South Korean firm Hanwha Defense will join with UK suppliers to compete for the UK’s ‘Mobile Fires Platform’ programme, the project to replace the AS90.
“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.
“The K9 Thunder is the world’s most advanced self-propelled howitzer. The K9 boasts excellent performance with a long shooting range for fire combat and a fast firing speed for real-time, quick-focused fire power. It is a unit capable of quick displacement after shooting, and has excellent maneuverability and survivability. In addition, we have developed customized self-propelled howitzer that meets the requirements of various countries as well as NATO standards. Its operational capability is excellent in a range of environments, from deserts to snowy fields, and it is being exported to overseas countries.”
According to the builders website, K9 Thunder can fire its first round within 30 seconds from the moment it first receives firing information from the Fire Direction Centre while emplaced. While moving, it can fire after 60 seconds. After firing, K9 Thunder can quickly move away from its last position in anticipation of the enemy’s counter fire, before firing its next shot.
No matter how good it is, it’d be bloody embarassing if we bought it, given we have AS90
Although personally I think SPH are the only answer for any formation remotely mechanised.
The AS90 is well past it sell by date, we either significantly upgrade it or buy new. I suggest buy new is the cheaper option as long as we don’t over complicate the specification required.
I will be surprised if we go tracked, my guess we will want something that is wheeled, considering all the other movements that way.
It will not do as it is tried and tested by other countries, The MOD will want to over complicate things as usual and cancel.
I wonder how much of this is down to the pressure from the treasury not to spend money in the current budget year. If you make your mind up on a car and then given years to consider it as not allowed to buy, then you will probably start looking at the options list.
Embarrassing! The BBC is reporting on their News site that Ajax has hit a major stumbling block. The vehicle is noisy and vibrates like a coffee grinder and is almost unbearable for troop passengers to withstand. If true, this just compounds the problems with building British tanks in Britain. I hate to say it, but following on from the Warrior upgrade fiasco and its cancellation, it appears deliveries of the Ajax family is in deep trouble? Maybe we just buy off-the-shelf armoured vehicles, regardless of country of manufacture to ensure the British Army is supplied new kit this side of 2030! There is a possibility that the army will lose its tracked mounts at this rate?
Aren’t the early ones built in Spain with a plain to move the joining up the parts part to the UK for later models?
The origin is Spanish, however, the Welsh assembled vehicles are included in the report (allegedly) and additional weight due to the Army’s needs have raised the combat weight to around 40 tons. When visually compared to the CVRT’s these machines are huge and look less mobile, which baffles me somewhat? A nibble CVRT can conceal itself in relatively light scrubland and speed away from danger,(remember the Ferret) can Ajax do the same when in the recon role?? I find it all a bit depressing and hope the problems are quickly resolved.
I don’t really get why you would want to use a land vehicle for scouting in modern warfare, seems insanely risky Vs using a drone, which can also scout a much larger area faster.
Because the Army leadership have as much strategic vision as a sack of potatoes.
And woe betide anyone who tries to deflect them from their political BS.
The Army is literally getting what it deserves after 2 decades of one staggering procurment fail after another.
Although this dxplains why nobody is looking at an Ajax IFV development to replace Warrior – its a pile of poo.
Because there are different types of recconaissance.
You have Recce by drone which is great.
You also have a Close Target Recconaissance, where you try to get as close as possible to the enemy to get better detail.
You have Recceonaissance in Force where you show up with the intention of finding the enemy and giving them a bloody nose at the same time.
You have long term OP’s, where you watch the enemy for days or weeks, which you can’t do with drones.
Drones are good, but they can’t do everything that has been required of recce units, both those native to battalions and recce regiments, for decades, and they are unlikely ever to do so. They are complimentary capabilities, one does not supersede the other.
I’m not a military planner, but to me the Ajax is not well suited for any of them roles. If you want to stay hidden, you don’t want to be sat in a big armoured vehicle which would be hard to hide and even harder to make a secure retreat (bigger target to track and hit), plus warrior could have done that rule if we had kept and diverted the Ajax money to it (plus warrior would have given other options as a troop carrier). If you want to do punch in noise stuff than the Apache would do it a lot better and safer (faster/pop up and attack, bigger fire power) or again warrior.
If you want speed, better to use air assets and if you want loiter what’s wrong with warrior or boxer. Ajax just seems to fill a role that isn’t needed anymore.
Instead of Ajax we could have kept warrior and upgraded more challenger or instead brought a load more Apache.
Warrior wouldn’t have worked for Formation Recce, not anymore. Maybe in the 1980’s but in order for it to be able to be an effective recce vehicle you’d have needed to upgarde it with a decent EW and Sensor suite, at which point you’ve baisically got Ajax on a Warrior Hull instead of a ASCOD one, except Warrior hulls aren’t produced anymore so you’d have had an entirely new drama there, either starting up a fresh Warrior production line, or refurbishing old hulls… not ideal.
Btw, a lot of Formation Recce is hiding a big armoured vehicle in a Woodline and using that vehicles sensor systems to watch a critical point for enemy movement. If the argument is that Ajax is too big:
Ajax is 7.5x3x3m.
Warrior* is 6x3x3m
M3 CFV* (USArmy Formation Recce) is 6.5x3x3m
LAV-25* (USMarines Formation Recce) is: 6.3×2.5×2.5
AMX-10 (French Army) is 9x3x2m
Jaguar (French Army) is 7.3x3x2.5
Coyote (Canadian Army) is 6.3x3x3
Freccia EVO Recce** (Italian Army) is 7.5x3x3
Fennek (German Army) is 5.7×2.5.1.8m
*Indicates vehicles that can carry a section but do not.
** Freccia family sizes, not sure if they retained the space for dismounts in the EVO Recce version or if it was filled up like in the Coyote with Sensors.
