of the other services. A classic example is, while every other service branch is limited to one new equipment at a time, the RN has manoeuvred itself into a position where it is trying to procure both T26 and T31 at the same time, at collosal expense, while grumbling about the slow procurement schedule! Ditto its rapacious… Read more »
But the nexus of the crisis was created by not starting T23 replacement on time and decommissioning young ships like T22 that had years left in them thus increasing pressure on T23.
This is simply the result of ignoring the OOS dates for ships and kicking main gate decisions on replacements down the road!
‘Rapacious attempt to grab 50% of the RAF’s meagre combat aircraft.’ defence is not a competition between services. In-service rivalry is not healthy and undesirable F-35 was orignally ordered to replace the RN’s Sea Harriers and the RAF Harriers. Without them the carriers are pointless. The RN is not grabbing anything off the RAF, they are simply more tenacious about keeping F-35 for its intended role. The RAF is focussed on Typhoon and Tempest and less interested in F-35. The rest is nonsense too – we are a maritime nation – we ran down the fleet and the RAF far… Read more »
He’s a troll.
I beg your pardon? Are you referring to me? If so, it is clear that you have no idea what a ‘troll” is and simply chant it, playground style, anytime you read something that doesn’t fit with your preconceived ideas or prejudices. To justify it, you would need to be able to elucidate what in a post is ‘inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous or off-topic’. My response to Supportive Bloke is none of these things. He is making a case praising RN procurement, I am putting that under the microscope and concluding not really. It is called a debate, that is… Read more »
Exactly.
Let’s examine that James. The RAF combat air strength, @ 6-7.aircraft a year over 25 years, will not exceed 160 aircraft. Radakin and the RN.are talking about 80 F-35s, to equip 2 carrier air groups. That is 50% of RAF strength. It would reduce the RAF to a tiny force, about a third the size of our main NATO Europe allies. So that’s not on. The idea that the F-35s will be shared between close air support for the army and the.carriers sounds all very well now, but we know how that one will work out. “We need 36 on… Read more »
Getting more F-35 does not reduce RAF strength – it increases it. I’ll say no more than that, and allow you to continue your strange train of thought alone.
Your being generous.
Sorry, that is mathematicaĺy incorrect. If the RAF can only afford 160 combat jets, the navy demanding 80 of them for the carriers would obviously reduce the RAF to just 80.
The concept that the F-35s will be ‘shared’ between the two services should be taken with a large pinch of salt, we will find that they have all ssiled off on the two carriers the RN seems so determined to deploy.
Older minds remember the ‘through-deck carrier’ tricks of the past!
True. If it wasn’t for the RAF ‘helping out’ the Navy with manning FW fast jets on carriers they would have no F-35s.
They have muscled into FAA business to increase their number of fast jets, their power and prestige.
It’s a joint command same as harriers were
The carriers are effectively joint service assets providing a couple of acres of mobile basing rights for whatever we want to put on them. Basing rights for offensive purposes are going to be difficult to obtain Cyprus to Syria is/was an exception, Im not understanding the “grabbing “ either. The F35 is replacing Harrier, which resided within Joint Force Harrier. The Tornado IDS hasn’t really been replaced that’s an issue – whether that’s a Tempest variant or some unmanned system I don’t know. But there is coherence to the plans of both services which is simply not there for the… Read more »
The Army was run down savagely post Cold-War – from 160,000 regulars to 73,000.
From 73,000 TA to 30,000 Army Reserve.
From 900 Chieftains to 148 CR3s.
From a Corps of 4 armoured divisions at high readiness to barely one high-intensity warfighting div.
From 179 AS90s, equipping 6 regiments (battalions in US-speak) to just enough to equip 2 units.
The loss of Germany as a ‘base’ for the heavy metal army and the use of great training areas in Germany and Poland.
Very few complex equipments given a significant upgrade.
No AFVs procured into core in the last 20 years.
But other side is for ten years RN we’re side lined and got very little share
The RAF GR3s were deployed on Op Corporate to augment the meagre number of Navy Sea Harriers. That expedient turned in to Joint Force Harrier. The RAF loves muscling in on the business of the other services. There was no great reason for JFH other than Joingtery was in vogue. The RAF has been only too pleased to carry this concept into the new era of carriers – and has therefore justified for themselves the purchase of a fleet of F-35Bs. The RAF has more combat aircraft in its inventory purely because they want to fly F-35s off carriers. I… Read more »
Can’t really compare, the Air Force /Navy have not had to fight any wars recently. Ok the air force was required to drop some bombs but not operate in a war where it was needed to push its limits.
