Archer Mobile Howitzers operated by British troops fired 155mm rounds during a training exercise in Sweden.
Soldiers from the British Army’s Royal School of Artillery are learning what it takes to operate the Archer Mobile Howitzer, say the British Army.
“On the snowy, frozen military training area of Boden, Swedish Lapland, the British Army gunners have been putting their theory into practice, firing the modern artillery platform for the first time.
Following the granting-in-kind of 32 AS90 self-propelled guns to Ukraine, Archer was procured from the Swedish Government as an interim solution for the gap created in the Army’s 155mm Close Support capability.”
The purchase included logistic support containers, an initial ammunition suite, support, and training package. The Swedish Artillery School provided a 14-week T3 ‘train the trainer’ course, training will start on the next generation of wheeled artillery systems this spring and will be fired in the UK next summer.
I was only talking about this with @Graham More in the last few days on another thread. I wonder how the Archer compares to the new addition of the K9A2.
Korean Hanwha K9A3 cannon come with an increased 70 km range
“The K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer is considered by dozens of experts to be the best in the world. The South Korean government will apparently try to maintain this “expert assessment” in the future. That’s why Seoul has already signed an agreement with Hanwha Defense that the next K9 model will have an increased range.
This model is already being worked on and it bears the name K9A3, i.e. the third version of K9. According to South Korean sources, the K9A3 will have an increased range of 70 km. Currently, if the K9 fires specialized projectiles it can reach a maximum of 54 km. 70 km range is a really serious distance. This instance can be compared to the range of a short-range ballistic missile, or the maximum interception range of a missile fired by Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system.
K9A3 is shrouded in mystery. There is no concrete information as to exactly what will be different [besides the scope of course]. The latest operational version, the K9A2, currently uses a gun with a barrel length of .52 caliber. Media claims that the K9A3 will have a barrel length of 58 calibers.
It is because of this that it is assumed that the K9A3 will be able to achieve a range of 70 km not with special artillery shells, but with standard ones. This suggests that the use of specialized projectiles can increase the range even further.
K9A3 may be the beginning of the development of a new series of howitzers, South Korean experts believe.
According to them, if the K9A3 shows accuracy during tests and achieves the desired range, this possibility is real, which could mean a new product in international markets. These are logical processes in the defense industry. We are witnessing modern products that have evolved from older developments.
Warsaw ordered 672 K9 self-propelled howitzers.
Here we can note that it is the war in Ukraine that is the reason for this order. But it was planned, and the war in Ukraine was perhaps the catalyst for Warsaw to become more active.
Poland will also make its own K9, and even the industrial cooperation that has been agreed upon includes the use of a locally developed chassis.That’s how K9 caught the attention of the US.
Washington invited the Korean manufacturer to test new projectiles fired from the K9. This is great for the Korean company because their successful launch means that the K9 will be available with rounds that are in service in both the US and Europe.
The tests were successful, and the projectiles that the K9 fired at 50 km were respectively XM1113 Rocket Assisted Projectiles [RAP], and Modular Artillery Charge System [MACS] charges. And what’s more, K9 blasted them away. It took only 16 seconds for the cannon to fire three shells in succession.
Hi Nige, a bit of context. The AS90, M109, Pz2000, Archer and the K9 all use the same size chamber volume for propellent. This is a NATO standard size of 23L. AS90 and M107 are currently using a 39 calibre 155mm gun. The Pz2000, Archer and K9 all use a longer 52 Cal barrel. Both the M109 and Pz2000 have also been tested with a longer 58 or 62 Cal barrel.
Having a longer barrel does mean that the propellent gas is pushing the shell for longer and thereby generates a higher muzzle velocity. Which will send a non-assisted shell further. Where AS90 will send a standard shell about 25km downrange. A Pz2000 will lob the same shell around 30km, which doesn’t look like a lot of difference. The K9 will do the same. When we start to introduce base bleed and rocket assistance in particular, the ranges can be doubled. Where you are now getting ranges past 65km. However, the issue with rocket assistance, is that the volume of explosive is smaller.
The Modular Artillery Charge System introduces a number of key changes. The first is that the propellent is now an insensitive munition. Where it will have the same performance hot or cold. But has a significantly greater safety factor against burning and cook-offs. Rheinmetall I believe, were the first to develop it. Where they have used a solid propellent instead of chopped strands. This has also helped to push the range of standard shell slightly further by 2 to 3kms.
It may be time for NATO to revisit the chamber volume. As the barrels must be hitting their practical length limits, when they go past 60+ calibre.
Many thanks, DaveyB, transportation would eventually become an issue. Clearly, there has to be a cut off point!
Apparently Archer has a 25l chamber but can be cleared to fire 23l rounds post testing. Ukraine has found NATO rounds not to be entirely standard
I wonder how they do that with screw breech? As NATO standard ammo uses bag charges to alter the propellent mass.
Hi Davy, strange how were only talking about this very subject the other day.
South Korea to mass produce extended-range projectiles for K9 howitzers
08 February 2024
“South Korean metal and munition manufacturer Poongsan will initiate the mass production of the extended-range 155 mm artillery shells for the Hanwha Land Systems K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) in 2024, a Poongsan official told Janes on 8 February.
Development and trials of the extended-range 155 mm shells were completed in 2023 and the company received a combat suitability certificate from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in July 2023, the official said.
The combat suitability certificate is required to initiate the mass production of any platform, equipment, or weapon in the South Korean defence procurement process.
DAPA ordered 2,000 extended-range 155 mm shells in 2023, which will be produced and delivered by the end of 2024, the official added.
“DAPA will also sign another contract with Poongsan later this year to procure additional shells and these additional shells will be manufactured in 2025,” the official said.”