Modern Recce vehicles happen to be big, because they need to carry a lot of equipment. But also note that every major Western Army still identifies the need for some form of armoured Recce vehicle.
Something akin to Ajax is pretty good for a fighting withdrawl actually, hard to argue with a 40mm putting the hurt down against anything but MBT’s. Plus Warrior in the Recce role wouldn’t have had a section of dismounts on board. Do I think Ajax is too big? Probably. CVRT was a lot easier to hide, but the fact is you need an EW aspect to recce now, which means larger vehicles unfortunately.
Apache is not a good Recce asset, it’s the equivilent of using an MBT for Recce. You might be able to punch something in the face with it, but 1) you don’t want to loose it (which is easily done) 2) it doesn’t have the best situational awareness, 3) Is going to be needed elsewhere to actually punch. Recce in force is non-convert, but it’s still intended to gather information more than defeat/destroy the enemey.
Warrior is not a good Recce asset because it’s an infantry carrier not a Recce vehicle. You want to get the maximum effect out of a Warrior you need those dismounts, at which point you have a Infantry Battalion not a Recce screen (please note that Infantry Battalions, even Armoured Infantry ones, didn’t/don’t use Warrior as a Recce asset, they use CVRT, and yes an Infantry Battalion requires it’s own dedicated Recce sub-unit). So just “keeping Warrior” is not an answer here.
Size and weight. Thats the problem with a recce vehicle being asked to also fill a Strike role.
It’s a complete disgrace, I don’t know if the hulls are manufactured in Spain with final assembly in the forklift factor in Wales but looks like there is massive QC issues. Hopefully it’s a QC issue rather than something fundamental.
Not yet reported on this site but this is a major news story for the Army. The catalog of late armour programmes deserves a full parliamentary defence committee review, to get at the route causes of a long list of unmitigated failures. Thank God Boxer was there for the taking or else there would have been diddly squat! Is it possible that a huge increase in Boxer orders are likely if Ajax hits the wall??? Could a variant of Boxer do a similar job to Ajax?
Ajax is a terrible base vehicle for a reconnaissance platform. How we went from dropping Boxer, to replacing it with an inferior Piranha 5, only to pull out and replace with Ajax before going back to Boxer 18 years later deserves a lot of dis-honourable discharges from senior generals in the army. As I said on another post we have spent £4bn and only have 14 Ajax and 10 Warrior LEP test and evaluation vehicles to show for it. That would have delivered 500 Boxer had we not pulled the plug 18 years ago.
I can’t verify this comment but there are some suggestions that the original Boxer was growing in package terms and the Army was beginning to get concerned about where it was heading? Hence the cancelation? That of cause could be complete nonsense, but whatever the reason, the old FV432 family, CVRT, and original Warrior could be sticking around for a lot longer than planned?
Ii think you are right. Army wanted Boxer to be C130 transportable and it wasn’t going to be so was dropped first time around. As I recall that Boxer purchase was to replace residual FV432s and Saxon.
Yes, it’s my understanding that Boxer was growing exponentially and was ruling itself out of the FRES programme, on a number of predetermined Army parameters?
Actually serveral thousand officers promoted for their work on FRES and aforementioned projects.
Plus a lot of honours as well and some very tidy pensions and post service jobs.
The lack of actual working equipment isnt a problem because they’ve no idea what to do with the kit anyway.
But at least we can see where the Army has its priority,
That’s a colossal amount of money… and could have bought another carrier! Not that we need another one… Lol 😁.
Maybe the UK might look at the Korean Redback IFV if the Ajax problems continue. Same manufacturer as this K9.
Sure hope they sort this Ajax issue out asap before manufacturing any more! The Defence minister should be watching the people responsible for such poor performance and decision making on Ajax very closely and hold some people accountable whoever they are.
As I said above, it is only a matter of time before the British Army may have to look at other non-British armour if its own indigenous manufacturing continues to fail. I hate the prospect but let’s face it, increasing numbers of Brits are choosing to buy South Korean cars, due mainly to incentives but also increasing quality akin to the best European makes. So, buying their tanks may not be so illogical as it seems. Maybe this prospect should be considered by the MOD, if only to get UK companies to wake up and get smart again?
Saw the article, as far as I see it comes under the complete cluster f… cat. In many ways I do not understand the MoD, we had a good base to work from. The Alvis family of CVR(T) consisting of Scorpion 76mm gun, Striker Anti tank missiles, Spartan Armoured Personnel Carrier, Samaritan Ambulance, Sultan Command and control, Scimitar 30mm Rarden gun, Stormer Starstreak missiles and a flatbed version for the Shielder Minelaying system. At the time of construction this was a fairly impressive and useful family of combat vehicles. They alos proved to be very good in the export market with varients being sold to 16 countires. What we needed was a 21 century version of this family. Instead the MoD seemed to have gone of and tried to reinvent the wheel, and from what it looks like failed. Possibly and if need be we could do something diffrent that might get everything back on track (no pun inteaded). Could it be possble to fit tracks to Boxer, that way the modules could then be used for both the tracked and wheel versions
Yes, you are correct it’s a mess. Alvis was a leading light in the armour business……where did that golden goose go? Ajax is impressive to look at, but it’s your favourite aunty’s fat arse when it comes to concealment compared to Scorpion. To be honest Ron I’m lost for words.
The Alvis CVR(T) family was great and had stretch potential to grow in length to be Stormer and Shielder. Advised had previously produced the successful, Family of Saracen/Saladin/Stalwart.
We really got our moneys worth.
I am sure you know that Alvis bought GKN who had made 430s and then went on to buy Vickers Defence Systems who had made tanks, but Alvis Vickers Ltd itself was bthen bought by the huge BAE Systems, then the rot set in.