The army on the other hand has been in endless wars and so its requirements for gear has to develop each time, which makes long term buying decisions hard.
As JF says below the army hasn’t had a coherent concentrated industrial strategy other than ‘spread it thin’ Whisky it is all very well pointing at Sandy wars. The reality was that professionals were employed with budgets to get stuff done: they haven’t don’t it. We gave an armoured vehicle program with the budget expended that would have bough #3 QEC or 10 T31 and we gave some sub standard hulls. Is that down to Sandy Stuff alone? We could go on abs on about the various army procurement stuff ups that have eaten piles and piles of real cash… Read more »
Give us a peer or near peer naval war and immediately realise that the navy isnt geared or armed for a war.
Thats worrying, and surprising. The Navy have had a lot of good procurement going on since 2017 (Year of the Navy). CSG21 was a triumph. T45 is the most capable AD destroyer in the world. Astute submarines are state of the art.
Sure there are some capability gaps and some equipment breakdowns, but surely the RN could give a good account of itself in such a war alongside the USN and other NATO and (possibly) Commonwealth assets.
The problem is we don’t know. The issues during the Falklands were well known before the event by people in the navy, but were kept secret. We have a glimmer of info, through reports about lack of ammo and we know about the lack of offensive missiles. Who knows what else doesn’t work as advertised.
That is sort of the point of decommissioning things that don’t work as advertised.
It shines a light on where the gaps are.
Unfortunately it also tells the oppo where the gaps are.
But it does stops huge amount of funding being used for fig leaves……
I’d be pretty confident in most current systems given the *policies* in place.
Yes, other things are needed.
None of it has been tested in practice, from radar/sonar/missiles, the only thing that has been tested is phalanx and that failed miserably. Testing in training ops only tells you so much, and that is the problem. You only really know what you need /what doesn’t work, when you are pushed to the limit which only happens in a war situation, especially as training has to operate within health and safety limits within defined parameters.
Which is an issue the army has had over and over, with kit just not working, unfortunately at the cost of lives.
That is changing the slant of the conversation.
We were talking – up the thread – about things that were *known* not to work.
I agree the only absolute test is a war.
Are you suggesting we need a small war every few years to test things? It is an ‘interesting’ and courageous idea!!
The issue is we don’t know what is known not to work, as that will be kept secret unless it gets leaked or a war happens and people die resulting in an public enquiry, at which point a plan is put into place to eventually replace. My original point was the army is forced to learn the hard way, both from a ‘we knew the problem but did nothing about it’ (a lot of the kit issues were well known before afgan/iraq but no one did anything) and ‘we didn’t know the problem’ because its not been fully tested. This… Read more »
Not saying it doesn’t, but as an example, let’s assume it’s known, but kept secret, that sea ceptor has a major weakness/doesn’t work. As it’s not been fired anger there is no push to replace it and so the navy can save money and put it onto the next ships it builds, probably for cost saving reasons. Once a problem is public, this can no longer occur
That was the way things were done 20 years ago: I agree.
RN is now different.
It is a different international arms market. There are effective competitive champions. UK is no longer keeping Marconi Racal et Al in work but simply about the best systems to a budget.
Ceptor wouldn’t be used if it wasn’t up to it. Other countries have tested it and are buying in – Canadians are not stupid.
The army has not thus far had an industrial strategy as that was not deemed to be army business. MoD has had a tri-service Defence Industrial Strategy. For some reason hwever the Navy benefits from a related National Shipbuilding Strategy (from 2017). I hear that there will now be an equivalent written for Land equipment – ie a Land (Equipment) Industrial Strategy – not before time. Announced only in Sep 2021, and should be written within the next few months (hopefully). There are many reasons for poor Land equipment procurements – it is complex – I could write a book… Read more »
“ For some reason hwever the Navy benefits from a related National Shipbuilding Strategy (from 2017).”
That is because various of us that were able to bend various ears were able to drone on about drum beat and getting costs down whist using our access to the Cabinet Office.
Perfectly open to Army to do the same wrt vehicles.
The misconception in Whitehall is that all defence vehicles are commoditised.