“The South Korean metal and munition manufacturer, Poongsan, has said that it has developed a new extended-range version of its 155 mm ammunition for the Hanwha Land Systems K9 self-propelled howitzer (SPH).
Speaking to Janes during the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) 2023, a company representative said that the 155 mm extended range munition (ERM) represents a 50% increase in range compared with the company’s earlier K307 base burn/high explosive (BB/HE) shell.
“The 155 mm ERM has a range of 60 km, which was achieved by the use of a smaller TNT charge in comparison to the K307 munition and a strong solid-fuel propellant,” the representative said.
According to information provided by Poongsan during the show, the company’s baseline projectile for the K9 howitzer (the KM107), has a weight of 41.86 kg and has a maximum range of 18.8 km with the powerful K677 charge. According to Janes Weapons: Ammunition, the KM107 is a licence-produced version of the US M107 HE projectile.
Poongsan’s follow-on, improved projectile, the K307 has a weight of 46.4 kg and a maximum range of 41 km with the K677 charge. The company representative said that the weight, TNT quantity, and charge of the 155 mm ERM could not be disclosed because of security reasons.
While the reduction of the TNT charge in the 155 mm ERM reduces the explosive power of the new projectile, Janes understands that Poongsan could consider alternative explosives such as High Melting eXplosive (HMX) to improve the 155 mm munitions.
Maybe the UK might go for the best of both worlds and have a mixed wheeled/tracked fleet? And who knows they might even do this with the IFV too if they reduce the Ajax numbers. It’s got to be a right choice/mix for all the likely scenarios and terrains. The UK must be watching what similar equipment choices being made in the US, AUS and other allied countries are making for future interoperability.
Good morning Quentin D63, the work share alone would make this worthwhile and give us some of the much-needed equipment sooner rather than later.
We currently operate 4th-5th gen fighter aircraft, would it make sense to operate 5th and 6th gen fighters come 2030? Internal weapons storage is already on the drawing board for their KF-21Boramae. They are working closely with MBDA for a range of missiles to be installed on it.
South Korea unveils design concept of future K3 MBT Main Battle Tank
“The development of the K3 Main Battle Tank comes in response to the South Korean Army’s assertion that the currently deployed K2 Black Panther Main Battle Tank no longer meets the tactical demands of modern combat and emerging battlefield threats.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff has approved the development of the K3 tank, with the first prototype anticipated for release in 2030.The K3 incorporates a traditional layout, featuring a driver’s compartment at the front, the turret in the middle, and the power pack located at the rear.
However, the tank takes an unconventional approach to crew placement. All three members of the crew – the driver, commander, and gunner – are housed in an armored capsule in the front section of the hull, providing an additional layer of protection by isolating them from the automatic loader and ammunition storage.
One of the standout features of the K3 design is its low profile, which, combined with reduced radar and infrared visibility, makes the tank almost invisible to enemy forces. Additionally, the tank’s anti-tank missile system and other weapons will boast stealth capabilities due to their integration within the turret, further enhancing the K3’s survivability on the battlefield.
Armor protection is a prime consideration in the K3’s design, which will be equipped with the latest generation of modular armor systems composed of steel, ceramics, and composite materials. An Active Protection System (APS) will also be fitted, offering an extra defensive measure against incoming threats.
The tank’s firepower is significantly boosted by the inclusion of an unmanned turret, which will house a remotely controlled 130mm smoothbore main gun, augmented by a fully automated loading system. This unmanned aspect allows for increased crew safety and operational flexibility.
In terms of mobility, the K3 will have a combat weight of 55 tons and will be powered by a Diesel engine. This will enable the tank to reach a maximum road speed of 70 km/h and 50 km/h in off-road conditions, offering a substantial cruising range of up to 500 km.
In conclusion, the new K3 Main Battle Tank concept appears to be a substantial upgrade from its predecessor, promising a leap forward in terms of stealth, protection, and firepower. If it lives up to expectations, it will undoubtedly enhance the South Korean Army’s battlefield capabilities significantly.”
Still is surprising how a country half the population of UK is able to do all this. Are UK bankers funding them?
Hi Math, this should give you some idea.
“South Korea relies upon exports to fuel the growth of its economy, with finished products such as electronics, textiles, ships, automobiles, and steel being some of its most important exports.”
Rank 10
“Worldwide gross domestic product in 2022 was at about 12,703 USD per capita. GDP in South Korea, on the other hand, reached USD 32,423 per capita, or 1.674 trillion USD for the whole country. South Korea is therefore one of the world’s largest economies and is currently at rank 10.”
Hi Nigel, smart moves by the Koreans. KF-21 looks like a hybrid of F22 +F35A stuck together… Lol 😁. If they get their carriers going there might even be a requirement for a naval version if they don’t choose the F35B. Wonder how it compares to the Typhoon, Rafael, F-18 Hornet and F35A? It’ll be interesting to see the F35B evolve too.
Add 2x EJ200 and Radar 2?
“Based on this webpage provided by Korea Aerospace Industries on its website that refers to the KF-21 Boramae, the aircraft’s capabilities come with a maximum thrust weight of 44,000lbs or 19,958 kilograms, a range of 1,550 nautical miles, maximum speed of 1,400mph or almost nearing Mach 2.0, which is around 2x the …19 Nov 2023″
https://
popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36097972/south-korea-new-fighter-jet-kf-21-boramae-f-22-similarities/
The army has always had a mix of tracked and wheeled or towed artillery.
I am not sure how the army can reduce Ajax numbers, as they will be procuring as many as are required. Even if they did procure 10 or 20 fewer, how does that help buy enough IFVs for 5 x AI battalions? What would we then do with the Boxers? Recreate two strike brigades, so they ‘have a home’?