I agree. The number of times ‘replacements’ have been worse than that they replaced must be well into double figures.
Repeat after me. Ajax is not a tank
Yes, it is in a generic use of English.
Ajax is not a tank – it is a recce/strike vehicle. Neither is it particularly British – it derives from the Austrian-Spanish ASCOD vehicle and is being built (in UK) by an American company, General Dynamics.
Interesting that you reference 2030 – that is the ridiculously late date for FOC for CR3!
Same answer as Andy Poulton.
We should buy tracked and wheeled SP guns, to match the approprate BCT.
This look like its based on an M109, which is what we replaced with the AS90, which dates back to the 60’s and was used in Vietnam, so if thats the case, why cant the AS90 be upgraded.
We should have been upgrading AS90 every 7 to 10 years. No idea why we didn’t.
This is the reason the uks not gonna exit in the future. Excessive pride. Ya wanna know whats embarrassing? Having a navy smaller then italy. And guess what their not even an island!
They’re
Not my point
And how do you exactly measure the size of a Navy accurately? Given that the Italians do not have a nuclear capability in any shape or form??? Just asking.
What? Why does nuclear capabilities matter do you think 8 ship is enough for anti sub or 6 for air defence?
No, I dont think its enough for what we need, but, we have different capabilities to the Italians, or any other NATO navy actually. Perhaps that might be the reason why Uncle Sam comes to us for assistance when needed and not the Italians first!!
Just a thought of course, as is the fact that we are one of your closest allies and have been regardless of politics. Oh, the Italians are pretty good at football, better then we are, they’ve won the world cup more times then we have!!
finally a well thought out argument! also kinda disappointed by they’re 2018 performance though. but we lost to Croatia, so….
No and I’m sure the Italians want more platforms as well. No one ever has enough but it’s about capability and deployability and the RN are second only to the yanks. The French have quite a number of lower end “frigates” but you look at their capability and they are basically crap floating about.
You assume, incorrectly that because a T23 doesn’t have a tail it cannot do ASW.
That is 100% wrong.
Active sonar is a massively capable system for hunting subs in deep and also shallow littoral waters (where it is far better than a tail.)
2150 or 2050 has a phenomenal detection range even when environmental conditions are not ideal. I know I have done plenty of Casex’s where we held subs on 2050 at ridiculously long ranges, ranges that where far greater than the subs torpedoes range. It auto detects, gives you course, speed and profile of a target. It can also have a mine avoidance mode and a passive detection mode when required.
Pair up any T23 with a Merlin and then you are on a whole different level of ASW.. That said you can use a Wildcat and drop Sonabuoys if the receiver kit is on a ship, it will pick up the radio data and analyse it on board. You don’t need to do it on an aircraft.
A T23 has a Radar to detect aircraft, link, anti aircraft missiles, ESM… It can do anti air as well in the local air defence realm.
Its OC, operational capability that counts. For instance Link is a system that doesn’t make any headlines because it doesn’t go woosh or bang. However the ability to pass and receive Contact data from and to other units, surface, air and land based and not just naval but also RAF aircraft and other nations units is a massive capability. it allows you to have other units see what you see and to engage those contacts even if you are not holding them on your systems.
i never said the t23s weren’t capable but going forward 8 specialist and 5 fit for asw isn’t enough. And this is just the tip of the ice berg.6 maritime aaw platform isn’t. 2 for each carrier strike groups and a few for NATO isn’t enough. sky sabre is a massive step up on what we had before. but as labelled it is a short range air defence. and yes training does count but numbers do as well. and so do weapons system yes we have air defence and stuff but do we have ship launched anti-ship missiles? the ones carried by the helicopters are light anti ship missiles. and not doing the sensible thing and going for the LRASM which is gonna be ready early, we instead gone for a French one to “improve our relationships.” Diplomacy is impotent but so is arming our ships.
Short Range AD at 25+ Km is not short range.Thats local area defence ranged. A PDMS/ SHORAD with a 6Km range is short range.
With Ceptor now having a formally announced anti surface capability that also helps. The RN now has something that can reach out over the horizon and strike a vessel at Mach +2. Irrespective of the warhead size the kinetic energy and unexpended propellant will cause plenty of issues even on a DD/FF sized target. I would also surmise that it will top dive onto a target making interception a lot more difficult.
RN Ship launched ASM is currently Harpoon. It will be replaced with something ( announcement due soon?) in the interim that can do ASM , land attack and will be data link capable for switching targets.
Long term who knows what the RN will get.
Personally I doubt it will be the much prophesied Anglo/French ASM.
LRASM has been test fired from Mk 41. As we don’t have any Mk41 in service there is not a lot of point getting it….yet…and unless the USN buy it in the surface launch mode it remains a private venture by LM.
A more likely buy would be Block 5 Tomahawk. The infrastructure to maintain it is in place at the Ammo Depots from the Sub Launched version as is the expertise for the fire and target controller systems in Devonport.
Your question do we have ship launched anti-ship missiles?
For some reason folk keep posting this excrement saying the RN has no ship launched missiles ?? Frankly it’s very bizarre and one can only put this down to low information commenters.
even that pile O pish that is google will tell you the RN currently has Harpoon block 1C .
bottom line is the RN regardless of not possessing North Korean numbers of vessels ( which are all shite btw despite having 780 of them) is in the premier division of naval operators this is simple fact.
Always outnumbered Never Outgunned 👊🏼
🏴🇬🇧
We retired the harpoon. Its is now obsolete
Not quite obsolete in RN service yet.
https://www.babcockinternational.com/news/harpoon-missile-system-in-service-support-extension-agreed/
Wrong.
Its remains in service and is fitted to 2 x T23 on CSG21, the T23 in the Gulf and other units in the UK.