No, financial reality with our constrained budget is that in each procurement category – AFVs, helicopters, combat aircraft, escorts etc – we can only afford to develop/buy OTS one equipment at a time. Example: fast jet combat aircraft – F-35 procurement followed completion of Typhoon order and Tempest will follow completion of F-35 order. Similarly, Dreadnought will not roll forward until the Astute programme completes. Ditto the artillery programme. We have just completed the MLRS upgrade to GMLRS. Next is the replacement of Rapier by Sky Sabre, the ISD date for which is 2023 or 2024. Next is the replacement… Read more »
Those national status symbols? The carriers? They cost a quarter of the price of a new US carrier – and we only bought two – and they don’t need an enormous ships company. We already had the escorts and didn’t buy more just for a CSG. We generated a saving by selling off HMS Ocean and reallocating the crew.
I don’t see that the other services are hobbled due to carrier procurement. The two ships cost £7.6bn – NHS costs us over £150bn to run every year.
It’s not just the equipment, it’s the people and logistics, fire control systems around it. It seems to take forever to train and equip new units and integrate the new system into battlegroups.
I think the Army’s lack of an industrial strategy thus far is going to affect all programmes. There is going to be a push to make more stuff in the UK as part of the new Land Industrial Strategy. This is good for defence as we need strategic capacity to build and support our equipment, and, as we have seen with Type 26 and Type 31, it drives exports. RBSL can make a Boxer or HX based gun system here. What can Hanwha do? – the Aussies get 30 guns for $1 billion Aus (£550 million). We need 119 for… Read more »
James, I take your point. The army has never before had an industrial strategy as that has not been deemed to be army business. [Similarly, the army does not even have a procurement arm under its own (ie CGS’s) command]. MoD has a tri-service Defence Industrial Strategy. For some reason the Navy has benefitted from a related National Shipbuilding Strategy since 2017. It seems that there is now to be a Land equipment Industrial Strategy- announced only in Sep 2021 – not before time. It remains to be seen whether it will stress a ‘made in Britain at all costs’… Read more »
Yes and the RAF has FCAS, Complex Weapons and previous combat air and other strategies like F-35, FOAS, Eurofighter, A400, Voyager and MRCA to sustain the industrial partnership.
As far as the ‘made in Britain’ agenda goes, it seems to me that we need to maintain the capacity to design and build AFVs and Land Weapons Systems like precision fires, UGVs and UAS, just as we need to maintain the capacity to design and build warships and submarines, nuclear weapons and powerplants, combat air systems, military helicopters, sattelites, complex weapons, muti-domain sensors, defensive aids, communications systems and cyber technologies.
The army does have an Industrial Strategy – they’re just making a hash of it. The strategy is / was Anyone but BAE, followed by an attempt to create a startup UK vehicle champion called General Dynamics UK. Building a bespoke product on a site that has zero military build experience starting with zero local supply chain. OTS options were available and rejected. 4 billion pounds and numerous enquiries later there’s not much to show for it. This disaster plus some questionable UOR choices plus top whack for Boxer has consumed the equivalent of the carriers plus spend to date… Read more »
Well in 1994, the artillery books were predicting AS90 would be upgraded to a 52 cal barrel with extra automation. Another victim of “peace dividend”.
Wallace will scrap MFP. The new leaner, fitter, modern Army of 20,000 infantry will not be required to fight actual wars. He will also cancel the Challenger III upgrade next year to pay for his office redecoration
It’s one of those pieces of kit where buying an off the shelf product should be the best option. We don’t need enough to make it worth while doing our own thing, buy something like this with minimal adjustments to allow the army to use it and use any money saved to provide more or ‘better’ kit elsewhere in the budget.
Hopefully, there can be an agreement with a British manufacturer to build them under license, thus providing domestic employment and scope for UK-made components.
Yes, if that can be done without increasing the cost! Trouble is, setting up a UK assembly line for components costs money. If that duplicates a cheaper line in the country of origin I’d rather forgo manufacturing under licence and spend the money in getting more units or on other requirements. We always complain at how expensive our kit is – one reason is that if you insist on making them yourself and/or modifying the design/spec the cost goes up. How many will be needed? It won’t be the 180 or so AS90s.
If Australia can do it surely the UK can do the same!!
But not sure about the 🏴 cricket team here at the moment?!
But Aus is paying Aus$1 Billlion for 30 of them – Sweden paid US$220 million for 48 Archer and the UK has US$1 Billion budgeted for 119 guns. The maths does not bode well for K9.