Evening Graham, I thought I read on someone’s post here that there could be a reduction in the Boxer numbers and was thinking if this was significant will there be a case for and monies for some tracked IFVs? Looks like the US, AUS as well as several European countries are doing the later.
Hi Quentin,
I think the army had a worked-out Requirement for about 1,300-1,400 (heard that somewhere on UKDJ).
Funding agreed for only 1,016 or 1,018 (I forget which).
Now there are a few rumours that we won’t order anymore than Tranches 1 and 2 which total 623. Who knows?
Anyway, 623 have been ordered and MoD is contracted with ARTEC – the army will get these beasts, delivered slowly over very many years. So the Infantry in the two armoured brigades will have their battle taxis.
How then does anyone make a case for proper tracked, cannon-equipped IFVs for those self-same units? Political tricks at work here – and key politicians in Government usually win over senior army officers, Parliament and any defence-minded voters.
A disaster that the army ran the WCSP programme at ‘half-speed’.
Quite a gap still to fulfil. Hope it all comes in time maybe it’s other variants still to come to make up the fleet. And the way you put it, I’m picturing a lighted “TAXI”sign atop these Boxer “battlefield” 🚖, but not painted yellow at least! Lol 😁
Thanks always for your detailed replies, all good stuff.
I wonder if its legal to simply skip the replacement competition for the AS-90 and expedite a large Archer acquisition? Its a good platform, we’re already getting it into service, and combat experience in Ukraine is showing highly-mobile fires to be critical to modern warfare.
Get a bulk order in to reequip the AS-90 units, convert the regular RA regiments with the L118 to AS-90 and transfer their guns to the Commando and Parachute artillery regiments who still have a need for light towed/air mobile weapons
In addition to these systems, the RA needs to establish drone regiments both offensive and defensive at the earliest opportunity. Drone usage in Ukraine is considerable and increasing at an alarming rate. The span of use can range from small devices to high explosives. The spectre of drone swarms is no doubt going to get the bovines worried as these can wear down ground forces by the accumulation of effect. The future battlefield will be hugely dominated by drone technology and the RA must be at the forefront.
Agree. The RA already have 2 regular UAV Regs, one for the tactical Drones and one for Watchkeeper.
Sadly, one of those came about by scrapping GBAD assets to be replaced by model aeroplanes.
But more needs to happen. How about reg of reservists, with every teenage geek they can find who is hot with a PS control pad to operate FPV’s for starters.
There are already other specialist units in the Army Reserve, Royal Signals and Cyber ones come to mind, who provide niche capabilities from civilian life. So why not Drones.
There is no doubt young geeks would enjoy the chance to operate and develop future military drone design. They do say that drone technology development is measured in weeks and not months. Some of the most advanced game technology is being created by young technicians who could transfer their skills to drones.
Some of the biggest issues with Drone training in the UK is airspace restrictions. Generally to start flying anything more than a black hornet over a military training exercise you need paperwork, so while a lot of units have drone operators (I recently saw the list of qualified drone operators in my battalion and its surprisingly long) getting them the flying hours to remain qualified is a struggle, getting the drone flying in concert with Platoon or Company Exercises is even harder, and getting drone teams training as part of a Platoon or Company while a credible Counter UAV/Counter Battery threat is simulated is another level.
Obviously getting a specialised Drone Reservist Unit for FPV training would be great, but we should look into ways of achieving this (or even create greater opportunity to grow drone flying skills organically. Surely there should be a Army, Navy, and Airforce FPV drone racing team for example, and we should be cultivating a National FPV Drone Racing league, while also funneling cash into EW and counter UAV research) since I doubt we’re going to relax the red tape around training with aerial assets anytime soon.
The current flight restrictions for drones as you described need to change and that means addressing red tape and other such constraints. The chaos drones can inflict on civilian life was witnessed over Gatwick Airport a few years ago and that was just one machine. I fear there will need to be another such wake-up call before the government puts urgent funding towards military drone training and development. UK police drone units are now appearing and are proving to be both effective and cheaper than using helicopters.
They are unlikely too, we’re a country that loves red tape, and we need six weeks notice just to book ranges and training areas, getting flight restrictions for drones removed is not going to be a quick thing (and even if it was there is little desire to do so as a lot of the restrictions are in place for a reason, the drama at Gatwik is a perfect example, but you can imagine if a training serial didn’t book the airspace and a chinook was planned to fly through it, for example, how dangerous that would be. If you’ve got to book flights as well it protects the Army, as a drone flying without a booking is instantly identifiable as a threat.
Drones have existed within the British Army for years, that’s not an issue, and they can be operated at extremely low levels (so the correct move isn’t necessarily creating “drone units”), as I said the bigger issue is exercising them, which does happen, it’s just not easy, and usually only happens on bigger exercises.
That is a very good idea, drone pilot is one of those skill sets that a modern army will probably need a lot of in war time but not some much in peace time.
I do think we as in the UK needs to look very closely at how feeds in specialist skills to the armed forces…using reservists would seem to be the way forward…if a place like Finland with a population of 5 million can have a reservist force of 160,000k I think we could do a lot better…and even do something like Finland where people have a very short armed forces training focused career designed to create reservists. I actually think the conscription model in Finland works very well..it’s entirely training focused to create the reservist force they need..I’m not suggesting universal conscription in the UK ..but I think actually you could look at including military training as an option for a lot of HE, Further education and apprenticeships…..infact you could offer free degrees and funding and support…I would sort out a lot of issues in some degrees….things like nursing are struggling to recruit students as very few people are willing to get saddled with 30-50k debt to train as a nurse….offer free nurse education for becoming a reservist..that kills two shortages with one stone….lots of young people would probably find a 6-12 month stint in the military appealing if it was a focused part of their career development……
It seems such an obvious idea one wonders why we are so antiquated in some aspects.