Its not as far as I know been given “obsolete” status which In the RN means that it no longer receives any support with regards to upgrades, spares or upkeep. The support contract was extended to cover it is not obsolete.
Usually out of service dates occur when there are issues with lifex components and the explosives. These can be examined and checked and given further life extensions. Its a risk management thing and is quite common. If the Lifex components are assessed as Serviceable and the explosives in the missile ( besides the warhead there are other items) are Serviceable they are given a new use by date and the missile can keep going in service.
The issue with it having only a fire and forget system isn’t going to change until the interim replacement comes on stream
Harpoon still in service…
Harpoon block 1c is extremely old & outmoded c1980s tech, if that. Should’ve been retired & replaced a decade or so ago but we have nothing yet to replace it with, so the MOD finally buckled & accepted retaining it a few more years until an interim AShM is decided upon, which they’re taking ages to do so. It’s better than nothing but not very effective against modern well equipped warships & our enemies all seem to have excellent AShMs that put ours to shame.
So it’s fair to say our escorts lack credible ship-sinking capability while our enemies & allies alike all have AShM capability. It seems we’ve a real flair for leaving our forces without essential kit in a string of abysmal capability gaps & failiures.
We have about about 32 000 km coastline to cover.
Luckily we don’t have to defend the actual coastline then.
They don’t have the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
okay and? at least they have anti ship missiles to fit their destroyers. admit it the Royal navy is too small.
Back in the day when nuclear powered SMs entered the scene, the 1st Sea Lord told the goverment that the SSN would be our main ASW/ASuW strike platform using torpedoes, and thus our ships didnt need ASMs. At one point we actually had some 14 SSNs and 12 SSKs in service, so the plan was ok. Now as we are down to 6 SSNs, the plan isnt quite so clever. As we cant really increase SSN numbers, we are having to shift our operational doctrine and arm our escorts accordingly. It all takes time, unfortunately.
The Royal Navy is to small.
What? And you think our navy is embarrassing? Wow nate you need to work work your day subject matter knowledge. The days of top trumps are long gone.
so you think 80 odd ships are enough to defend the 8th largest isle land on the planet. 80! okay to defend the 8th largest island! common on mate ur joking right? plus they don’t even have proper anti-ship missiles!
Please refer me to where I stated we had enough platforms on the Navy?? No ok, you can’t, therefore you need to understand the term capability. Have you ever heard of that old fashioned card game top trumps? Those days are long gone.
Guess the RAF wont help defend the UK, Cannot call the Army there kit is junk. GIVE IT A WOBBLE, were not in Nelsons times.
seriously mate 6 air defence and 8 anti sub isn’t enough we need more. if we can afford aircraft carriers surely we can afford destroyers and frigates right?
The carriers were ordered many many years ago, in fact 3 defence reviews ago. The Navy states it’s requirements going forward, taking into consideration cost and capability. Does any navy ever have enough escort platforms? Nope? However give me a T23 withe a Merlin in the air over ANY other ASW asset other than an astute. Get off the numbers game and look at what the RNs future strategy and thinking is.
Oh dear and you wonder why people misunderstand the subject. Quantity versus quality, capability, training, professionalism, projection and depth…where do you start?..hell yeah doubt theres a single poster on here that would argue against an increase in numbers in any tranche of our armed forces…but dont simply quote unit numbers as an argument…
Bingo.
okay so 8 asw in the future and 5 fit for it. 6 aaw. but if we add the the carriers into the equation and NATO. that 2 specialised asw platforms for each carriers and few for NATO. also 2 aaw for each carriers and and a few for NATO. that leaves 3 or 4 specialised asw, 1-2 aaw and 5 general purpose. oh also we don’t know what anti-ship missiles the destroyer are gonna get. but likely an Anglo-French one which might not arrive as scheduled.
If we add NATO in, as we should, then that also means European AAW destroyers and ASW frigates. A dutch AAW destroyer is helping to escort CSG21 as we write.
So not to be negative or anything. But shouldn’t we label it as a british led nato carrier strike group and not just “british carrier strike gorup”. And u can’t deny that becuse there are other countries contributed to the group especially the us who filled in the missing gaps in f35s. Which is not a bad thing by the way.
Why does any of that matter?
i don’t know sound like its all British and no other cooperation. so give the other countries some credits.
Why would it be embarrassing as a replacement for the ancient AS90? Do we not think the Koreans can build a decent SP gun?
Im sure the Koreans can do great stuff, although tailored for the environment and threat they face – as they have reality to keep them honest.
Embarassing for us because we spent a fortune on a new SP gun just 25 years ago, then did fk all with it, sqaundering its potential so that now we have to do it all again. Doubly embarassing because we now lack the ability to do it, because of the gross mis-managment of the capability.
So we will buy yet another foreign designed AFV for the British army, no doubt we will require many modifications to create an over specified bespoke version that will cost too much with significant time delays.
I am surprised UK Defence Journal hasn’t promulgated a story regards Ajax armoured vehicles which is in numerous news outlets over the past couple of weeks. You take a 30 ton design increase it to 40 tons and then wonder why it doesn’t performs expected.
When will the UK MOD ever learn, if you want to buy off the shelf then radically change the design it only ends up as fiasco.
The stories published this week where pretty shocking considering the program is 10 years old now. Looks like the army was keeping its mouth shut until after the defense review.
The Lynx 41 and Jaguar ebrc look like they will he in service before Ajax at this rate.
If the British army wanted a heavily protected 40ton plus AFV (and why wouldn’t they given the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan) then it should looked at the Lynx 41 or Israeli Nammer. Not take a 30 ton vehicle and ruin it.