Australian announced budgets for ADF projects are typically for through life costs and would normally include not just the cost of procurement but the cost of operations over a number of decades, spares, training etc. and possibly even ammunition. The full published project cost in this case may include the construction of a new factory for Hanwha Australia in Geelong. Also the cost of training may be significant (simulators etc.) since the ADF hasn’t operated a SPH before. it’s a new capability. So you can’t just divide the total project cost by the number of units to get a per… Read more »
I think all this money quoted here would also include a certain amount of essential ammunition reload and recovery vehicles.
I hope the UK can get a mixed fleet for mechanised and more rapid strike wheel based Ops. 119 is a pretty decent fleet number. Almost as big as the Challenger fleet!
AUD1BN would be £450m which does seem a lot per item but think there thinking more long term and sovereign manufacturing here in AUS as OZ says below.
* they’re
It doesn’t work that way Rob ….. ” But what of the workers” the MP’s say……
Let’s ‘rework’ AS90 or re-Invent the wheel by taking an existing unit and modify it and blow billions more…
Please, oh please order off the bloody shelf!!!
Exactly.
Order off the shelf… otherwise known as “give your tax money to someone else and lose any skills and technical know how and ownership.” Hate to say it on this forum but look at France and how they are faring after not buying off the shelf for decades. They are world leader in commercial airplane industry, they can build their own armored vehicles, commercial space launching, high speed trains. So on and so forth. Yes, you will be taking a beating from pundits initially but you’re investing in your future. If the product is not the best in market, you’ll… Read more »
At this point only thing UK is world leader in is producing cynical c##ts…..
Yes we are and we are good at it🤣🤣🤣🤣.
Heres the problem, the UK has shrunk it’s armed forces to the point where bespoke orders for a handful of hugely expensive this and that, makes no sense anymore, it just blows the defence budget…..
With today’s Army direction, I can’t really see a need for tracked SPGs. A wheeled SPG will provide at least 90% of the cross country capability, but more importantly can self-deploy. I still feel that the BAe Archer is the best system for the Army due to the small manpower footprint, plus if it’s fitted to a standard MAN 8×8, it has logistical commonality with the rest of the fleet. The Archer system can be pretty much fitted to any large vehicle platform. Plus it has the quickest shoot and scoot times of all the current SPGs.
I agree.
There is no point on tracked artillery when most of army is on wheels and artillery is what have more range.
Therese’s always the option of a mixed wheeled and tracked fleet for different scenarios. Same with the IFV and Recce.
Seems like a quick and smart choice is needed, too much slow and stupid going in.
If the money was available, then yes a mix of wheeled and tracked would be preferable. But is this likely, especially when the number of HETs have been cut? I personally feel that the best solution is the the MAN/Archer purely due to the lower logistical cost and lower manpower requirements. What is more as the barrel sits on top of the cab instead of being stowed as per the Volvo version. It means the current 52 cal barrel can be upgraded to the 59 or 62 cal barrels in the future.
The stowing of the barrel is to reduce the IR signature.
Yes, but it also means that thexArcher mounted on the Volvo “truck” cannot have a longer barrel fitted, unless the system has a major redesign. Where the barrel is stowed on top of the cab at an angle.
What is the story on HET reduction?
I think we should take the Korean platform, extend it by 6 feet, remove the tracks and replace with wheels. Drop the gun and mount Archer on it.
Can I have a job in MOD procurement please ?
Why go to all that trouble when you have a ready made and battle tested system in the south African Denial G6 Rhino 155/52 system
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/g6_52.htm
https://www.bing.com
BAE systems at one time had working relationship and interest in Denel
Good value for money too!
Don’t even joke about it. There might be someone from Army procurement on here in between booking his next skiing holiday. Sorry hard at work !
Or even shorten it by 6 feet (Lol), as someone said the Ajax design was from the original ASCOD design. I think less playing around with anything this time around!
Love your humour though.
For goodness sake get this done asap. Putin basically wants NATO disarmed before he says he’ll pull back from Ukraine, but it seems obvious he wants every concession he can get by bullying, so he can then steamroller into the Ukraine & probably the Baltics too. Good news is the USAF has started basing F35As at RAF Lakenheath.
We must stop the rot & get our military fit & ready for action rather than enabling our enemies by trying to see how little we can get away with.
Agreed. Putin keeps testing our capability and resolve. It was he who resumed the probing of our air defences with Bear bombers.