Agreed, and skip on fitness requirements for the reservist drone operator regiments, to make them more attractive for the geeks.
Who remembers the Machine Gun Corps? Their Memorial at Hyde Park Corner is one of the finest.
That would be a solitary Regiment, then. 4RA, who support 7 Bde.
The other regular Regiment with Light Gun has converted to GMLRS.
I’d rather just buy 3 Regiments worth of Archer, the original requirement was for over 100 guns. 7 Bde is also a wheeled formation, so don’t think a heavy beast like AS90 sits well there now.
Over at the Cdo and Para side, 29RA and 7 RHA I think have 6 gun Batteries. 7 RHA has had its 3rd Battery reinstated after it was lost in the previous cuts. 29, I’m unsure if they still have 3 Batteries, probably not with 42 Cdo going maritime.
Yes, the interim 14 tubes doesn’t quite make up for the loss of the 32 AS90s we gifted to the UKRAINE.
Not sure how this would impact on our LG batteries, but, there is a rumour going around that we are looking at going to 120mm mortars!
Another rumour going traction is that said Chancellor is looking at increasing defence spending in the budget!!!!
I might need to sit down in a quiet dark corner to get over the excitement.
I know A and others have been champing at the bit for 120mm mortars for ages.
As for the Chancellor increasing spending, all well and good. But only if Labour match it. As Hunt won’t be around much longer.
On the mortars, assume they’d be held in Bn FS Coys rather than part of the RA? Maybe Davey can advise?
Firstly nice of you to give my old Regt a shout out DM (4RA). On the morter front they are not strictly alien to the RA, we used to have our own morter and crew trained from within our troop so if we were at say Larkhill training and there was no Inf available to fire for us we’d then use our own. Having said that I don’t see them sitting with the RA.
Neither do I. I see them as integral FS assets with the infantry.
Hi Dan, not sure. The legacy 81mm is still a highly affective weapon. Plus its relatively light, so it can be tagged on to a section when needed, as well as used from a company fire base. Yes its a pain to carry, but it is doable.
The 120mm mortar by contrast is a bit of a beast. Due its size and weight, it really needs transporting to the firing point. As the Ukraine War has explicitly highlighted, anything that stays static for too long will be targeted, either by artillery, drones or other air assets. Shoot, bang off a few rounds, then relocate, is the order of the day. So I doubt the 120 will be directly tagged on to the leg infantry. It does have a range advantage over the 81, being able to lob unassisted bombs some 10km. So will likely remain at a fixed point to provide support. Will this be enough to safeguard it? Looking at the threats, I doubt it.
We currently use FV432 as the mobile mortar carrier. Where two bods feed the tube, which is mounted to a rotating floor. The bods have to manually set the fuzing and adjust fire, whilst feeding the tube. With the hatches open, they do not have any protection. An obvious modification would be to replace the 81mm tube with a 120mm one. These can be assigned to support leg infantry sections, but they are normally employed to support company levels and armoured infantry.
There are cheaper options on the market. Where the standard is a 120mm mortar is towed like a trailer behind a 4×4. It is then unhitched and set up for firing. The set up time will be over 5 minutes, as its completely mandraulic. The scoot time will be quicker.
There are number of systems that use vehicles, such as the HUMVEE, as a mortar carrier. Where the mortar is carried on the back of the vehicle, then lowered in to position by a articulated mechanism. I haven’t seen how, when its in the firing position and sat on the base plate, the tube’s firing bearing is changed? Russia have been using a similar system in Ukraine.
The Gold plated version is something like the Mjolner or the AMOS, fitted to an armoured vehicle. Where loading the tube is either semi-automated or fully automated. Through either a muzzle loading mechanism or completely undercover via a breech. Plus this type of gun-mortar being in a traversable turret that has an elevation of -3 to +85 degrees, can also be used for direct fire support. An ASCOD/Ajax or Boxer variant would be a good option for the base vehicle.
Thanks for that Davey.
On France, we are increasing numbers of 120mm mortar for short range until 20km) They will be used in a layout similar to 152mm canon Caesar. Caesar is covering the 30 to 60 Km range.
Now, with extremely deadly swarms of drones, tactics involves shoot and move.
The need is to expand the firepower of infantry, bringing them from light to heavy.
Interestingly the fires obsessed Finnish army use the 81mm as a company level weapon ( either 3 or 2 depending on the infantry company type) and then holds the 120mm as a battalion level weapon…the Finnish army is little but it has a lot of mortars…( around 2400ish).
Last time the Army had 4.2″ mortars ( mid 1950’s??) were they not in RA units?
In service 1942 to 1966. Incredibly they were operated first by RE, then by Inf then by RA.
There is something recent on James about the UK buying the mortar version of the Boxer.
Obviously not a great deal of detail ref possible increase, but it looks as though it’s slated to increase land strike capabilities on T45s. The possibilities of Mk41 being fitted perhaps, or more canisters for NSM?
That wouldn’t even cost a great deal of money TBH.
More canister for NSM would be the quicker route in the short term.
With Mk41 fitted as the hull rotates through.
It is also essential that the 40mm are fitted and the 4.5” us changed over to a 57mm / 76mm or 5” (all of which have various other purposes).
Yes agree, NSM is the quickest route as opposed to Mk41, but would like to see them with 4xquad canisters (ala USS Constellation class).
Would like to see the 30mm guns replaced by 40mm Bofors. I personally like the option of 76mm, but that would add another calibre to the list, so, 5″ on the front and a non penetrating 57mm on the hanger roof – awesome fit imo.