2 x off the shelf Vehicles The UK military should of gone for. The Raytheon/Rheinmetall KF41 Lynx & Hanwha Defense/Oshkosh, Redback. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36177471/army-m2-bradley-fighting-vehicle-replacement-options/
We supply several of the Ajax components that could potentially be effected by the vibration resonence issues that have been reported, we have still not officially been told that there is a problem!
Its True, there is a problem with the suspension now overstressed, the test units are @ Boscombe, classed as track rattle n bang. AND it cannot reverse over a 0.5m obstacle. It’s huge warrior shit show. and due to the issues with CH2/CH3 Warrior and others heads are on the block, Army procurement is going to removed from the Armies hands.
What are they doing at Boscombe? 😀
We never learn to do any better. It seems to me someone along the line is raking it in, profiting from our inability to provide kit in time & on/close to budget. Nobody’s stamped this sort of thing out so it seems someone must be deliberately keeping this gravey train going. What is govenment for if not to avoid this continual failure & waste?
Well I heard the K9 was a bit of a Dog but , What do I know. 🤔
Well they have managed to sell 1,700 of them to several different countries so it can’t be that bad
Ermm, yes mate OK, I guess you missed the intended Pun 🙄
🙂
The original version weighed in at ca 20 tons. The UK version is double that. Immediate chassis/suspension/powertrain issues, major redesign etc. That’s the problem – MoD inability to buy anything off the shelf without messing it up……
Funny but a bit offensive. But its the truth so…
Ha…. “Offensive” you say ?………. It’s an offensive bit of Kit after all….. or am I Barking ? …. Hope I don’t get “Hounded ” on here for posting this….. Jeese guys, K9, Dog ? hello ?
Finally a human on this website. But to be honest the k9 is actually a good sph.
Lol…… I get called many things here……. Human Is what I am though !!!! I also like their Ships too….. Our Tides are top Class really.
Oh dear Nate you missed that one, but, may be hard for a computer algorithm to catch on to caps sarcastic but amusing posts…..
Pmsl…😁
Oh dear Nate, resorting to childlike name calling. I take it my comment went over your head as well… sigh! More time subject matter research, less silliness please.
i didn’t call you any names. your the one who called me a computer algorithm.
Sigh! This could go in forever, so I will make it plain and try to take out the expectations that people have a sense of humor….some of your posts come across like a bot, pre programmed with negative chuff,whatever, hence the computer algorithm dit! To make that seem less so go for research, research and yes research!
Okay I understand. But the royal navy is still too small and u can never change my mind on that. I also understand top trump stuff is over and agree that royal navy sailors have amazing training. But they lack ships and that the problem. If u look back at our history britiania used to rule the waves and now we don’t. Which is a shame really.
Er not one poster on here, including me, have ever said the RN has enough ships, so why would I want to change your mind? So do me a favour, respond to what I say, not what you think you wanted me to say.
Hanwha Defence seem to be expanding, as they are also competing in the Australian Land 400 Phase 3 against the Rheinmetall Lynx. Sadly British Army Armour renewal as been dire for the last 20 years. Sadly unlike the RAF and RN, the Generals and others lost focus, by concentrating on vehicles for the Sandpit, and whilst they were needed, they kept delaying making decisions on other projects. Look at Boxer, I was on that project in 2000, just before I left the Army, and only now are we getting round to buying it, having left back in 2005 ish. As for AJAX, who buys a vehicle at twice the size and 3 times the weight to replace the CVR(T) for the “reconnaissance” role
Certainly destroyed any chance of an effective military vehicle business in the process. Mind you the whole of British Industry suffered n similar fashion by having no long term business plan to create consistent business so the Govt and MoD are just part of the bigger historical British problem I guess limping from one unconnected order to the next and hoping for the best in between.
This is the core of the problem, lack of a strategic plan with 1500 vehicles being built every year to renew on a fleet basis.
the other big problem is the people involved in these debacles(nick carter) get promoted, not sanctioned.
if it happened outside of government he would have been fired a long time ago.. or should have.
he has done more harm to the British army than any enemy ever could..
Hang on, I’m thinking along the lines of Kensington Mothers and Chelsea Tractors on the School Run………. 😂
Do you think the armies in a better position than it was 21 years ago? Just out of curiosity by the way.
In some areas, yes it is far better. Bowman, SA80, MAN Logistics trucks, including Hookloaders and Fuel Tankers, but from a point of view of tracked vehicles, the short answer is No
It is time to get tough with defence contractors who fail to deliver. All of the risk is borne by the taxpayer and contractor failure just results in more money wasted to fix problems that should have been foreseen. I don’t agree that buying off the shelf is the best answer. That has been successive governments approach and it has failed. We need a state owned military vehicle manufacturer that can build and retain necessary skills.
In the meantime, stop further payments and if necessary pass an act of parliament to cancel failed contracts.
OK last time this happened was MRA4 and BAEs took out the UK Harrier Fleet in a act of vengence.
What did BAE have to do with the retirement of the Harrier Fleet ? That was the work of the UK Govt.
Exactly mate…… I saw “Dave” driving his JCB with a manic grin……… 😁
Huh ? 🤔
Before wasting any more time effort and money on any more never ending procurement programmes the army and gov need to sit down and seriously think through what its purpose is in a post brexit 21st century, with the Afghanistan Iraq cluster **** still so fresh in public memory no PM will be brave enough to deploy troops into combat anywhere for many years to come.
The army dreams up grand plans about deployable brigades, none of which ever are, or will likely be used this side of 2050.
It needs fresh thinking.
The IDR should have been visionary, instead it was validatory and disappointing, and locked in failure for the army for another >10 years.
JMHO.
You are right. Guys in my old regiment are walking, experienced NCO’s are fed up to the back teeth of equipment delays, inclusion policies and a general lack of leadership.