Can someone please explain how the K9 is a fundemental advancement on the AS90 anyways!?
Something no one seems to have brought up (that I’ve seen anyway) is the note that Hanwha are touting a British made variant. There’s currently, what, 70-80 AS90 in service? So there’ll be a factory set up (hopefully better than an old forklift line) workers trained and done within a few years. Then we lose the skillbase and need to spend silly amounts again thirty or forty years down the road. After the Ajax mess, if a tracked IFV is chosen to replace Warrior rather than Boxer, could that be built in the same place? Or even could the artillery… Read more »
The Australian variant of the K9 will be built in Geelong south of Melbourne.
Hanwha are using the K9 chassis as the ‘donor’ chassis/engine/drivetrain underpinning their Redback IFV offering for Land 400.
If Hanwha are successful the Redback and K9 will be built alongside each other in the same Australian factory.
No reason why the UK couldn’t follow the Australian model.
That’s dependent on there being a requirement issued for a tracked IFV and the K21 winning, neither of which is expected at all right now.
We don’t, to the best of my knowledge, have a single factory capable of sustained building of vehicles for the Army. Setting up bits here and there for assembly or small runs isn’t efficient in the slightest or conducive to maintaining domestic skills, know how and capability
I thought Boxer had been chosen to replace Warrior, and it was clear that they would be made in UK.
It has been and I’m not sure on whether they’re being built here in full or if it’s more like Ajax in the hulls are fabricated in Germany and assembled here. But my point was having a factory set up for not even a hundred vehicles that would be closed within a few years unless production is massively dragged out isn’t hugely helpful and Boxer is a completely different vehicle to the K9 so it’s probably unlikely they can be built in the same place on the same line by the same people. Or maybe my understanding of how these… Read more »
Does anyone else hate the use of the words ‘fires’ to describe artillery and ‘platform’ to describe, well, pretty much any piece of equipment the military use? An infantry soldier will soon be a ‘human-based load bearing platform’ at this rate.
I hate the word ‘fires’ to describe artillery or to replace the word ‘fire’. It is a crass Americanism which sounds wrong.
I preferred the British ‘Start Line’ to the American ‘Line of Departure’ etc.
I find it strange too that a rifle is now called a weapon system (just because it has a few accessories).
Webbing is now Personal Load Carriage Equipment.
I see 155mm artillery in 2 categories. Something light that is easily transported. Ex USMC M777 could be a cheap, quick way of meeting that. For the heavy SPG, go for the longest range. Probably the 60 cal Rheinmettall . They are partnered with BAE already, so we could make at least some of it in the UK
Janes , Nov 2019 had an item on the 60 cal Rheinmetall gun with a bigger chamber. Baseline range was 83km.
There appears to be an HIMARS shaped hole in the UK’s inventory. With much of the Army’s future IFVs being wheeled Boxers, it seems logical to have the wheeled equivelant of the MLRS to provide long range precision fires in support. Either the US chassis or built on the common MAN vehicle already in UK use.
HIMARS is the next cab of the rank for upgrading Australia’s artillery. A project to acquire long range precision (i.e. missile) strike of 300+ Kms has been flagged in the latest defence procurement planning. HIMARS is a strong (probably only) contender with the US Marines having conducted live fire demonstrations on Australian soil at Talisman Sabre. It’s likely that a ‘sole supplier’ tender for HIMARS could be used for a rapid procurement. This was the process used for the K9. Likewise the ADF would want to mount the system on their in service MAN heavy truck chassis. There is an… Read more »
Australia seems to be getting a grip. on its defence requirements lately. It’s almost as if they had something giving them some serious motivation to get things sorted
A replacement for the AS90 is required. Eventually. But 8 years!!! We will be lucky if we equip 3 regiments so 60-70 units only will be ordered probably. There are some good guns out there so here’s something radical; just go out and buy the bloody thing off the shelf and stop poncing around for years wasting untold millions while the poor bloody infantry are reduced to the smallest standing army in Europe. Putin trembles as BJ warns Russia off Ukraine.
I really hope we take a long term view here with regards to the underlying platform. for strike we have boxer and ther is already a boxer module likewise we know this goes on an HX3 truck so that leaves us with tracks and for me until we decide what will replace challenger 3 we should not order a tracked version at all. if Ajax does not make it, then we should look to work with the IDF on their replacement for Merkava as they have a vast wealth of knowledge on armour, are battle proven and by all accounts… Read more »
Unfortunately it’s taking an age get this capacity, in the mean time, Russia has effectively given an ultimatum to the US over NATO and Ukraine.