I think a 5” on the front is just too big and it would mean cutting around the armoured magazines – which would be time consuming and expensive.
As the #1 priority is max number of T45 deployable I think it will be 57mm.
Yes, 5″ is a big set up, don’t they do a ‘Lite’ version though? Not sure if it would make much difference space wise mind.
Would tend to agree that 57mm is probably the front runner if they do swop out the 4.5″.
It all sounds great and maximising the T45 platform post PIP. MK41s will be a huge force multiplier as would additional quad NSM. I think they can do a lot better than just 24 CAMM. Said this before, even those 6 silo CAMM’s could be repacked or stretched into 8’s for a simple 25% increase.
One for the experts on here, what type of ships would this replace in the RN current and future fleet and would it require less crew to operate it?
I always thought we missed a trick here as some may recall.
05 February 2024
Greece announces plans for joint production of Constellation-class frigates
“Greek Minister of National Defence Nikos Dendias has announced that the country is interested in the joint production of a modified version of the Constellation-class frigates being built for the US Navy (USN).
Dendias’ comments were made following a meeting with the defence minister of the Republic of Cyprus on 29 January.
“On 16 January we received a letter from the US Navy accepting in principle our interest in the co-design and co-production of up to seven new Constellation-class frigates in Greek shipyards,” Dendias said.
If an agreement could be reached, Dendias added, Greece would be able to participate in the programme from the beginning and could accordingly contribute to designing and customising the ships according to the needs of the Hellenic Navy.
The Constellation-class frigate design is derived from the Italian Navy’s Bergamini-class FREMM (Frégate Européenne Multi-Mission) frigates. Four ships are being built for the USN at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, with total procurement of up to 16 further units planned.”
Description
“The Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG 62) represents the Navy’s next-generation small surface combatant. This ship class will be an agile, multi-mission warship, capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, providing increased combat-credible forward presence that provides a military advantage at sea.
Features
FFG 62 will be fielded with multi-mission capability to conduct air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, and electromagnetic manoeuvre warfare. These capabilities include an Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), Baseline Ten (BL10) Aegis Combat System, an Mk 41 Vertical Launch System, communications systems, countermeasures and added capability in the electronic warfare/information operations area with design flexibility for future growth.”
There is an article over on TWZ about whether these frigates have enough missile launch tubes! Sound familiar?
Hell Jacko, I was having a look last night and came across this article on Navy Lookout making a direct comparison with the Type 26 titled, Adding firepower to the Type 26 Frigate
Worth reading.
https://
navylookout.com/adding-firepower-to-the-type-26-frigate/
Hi Nigel,
This wouldn’t replace anything that we have, its the USN version of our T26 ASW frigate, based on an Italian FREMM but heavily modified. Its finally dawned on the USN that they actually require a dedicated ASW ship with a rounded assortment of other capabilities to relieve the pressure on the AB’s. The Constellation class are the spiritual successors to the old OHPs that they had during the cold war days.
Ive also read that article that @Jacko posted about, interesting reading, but do the USN really need to turn it into a mini AB? Sure it needs Air defence and ASMs, they will after all be in the outer ASW screen by themselves doing their stuff, but if the job requires something more, send a bigger ship – AB for example.I think what the issue in the Red Sea is showing us, is that modern warships need a more rounded defensive set up ranging from EW through to missiles and guns for a more layered approach while we all wait for effective DEW to come on line.
As @Davyb posted to me in this thread, utilise clever munitions (MAD-FIRES/ORKA rounds) to help down drones etc, got to be more cost effective than using missiles which ships only carry a finite number of anyway.
👍
I think USN and UK may consider Thales sonar. France won frequently Nato ASW challenges. It can be that Crew were in good shape, but realistically, vs USN and RN crew, equipment may have it’s share.
Missed opportunity here for our T26, A140/T31?
I have often wondered why the T23 never had a single Phalanx mounted on its hanger roof, after the Seawolf radar was removed? I guess the hangar would need beefing up some to handle the additional weight.
The T45 is similar, where its rear arc is not covered by a gun system. At a minimum, the Navy should be looking at fitting the Mk4 40mm, but preferably the Mk110 57mm system. Or another DS30 mount as an even cheaper option. Perhaps with another look at the Martlet fitting.
I guess the question that needs addressing, is which system can provide protection against a wider range of targets. That both provides an additional layer of protection and can be more effective offensively. My answer would be the Mk110 57mm system. As it has a longer effective range and damage/kill capability than either the 40mm or 30mm gun systems, plus it outranges Martlet. If and when the guided rounds become available, then it will be seriously capable of outperforming the other gun systems.
I know its probably flogging a dead horse. But could the Navy and BAe be persuaded to testing the ORKA round, fired from the Mk8 4.5″? I know BAe have probably shelved it, as it lost out to MAD-FIRES. But it could still be useful.
It’s unlikely that the T45 will give up its main gun and replace it with the expensive 5″. The 57mm Mk110 possibly. So if the Navy are keep the 4.5″, lets try to make better use of it, whilst it is still in service. Firstly by reinstating the ability to engage air targets. Then give the HE shells the 3P fuze. So at least it can lob shells downrange towards targets like a drone swarm, and have a good chance of knocking a few down.
Further still would be adapting the 57mm based ORKA to be fired from the 4.5″ case. Which would allow it to engage targets easily out to 10km. Why not MAD-FIRES? Well as MAD-FIRES is a DARPA/Raytheon project, like integrating Meteor on to the F35, we be at the bottom of the priority order. So keep it in house with BAe. Yes, ORKA doesn’t have the capabilities of MAD-FIRES, but it should prove quicker to integrate, as it uses semi-active laser homing to intercept the target. As compared to MAD-FIRES which needs continuous wave radar illumination to do the same. Which eats in to radar (Sampson) resource time. Whereas the EO turrets don’t. Thereby giving the ship another, but cheaper option of taking out drones.