Always been the same mate……. Reckon we missed out on a result back in WW1 when Churchill met Hitler truth be known……… Had Winston had the right Weapon, he might have just been able to save Millions of otherwise innocent lives ……. 🙁
Personally I’d prefer we just sent our so called Leaders into Battle from now on, after all , It is them who start all the wars…… Can’t really see any point in Dying in massive numbers to save them any more…….. (I Know, It’s a bit left field but, you have to admit I’m right really…..)
it would funny to see Boris waddling along in the battle field.
Yeah, but give him a rugby ball and woe betide anyone who gets in his way…
Anyone under 13 years old…..!
Not a bad idea. They’d pretty soon realise how vital buying the right kit in good time is & what capabilities arte not optional. seems Western democracy is greatest at risk from useless, incompetant,3rd rate leadership.
Did we gain much more when we replace our older Artillery M107s and the M110s ,with the AS90 anyway as M107 had 155mm gun and still in service with other nations .
This is a perfect point. Why do we need to buy a new system? The US just updates their old systems. There is simply no need to buy new when we can improve the existing AS90 that is perfectly suited to the task at hand.
yes but they have a 60% chance of being delayed or cancelled. leaving the army with either older system or a new one thought up quickly in the space of 2-3 years. or no system at all for a good few years.
Sure the USA still using M109 ,like you say US just upgrade there system don’t think we really achieved much with AS90.
AS90 needs a new barrel and autoloader system, so basically a new turret. The lower hull and running gear are still ok though.
Oops, forgot to say. If AS90 gets the longer calibre barrel, the existing hydrogas suspension won’t cope with the recoil. The K9 initially used the AS90’s hydrogas system on their trial vehicles, but it kept bottoming out on recoil. So they developed an evolved version which is currently on the production K9. If AS90 was upgraded with the longer barrel, then the suspension will need upgrading too.
That has to be cheaper than an entirely new family?
And we can turn non upgraded ones into other variants (Recovery/Repair to partially replace CRARRVs where they dont really need that capability), arty command and logistics vehicles.
Looks like an M109 to my untrained eye?
I advocate the UK acquire the South African G6 155/52 Extended howitzer system from Denel. BAE systems used to have a stake in Denel (I stand to be corrected) and know the gun system well.
Yes!! The G6 is awesome, looks like something out of Mad Max!
To paraphrase Doc Brown, if you’re going to build a self-propelled howitzer, why not build one with style?? 🙂
and combat proven. Cost effective to operate & maintain!
If it is good enough for the Aussies……… They don’t buy junk.
Apart from Fosters and 4XXXX
Jacobs Creek wine 🤢
Foster’s is Australia’s joke on the world, no one here in Oz drinks it anymore, hasn’t been popular here for many decades!
As for XXXX, it’s a Queensland beer, it’s cats piss, all that extra sunshine in Qld fries their brains and taste buds too!!!
Cheers,
😂 …… personally, i’m tea total….. 😇
Yes we do buy junk:
Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters – we are now replacing them with AH-64E Guardian Apache. The MRH-90 Taipan fleet has also been very poor performers!
The M1A1 Abraham’s have been a good purchase for Army. I am confident the K9 Thunder and either the Lynx KF41 or AS21 Redback should be very serviceable. We are coming a long way back replacing our obsolescent M113AS4 APCs.
Good luck UK!
What are the chances of a split buy? A tracked SPG for the heavy brigade and a wheeled one for the light.
If based on the same gun, you would think that might just be the best way to go. No, I wouldnt hold out much hope for that outcome mate, sad though it would be.
The BAe Archer with its 52 cal gun has been fitted to a bespoke Volvo 6×6 vehicle, but also a MAN 8×8 truck. You would like to think that the recoil forces are taken up by the damper and recuperator within the gun carriage. If this is the case could it not be fitted to Boxer, but also say a Warrior hull. The fully automated turret is completely unmanned which cuts down on weight and volume. Food for thought…
The Archer 52 cal gun is a development of the AS90’s Braveheart upgrade.
Two different systems means two different training and maintenance setups. Means more cost. The Army has already got two many different land systems.
Hi Daveyb, for a while now I was thinking along the same lines – MLRS and a next gen tracked SPH for armoured brigades and HIMARS and a wheeled SPH for strike/wheeled brigades. But obviously that’s never going to happen…
Sadly, I think the Army has shrunk so much, and with all the problems with other vehicle modernisation programmes that have led to tracked and wheeled vehicles being mixed together (first Strike, with Ajax and Boxer yoked together, and now with the Armoured Brigade Combat Teams that will combine Challenger with Boxer), it’d be a tough ask to get the money for two types to do the same job, even tho it would give a great deal of flexibility for medium intensity expeditionary ops, while at the same time maintaining the classic armoured formation needed for NATO commitments in central/eastern europe. But if we’re now already mixing tanks with wheeled IFVs, then does it matter if the artillery be tracked or wheeled?
Tbh, the cynic in me would say we’ll be lucky to get anything the rate we’re going!
I have to agree, due in part to the Army’s and DE&S’s vehicle procurement and mismanagement over the last 30 years. The Army will be lucky to get a new system. I think the cheapest option (relatively) would be the BAe Archer system mounted on the MAN 8×8 truck. This would give the Army a fully automated fires system, that can shoot and scoot in less than a minute. It should also be able to keep up with the light (medium) brigade Boxers. It would be hopeless though, trying to keep up with tracked vehicles when crossing country.
However, the heavy brigade needs supporting artillery, which should be a tracked SPG. But the Army have shot themselves in the foot, not only agreeing to the manpower downsizing, but changing the procurement goalposts every 5 minutes.