Looks like all these programmes that have taken an age to come to fruition are going to be late to the crisis points that are developing quickly.
If we go to war with Russia we need a lot more F35 and Typhoon armed with Spear3 and Brimstone than we do AS90s or K9s. Let the Ukraine’s, Germans and Pole’s worry about boots on the ground.
I didn’t think I would ever agree with that as it trashes my beloved army – but our army is not fit for deployment in high intensity warfighting against a peer foe with the equipment it has – unless as a reserve held in rear or assigned flank protection duties.
Why buy a BAE Archer built or assembled in UK when you can buy Korean? 😔Furthermore, wheeled artillery that is easily air transportable seems to fit perfectly with the mobile expeditionary concept that the MoD is touting.
I have just watched the UTUBE on the AS21 Redback this is a very impressive bit of kit this is SO much better than Ajax with TOW and Bushmaster cannon if UK dosnt get in on this deal and bin Ajax this vehicle make us look stupid
Hi Colin, the Redback is a different type of vehicle completely from Ajax. Ajax is a recon vehicle, jammed to the gills with recon stuff, Redback would be more in line with a warrior replacement.
Recon vehicles impact is not kinetic, infact big bangs and big guns are counter to its mission.
Australia is using Boxer for the recon role. UK is buying/building Boxer. The base vehicle already exists. It requires procurement or design/build of a suitable recon module with a suitable turret. The only likely stumbling block is use of the CT40. Do you really need a CT40 on a recon vehicle? Go with 30mm & a couple of anti-armour missiles. Job done. The whole idea of Boxer is the use of modules instead of reinventing the wheel. Reinvent the module if you need to. At least you know the vehicle itself will work.
DJ, boxer would probably have been a good choice, but the army wanted tracked and an exquisite recon capability( which they still not have got to work) As for the CT40 I don’t really get the need for that on a recon vehicle, that’s mean to be sneaking finding and staying Unengaged not standing and fight or support infantry. So for me self defence is the thing ( 25mm would be the max needed) and anything offensive that adds to much weight and reduces mobility would be counter productive.
“that’s mean to be sneaking finding and staying Unengaged not standing and fight or support infantry.” Morning J. That is the problem, in fact they WERE meant to provide fire support to infantry. In the Strike Brigades plan one of the many flaws was the lack of firepower of Boxer. The dispersed Boxer GB were meant to be supported by Ajax to provide that firepower, Boxer having little or no firepower itself. As I’ve outlined often, of a Strike Brigades two Ajax regiments, one was called “Medium Armour” and was meant to support the Boxers while the other regiment carried… Read more »
Daniele/Jonathon I would also have thought that the Armenian tank debacle would have shown you need air burst on such a vehicle & that means 30mm minimum. You might not want to fight, but if you are pinged well forward, even running is dangerous. I did state that in my opinion, a CT40 should not be fitted (the ammo costs too much for a start & most off the shelf turrets don’t support it). 30mm would be my choice (dual feed with air burst being one. Throw in a couple of anti-armour missiles & you stand a chance against just… Read more »
Hi Daniele, I think the problem was that Ajax was originally (Scout SV) a replacement for CVR(T) ie armoured recce wagon – not sure it ever really needed a 40mm cannon for that role (which encouraged ‘stay and fight’ when other armies used 25-30mm for self defence on a recce vehicle when bugging out. Then it got ‘Strike’ added to its remit – to my mind that could now easily justify 40mm cannon provision but Ajax also needed ATGW (or similar heavy direct fire weapon) to kill or supress threats to the Infantry (enemy IFVs/APCs/strongpoints) out to about 3-5km –… Read more »
DJ, What weapon does the Autralian Boxer use for self defence? Anything less than stabilised 30mm is not enough.
Remind me…why were the FH 70s retired?
Cuts! Like almost everything else.
A bad and shortsighted move by the MOD, in my opinion !
I thought a wheeled option was going to be the next vehicle platform for our 155mm artillery. Something like “Archer”.
I agree that wheeled makes a lot more sense, particularly as we appear to be canning the Warrior upgrade for more Boxers. However, what really made me shudder was the mention that K-9 might be built in the UK. Other than an attempt to secure votes in a marginal constituency, I can’t see anything to recommend that option.