You are right to wonder why the rear arc on both T23/45 dont appear to be covered sufficiently. I have no idea myself, it would not be beyond the wit of the MOD to strengthen the hanger roof and attach a non hull penetrating 57mm gun – suddenly the rear 180 deg arc is covered! T26 gets partially round the issue by having 2 x 30mm guns either side of the hanger aft, but there is still a gap right astern where there is limited coverage.
Believe we need to move on somewhat and replace the 30mm with 2 x 40mm Bofors at the least and again if possible, something on the hanger roof. These are not expensive mods, and would add lots of defensive capability to said assets, something which Im sure Richmonds CO would currently bite your hand of for.
Dont know much about MF and ORKA to be honest, but surely anything that gives us an advantage is good? We are fast approaching a position where we will be unable to cope with whats sent against us(missile, drones etc) unless we up our game and spending. Waiting for DEW to arrive and save the day is still years away imo, like youve said mate, not everything needs to be high end, a mix of capabilities is where its at now, the future will take care of itself.
Do you thnk the T26’s 30mm might get replaced by 40mm? Is there enough room?
Hi fella,
to be totally honest, I have absolutely no idea if its a viable or not. I would like to think though that if it is doable, then it gets done at the earliest opportunity.
What the Red Sea/Ukraine is showing us is that ‘drones’ are a real headache and we need something simple, cheap and effective to kill them. DEW are probably the way forward in that respect, but thats in the future, guns are the here and now.
I think there is beginning to be an admission that the peace dividend is over and we are staring at a major war within a decade or less.
Think you are probably correct there, would like to think that our politicians will finally come to their sense and get onboard with the threat!
The obsession with tax cuts suggests this may not be universal yet.
Good news if they’re muscling up the T45s and maybe a bit less talk about when they’re retiring them off as it kind of undermines what happening. It makes good sense to maximise their potential post PIP. As others have said maybe they can replace the 4.5″and 30mm, upgrade the sonar and install a pair of SEA TWS?
Regarding talk by the Defence Committee who recommend keeping equipment withdrawn from service in reserve; I have often wondered why we don’t store out of commission warships in the numerous unused dry docks around the UK.
If you don’t mind I’ll join you 🤗 probably need a big corner has must on this site Will come along two.🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶
No worries, I’ll bring the 🍷, you bring the glasses!🤣
It’s amazing how SK seems to have pretty much everything we require!
03 January 2023
South Korea announces full-scale deployment of 120 mm mortars
DAPA said that it has signed a contract with Hanwha Aerospace to mass-produce 120 mm SPMs and fire command vehicles. Pictured above is an example of a 120 mm SPM integrated into an M113-type tracked armoured personnel carrier. (Hanwha Defense)
“South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has announced the full-scale deployment of120 mm self-propelled mortars (SPMs) in the Republic of Korea (RoK) Army by 2025.
DAPA said in a recent press release that it has signed a “follow-up mass production” contract worth KRW584 billion (USD458 million) with Hanwha Aerospace to mass-produce 120 mm SPMs and fire command vehicles.
“Compared to the existing 4.2-inch mortar, the 120 mm SPM has a [strike] range 2.3 times greater and firepower 1.9 times longer. The mortar itself can rotate 360° without rotating the vehicle to respond to target changes,” DAPA added.
In addition, the fire command vehicles can automatically calculate the shooting data, which has increased the accuracy and fire support of the vehicle. The new systems also reduced the system-operating troops requirement from 32 to 24, making the vehicles future battlefield-ready, DAPA said.
DAPA had earlier revealed that the new platforms, development of which began in March 2014 and was completed in June 2019, were equipped with automated fire control and a semi-automatic loading system.
In September 2020, DAPA announced the series production of a 120 mm SPM system that has been integrated into an M113-type tracked armoured personnel carrier (APC). Developed by several South Korean companies, including Hanwha Defense and SNT Dynamics, the 120 mm SPMs are expected to replace the ageing M30 107 mm rifled mortars.
The first mass-production batch of 120 mm SPMs and fire command vehicles was inducted into the RoK Army in January 2022.”
Probably a bit of wishful thinking on my part, but would like to see us buy both a ‘fixed’ vehicle -Nemo style system and either/or towed system/integrated system firing through roof hatch.
Would also like them to be available across the board IE Armoured/Medium/Light battalions. Just wishful thinking.
We can but dream 😜
Amazing how an enemy just across the DMZ focuses the mind isn’t it?
I wish it did here 😂
As I said on another thread I can’t see the next government collaborating on defence outside of Europe, they’ve already publish papers on European defence collaboration. I’m not saying its the right or wrong, its just going to be the way the next government is setting its stall out.
I read a really interesting peace on the lethality of 120 mortars over the 81mm…profoundly more destructive.infact o believe the highest number of people killed and injured by a 120mm was 68 killed and 144 injured..also significant increase in range with a rocket assisted rifled 120mm mortar round having a range of 13 Km
There is a piece over on Land Defence, by a Finish chap I think, about mortars. Really good read I thought, especially as it’s not really my area, but came to pretty much the same conclusion as what you described.
The Finnish do love their mortars…they have around 900 120mm and 1500 81mm….that’s on top of their 700 hundred towed fires, 180 self propelled and 70+ Multiple rocket launch systems….they take their fires very seriously..
what is is interesting is that with the finish army each infantry company has its own 81mm mortar platoon, where as British army holds its 81mm mortar platoon at battalion level. The finish army has the 120mm mortar at battalion level.