Yeah, all very sad, esp when compared to the costs of developing modern fighter aircraft and warships, armoured vehicle procurement should be relatively cheap and straightforward! Yet somehow we’ve managed to make a pig’s ear of it.
Archer assembled by Hagglunds right? I could see it being a fair choice if wheeled was specified as a desired characteristic. It’s not as sexy as the G6, and doesn’t share the G6’s lineage as an offspring of everyone’s favourite mad scientist, Gerald Bull, but it’s cheap and will do a job. But like you say, it there would be serious questions about whether it could keep up with Ajax and Challenger cross country in central Europe, although the Swedes seem happy with it. I feel the worst case would be to go for a wheeled option just because, rather than picking it to fit a specific tactical doctrine.
I could see RBSL pitching a PzH2000 made in the UK, but would they have the capacity or would it have to wait until after the Boxer order is complete? Can the Army wait that long?
Tried and tested. Rules that out then!
Better to buy something that won’t work until its a decade late and billions over budget. That’s the MOD way.
Off the shelf good Replacement?. 8×8 wheeled self-propelled howitzer 155m CAESAR Nexter Systems truck with artillery systems Francehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjfKqpmKf_s
Yeah, seems that Caesar is particularly well adapted for harsh or mountainous environments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eccKuT_9Vzk&t=199s
Obviously they did great in Afghanistan and Iraq
The Royal Artillery tested the CAESAR years ago (with the french VBCI) didn’t choose it for some reasons I don’t know
Yep, i agree wheeled is the way to go, much cheaper and just as lethal. Artillery doesn’t need to be heavy armoured and tracked since it is operating from the rear. It needs to be quick and mobile to shoot and move. The real threat is from the air, and a K9 won’t make much of a difference then.
But for the UK, the BAE version of the Archer would make more sense to promote local jobs.
Not convinced by the proposed 155mm on a Boxer. Not sure an APC is most efficient platform for such a big gun, also more expensive to buy and maintain, which means less units.
My 2 cents
I wonder what the MPG is on the k9 compared to the nexter and archer systems. The generals were over in USA checkering out the current systems available and having a tracked artillery peace that can only be transport long distance Via rail is not the way to go. I think one of the wheeled systems fits in the a400m if not both. They area also looking at sticking a 155mm on a boxer chassis which will cut costs and training.
Should be at least considered, though I think any final decision should be saved for later considering the embarrassing state of Ajax, we have more pressing concerns then an AS90 replacement right now..
Ajax is a worry hope MOD get it sorted can’t afford to throw billions at it.😞
The planned size of the Army is just too small to support a constant stream of “homemade” kit which invariably nobody else buys leaving us with the development costs. We should just buy the best available off the shelf, and NOT let the MOD or Constituency MPs anywhere near the process.
We should ask if they also do tanks and APCs, maybe we could do a “buy two get three” deal?
They build the redback that is competing against the Lynx 41 in the Australian land 400 program. Ajax got booted out in the first round of the competition. I wonder what the Australians where able to spot in the initial trials that the army couldn’t find in 10 years. Ascod has been around 20 years and we were the first export customer despite cv90 winning every export competition they entered.
NOT an issue with me but I’m thinking the choice will be a wheeled 155 not tracks!
This is a world leading, proven system and a perfect off the shelf replacement for AS90 and that is the reason we won’t buy it. Ajax has some pretty serious problems so we’ll continue to throw money at it until we finally hit the wall………..
Let’s wait an see if Ajax issues are media rubbish or real
MOD/Army have acknowledged issues exist but are committed to resolving them. However, it appears these are unexpected issues arising from adding a lot of weight to the existing design which simply wasn’t intended to take it.
Bit of both, but I’m encouraged by the comments of one of our posters Ian who at least should actually know what he’s on about beyond speculation.
Has no one checked this stuff? 3 years ago I watched the company rep thslking about 8 tons of upgrade capacity! Hhmmm sounds like it
Hi Daniele, as I’ve said in other threads there are some issues but the audience on here shouldn’t forget (if they ever knew in the first place) that AJAX is still in it’s development phase. Trials are running concurrently in order to shorten the overall timeline. This process leads, inevitably, to problems during trials that then have to be rectified with the solution added into the production process. That is what the lurid headlines are referring to. It’s a fact that the troops on the ground are as anxious to get their grubby mits on this vehicle as the MOD/GD are to give it to them. Said enough now.
Cheers
Exactly. Trials are there to reveal shortcomings and iron out the problems. I seriously doubt that noise level and vibration is an impossible obstacle to fix.
Storm in a teacup.
👍
A tea cup that is taking many more years and pounds to fill. If this is your idea of a well managed development and procurement process then the UK are in serious trouble.
If its really that bad, then why don’t they fit the Soucy band tracks as they’re good up to 45t. The Norwegians had a pair of CV90s equipped with them in Afghan and they performed better then expected.
Watch Forces news ,sadly it’s real 😕
Just asking … does it really matter that the s.p.a is 10 or whatever years old, if it can still blow the hell out of a target 25km away?
Well it does when the enemy SPG can counter you from 40km away. Another option not mentioned is the Polish Krab, they took the AS90 turret added a 155mm 52 Cal gun, something we did then cancelled due to ammunition issues, from Denel I think, and simply dropped the upgrade, why not work with the Poles and upgrade the AS90.
To be fair, I was just being Sarcee. Best trained army in the world, most poorly equipped. Same ol, same old, goes all the way back to the 80’s … maybe even further.
If they dont get the Ajax issue solved , they will end up scraping it and just ordering more variants of the Boxer .
Why cant they buy somethng that is tried and tested by other countries and leave as is .
Personally sometimes an ‘off the shelf’ purchase is much easier, cheaper(?), and quicker in the long run. I believe there will always be an element of ‘national pride’ in designing and rolling out your own equipment, but with so few to choose from nowadays, here in the UK, it mostly ends up with BAE’s name on it.