They do like them don’t they. I think past experiences has taught the Finns some valuable lessons wrt artillery, one which they haven’t forgotten. One where we should learn from.
However, having said that, I do like what we are trying to do with our ‘fires’ (I do so hate that term!) requirements, a broader range of barrels, with a good sprinkling of rocket systems both medium and longer ranged. Only bug bearer really is the length of time we are taking on getting things done – I know money.
Wouldn’t it be nice if said Chancellor pulled a rabbit out of the budget hat and defence got a sizeable increase in spends!
Yes time is the essence with everything at the moment…I really don’t understand why they don’t get some urgency on..we know were it’s all heading and we know the timeframes ( after all the Chinese have been nice enough to inform everyone)…they need to really look at every project and programme and see what can be done in the next 3 years and sod the cheque book ( our enemies are cashing checks now that they know they cannot really afford…which is one of the profoundly worrying things).
We have a factory for Mortar in France. Thales was thinking of selling it to Nexter. Since it is now working 24/7 and have workload for the next 10 years, they now think it is ok to keep it. In Belgium, the manufacturer of mortar shell received a contract from an « unknown European country » of 9 digit in euro. Since for every shell sent to the front another one is refurbishing inventory, I think it is possible to say that Europe is preparing for the next invasion attempt. Weapons factories are under construction. I am not talking about fancy new weapons, but mass production.
Ok, just seen the UKAFC Twitter feed re 120mm. Looks pretty legit doesn’t it.
Perhaps he is actually going to meet the 2% NATO requirement. Where our actual defence spend minus pensions and CASD is at 1.45%!
Yeah that’s the big difference lumping all that in really take a big chunk. And it shows the % of GDP is of little relevance, its really what you spend it on.
Wouldn’t that just be nice, and better late than never! That may well turn out to be the case, but, with an immediate smallish uplift to accelerate NSM being fitted to T45’s(which seems to be the scuttlebutt about said increases) is what I, like others believe will happen.
Does make you think of where the services would be if the 1.45% was actually 2% or more? Would they all be in the state they are in today?
If the T45s and HMS Diamond d in particular had the NSM fitted. What’s the chances, that they would have been used to prosecute Houthis land targets? Pretty high I’d imagine.
If Diamond had NSM already fitted, without a shadow of doubt, they would have been used against some of the targets.
It’s got to be far more efficient then sending 4 Typhoons with tanker support over 3000 miles to drop some bombs.
I’m not entirely sure of the available space on a T45, but, if we are accelerating NSM integration on them, I wouldn’t mind seeing them with 4 x quad launchers fitted. Would give them a couple of goes at the Houthis before we need the RAF.
32 donated isn’t the full picture. I think it was 20 working units and 12 not working spares.
Hi mate, wouldn’t know about the breakdown of donated ‘tubes’, just that we sent 32 and have purchased 14 as an ‘interim’ replacement!
What annoys the s**t out of me about this, is that there is already a budget line (£850 million I believe) for replacement howitzers (not sure if this money covers other elements of RA requirements or just for AS90 replacements?). The army must know what they want and in my mind its largely irrelevant whether its wheels or tracks, so why are we p+++ing around with ‘interim’ anything and not just going out and buying what they want/need. The money is in place!!!!!
If we had done this from the outset, we would most probably have had at least a Regiments worth in service by now, possibly more….
They are doubtless waiting for the gold plated edition.
Well 14 replacing 20 is still a reduction. Makes me wonder how many aS90 actually are in service. That £850m could get a decent amount and goodness only knows what’s going on.
I think the army should get on with it and purchase archer. Reasons are there aren’t enough transport vehicles for tracked artillery, artillery on the man truck that’s already in service. 14 guns can be used for training if one fleet is wanted.
A split buy would also be great but this is the British forces so not a great idea as one will be sacked off at first chance.
Making it at the same time as a M777 purchase could allow scale of parts to be inter changeable.
I was including the 3 Reserve RA regiments in the count as well, which between them have another 12 batteries of light guns. Maybe leave one regiment of light guns to provide depth for the two specialist regiments, but otherwise I’d see as much of our artillery force as possible up gunned and standardised on Archer.
I’d also prefer to just expand the army with another 3 regiments of Archer, but that’s going to require well over 1,500 new personnel. Right now, even if those numbers could be added, they’d be better deployed reinforcing understrength battalions than forming new units.
Hi Callum.
Thanks. Agree on up gunning.
I myself see the RA as the priority fighting arm now, and I’d see it expanded over the infantry. So I’d not mind seeing extra RA Regs myself over reinforcing the Corps of Infantry. Brimstone and Drone regs for starters.
There’s certainly an argument to be made for more gunners over infantry, but it’s ultimately the basic troops that take and hold ground, not the guns.
Given that casualties are likely to be much higher in the infantry battalions than the RA as well, building up depth there would make more sense to me.
It’s going to be interesting to watch how the Army structures itself for the future
What you say also has merit mate. Total sense.
29 hasn’t had 3 gun batteries since the 2010 SDSR came into effect.
There’s also 5 regiment AAC which will convert into a drone regiment.
Evening Louis.
Thanks, I suspected as such.
Yes, I mentioned 5 AAC on another thread. Is it confirmed then, last I heard was a rumour of it doing so, as part of the “new” UAV group.
Not sure 5 AAC is confirmed, but with the Gazelle replacement canned it seems inevitable.
On another note, you mentioned reservists UAV regiments. A reserve artillery regiment was to rerole to UAV in Army 2020. In the Army 2020 refine it reroled back to Light Gun to give the illusion that the light brigades had CS/CSS. Not sure if it ever actually reroled in time, probably not, but it shows it was thought feasible at least.
I agree, to be honest now we have purchased a regiments worth of archer as a AS90 replacement we may as well just admit that archer is the de facto replacement and just get on with replacing AS90 completely with Archer..it would be a massive uplift in capacity for our fires and we can send the AS90s straight over to Ukraine..so creating a massive uplift in Ukraines fires as well and creating two things for Putin to worry about.
*7 Para RHA.
Thanks for the correction. 😀
EU-era public procurement regs are still enshrined in UK law, but these allow exemptions on national security grounds.
As for suggestions that the budget next month might include an increase in the defence budget, I’m a bit dubious. Sunak and Hunt’s top priority is tax cuts to give the Tories at least slim chance in the general election, and that means trying to cut spending on everything but the sacrosanct NHS.
If the MOD’s budget remains static in real terms, that is actually a huge improvement over the inflation adjusted 6.5% cut it took in 2023/24. In late 2022 Wallace asked Sunak & Hunt for an extra £11bn to sustain existing force levels and equipment plans, but got just £4bn over two years – most of which was specifically assigned to AUKUS. No wonder he resigned. But currently hard to see Shapps doing any better, despite world events..
So the UK donated 32 AS90s to Ukraine and we’ve ordered as an interim replacement 14 Archer systems.
Hmmm.., 🤔 seems someone at the MOD didn’t pass their GCSE Maths.
Interim, mate. I believe those 32 AS90 included guns that were not part of the 2 regular regiments we have left. So the 14 replace that part.
14 guns is all there was. There are zero other Archers available.
Army has already said they want another 10 to reach a full regiments worth.
Archers are good platform ,but has you say 14 to replace 32 🤔 no sense.However sure the 32 AS90s were in storage but still classed has reserve .So hopefully we will get more Archers eventually .But let’s not bet on it 🙄
Some sources said it was 20 working aS90 and 12 non functioning spare vehicles given to Ukraine. A replacement or upgrade should be a top priority
Backbencher: To ask the minister if the army is procuring any guided extended range projectiles to go with Archer?
Minister: The life cycle funding calculations do not support the business case for GERP
I would bet my pension on the above
Shoot and scoot. I can understand scooting before return fire is made, but if you are targeted by drones..how far do you have to scoot? Can you scoot far enough? Is it a case that every battery needs to have an anti-drone supacat with it to provide protection? AA
You can see what’s going to happen if there was a War in this Country. All younger generation are going to leave this country and all the ex Army Navy & RAF people will be the only ones who will fight for their home country.
The older generation will fight for this country but not King and Government.
I said years ago that the Government should have retained national service for all our armed forces but the Liberal people didn’t like this idea and they scrap it.
Now they should train civilians on how to use certain weapons to protect our own country and ourselves from being killed easily.
I work at Rsa and I haven’t spoken to anybody who thinks archer is a good replacement while we still have enough As90 in service to equip the two units . Archer only carries 14 rounds uses a modular charge system no used by any other nato country and has no manual way of operation in other words if somthing breaks in the auto load or laying that’s it useless
In my view AS90 and Archer are for different Formations.
AS90, a SPG, logically should support the two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams (to use the terrible new Americanism) and 1 DSR Bde, in 3 Div, being as how it is a tracked equipment.
Archer would ably support a wheeled, armoured Formation such as a Light Mech Brigade Combat Team.
It makes no sense to mix Archer and AS90 in the same artillery regiment if that is what is being proposed.
You have missed my point archer is not suitable in any roles it doesn’t use standard nato propellant charges and has no manual way of operation whoever decided to bin as90 early in favour of this shoddy kit needs sacking
David, apologies, I should have commented on your points.
I know that not everyone likes Wikipedia (often for unconvincing reasons) but it says about Archer: “The howitzer can use NATO modular charges or Bofors Uniflex 2 modular charges. The Uniflex 2IM modular charge system consists of two sizes of combustible charge cases; one full-size and one half-size case, both filled with the same type of insensitive guanylurea dinitramide (GuDN) propellant.
Also from Wiki: “The FH77B uses standard NATO 155mm ammunition with bagged drive charges.[6]
Army-technology.com says: “The main gun … can fire all types of 155mm projectiles (might suggest that it can fire all types of charges too – my italics), including advanced sensor-fused and precision-guided munitions.
So where does your info come from that says it cannot fire NATO standard charges?
Lack of reversionary mode is a disadvantage and would be especially so if it was known to be unreliable, but is it? Given that crew are seperated from the turret it is apparent that reversionary mode could not be built in.
Is AS90 being binned early? We have gifted 32 guns (of which c.12 were non-operational) to Ukraine, not the entire fleet. AS90 is over 30 years old so is it ‘too early’ to be replacing it (particularly as upgrading it has clearly been rejected by MoD). Archer has been introduced in small quantities (just 14) as an interim capability pending implementation of MFP. It is premature to assume that Archer is to replace all AS90s.
Rather than considering Archer to be shoddy, many if not most analysts consider it to be a fine system. Army-technology.com consider it one of the ten best SP artillery systems in the world today.
Hi Graham yes it can fire all projectiles but the propellants M3 L8 L18 all require increments to be removed manually before loading only L10 is a fixed bag . As90 will be gone next year
AS90 gone next year? It was stated as 2030 barely 2 years ago in a written Parliamentary answer. Something has clealry changed.
All of them gone? Is the replacement being issued early next year then?
Nope
A question for those more knowledgeable than I. The photo appears to show something burning at the tail of the rounds just fired. Is that likely to be the last of the gas burning off, or is it base bleed?
The Americans had a base bleed round in service in gulf war one I think that’s probably some residue burning off