I would just like the army to get a new piece of kit hat is delivered on time and on budget and works.. It’ll be the first time in about thirty years.
… and in sufficient quantity!
Absolutely. I had hoped that with ISDR some logic would have prevailed but here we are again with armoured brigades with questionable MBT’s whatever the outcome; Ajax running into it’s latest set of problems and a wheeled tin box with a pop gun on the top. It is very sad.
Having deleted Warrior (tracked), CVR(T) (tracked), most of C2 (tracked) and, as is now clear, wasted £3.5bn on soon-to-be cancelled Ajax (tracked), leaving only Boxer (wheeled) as the future of British infantry AND cavalry, if we now procure a tracked artillery piece the only possible explanation is that Mark Carleton-Smith is working for the Russians.
What? The Defence Review confirmed MoD commitment to Ajax. So no current plan to cancel it.
I would suggest that without a substantial redesign the Ajax programme cannot go ahead as it stands. The problems go to core of the design, it’s a 20 ton vehicle that has become a 40 ton one there is no easy fix. We would have to spend billions? To correct the issues with no guarantee of success
I know, I know but we already knew there were issues with the monocoque cracking, now we are hearing of inability to run it at more than half speed and limits on usage to protect users. No turreted version yet in sight and yet Boxer/Strike plan almost entirely reliant on Ajax to provide lethality. Ripe for cancellation I reckon. Even if it can be made to work, we seem to be going all in on wheels therefore totally illogical to buy tracked artillery, IMO
Hi all, having taught maintenance on AS90, I have to say an upgrade to the MODs requirement for a fully automated loading system would be beyond the capabilities of the 30+ year old AS90. An off the shelf buy is the way ahead here. Wheeled or tracked? Good question. I don’t have enough experience to comment.
Cheers
Ian M
Wheeled or tracked? Whichever is the lowest risk/cost option given the capability of modern wheeled vehicles are almost capable as tracked ones
Thanks for the insight. I’m only an interested amateur, but from what I’ve read, there seems to be a good case for choosing a wheeled platform over a tracked vehicle?
Apart from mobility, the reduced cost, cheaper and simpler maintenance requirements, plus improved airlift capabilities of a modern wheeled system, makes for a pretty compelling case in their favour?
Tracked has much superior mobility in off road situations, but the mobility gap between modern wheeled vehicles and tracked is closing fast.
In competition to select the new SV, which GD won with their upgraded ASCOD design, BAE said it was technically impossible to upgrade their CV90 design to the weight limits, 40 tons, demanded by the UK MOD. Which is why the much favoured CV90 lost the competition. It seems on this occasion that BAE was telling the truth and GD got it badly wrong.
If that’s the case then GD should be penalised for misrepresenting their product, especially as its not fit for use!
Best way forward, scrap Ajax and buy Boxers for the recce role with a proven off the shelf turret design.
Controversial point of view, but the UK MOD simply can’t be trusted to procure the kit the army needs.
Why did we ever bother with AS90? We already had a load of M109, the US are still using them decades later, could have worked something out where our ones get upgraded in step with theirs.
Though if the US Army takes the M1299 further/into service, well, BAE is going to be making it so why not. Hopefully whatever is chosen, be it the K9, M109, PzH2000 or whatever, it doesn’t get bloated to hell and back.
The M109 is a 1960’s design, updated admittedly. The crews I worked with hated the hydraulic traverse system and were sh*t scared of a high pressure leak if the hull/turret integrity was breached. Oil at 3000psi and hot is not nice.
I can remember when my Mum cancelled her order for Ajax and opted for Vim instead……. Just sayin.
Should’ve gone for Cillit Bang? 🙂
Yes.
Slightly odd that UKDJ has not posted the recent Ajax stories. I for one would prefer to hear from UKDJ and its informed posters on this story rather than the press.
UKDJ has a problem with posting negative news stories about the UK MOD, that why it can’t be considered a serious defence news feed.
Any suggestions?
As a serious source for defence news?
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/03/the-british-armys-new-ajax-vehicles-ride-too-rough-too-loud-report/
You spend a lot of time here regardless though, don’t you? We routinely post negative stories, if you want to see something then submit it.
I have hardly made any comments on this website for the 12 months, although before that I did make numerous comments.
If you wish to make a observation about my activity on here at least do your research first before making a comment on it.
As I said, which you seem to have proven with your childish comment, the UKDJ is not serious news feed for defence.
Mike, were doing just fine without your approval but thanks for the feedback.
It’s that sort of petulant comment that reinforces my opinion that it this is not a serious defence news feed. I wish you well and will not be commenting further on this website.
Have a good one Mike, I hope you find another free service run by volunteers in their spare time that you can have a go at. I mean, don’t let the fact we’ve posted dozens upon dozens of stories that are heavily critical of MoD procurement or discussions of Defence Select Commitee reports doing the same get in your way, that would be too easy.
We have day jobs, if you’d like to see something submitted then submit it. We work on a submission basis.
No criticism from me, the opposite I was wondering what your views are.
As far as I can tell, the K9 doesn’t do anything the Swiss KAWEST version of the M109 could not do over 20 years ago.
The MoD should have purchased the BAE M777 155mm towed howiters, to replace the L118 Light Gun, years ago like the US Army, USMC, also the Australian, Canadian and Indian Army’s all did.
Now the Royal Artillery, should be allowed to buy either SwedishArcher SPH wheeled vehicle or the Americian new SPH tracked vehicle, with long range fire capability of upto 80 kilometers too.
But we are talking about the British MoD, one of the worst departments of defence in the world, and well known for its failures and mistakes too!