The Ministry of Defence has confirmed its commitment to continue developing the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm Wheeled Artillery Systems (RCH 155) in partnership with Germany.
This announcement came in response to a parliamentary question posed by Andrew Rosindell, Conservative MP for Romford.
Rosindell asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the policy to develop the RCH 155 with Germany would be maintained.
Maria Eagle, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded affirmatively, underscoring the importance of the collaboration.
“Working with Germany through this landmark defence agreement to collaborate on the Boxer based Remote Controlled Howitzer 155mm Wheeled Artillery Systems (RCH 155), the Defence Secretary will build on existing cooperation, and develop this important programme to strengthen our respective artillery capabilities and promote shared national and European security objectives,” stated Eagle.
The RCH 155, also known as the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155 mm, represents an advancement in artillery technology. Developed and manufactured by the German defence company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), the RCH 155 was designed based on the successes of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 and the Donar artillery system. Utilising the Boxer chassis.
Specifications and Features
- Type: Self-propelled artillery
- Designer: Krauss-Maffei Wegmann
- Unit Cost: Approximately €12 million for initial orders
- Mass: Under 39 tonnes
- Dimensions: Length of 10.4 metres, width of 2.99 metres, and height of 3.60 metres
- Crew: Two (commander and driver)
- Armament: Main armament consists of a 155 mm calibre L/52 gun from Rheinmetall, capable of a firing range up to 54 km with enhanced projectiles. Secondary armaments include an optional remote-controlled weapon station.
The RCH 155 is not only powerful but also highly automated, designed to function with minimal human intervention.
Its automation allows for operations like firing on the move—a first for most howitzers—significantly increasing its operational effectiveness by minimising the time stationary, thus reducing vulnerability to enemy fire.
Operational Capabilities
- Engine Power: Equipped with an MTU 8V199 TE21 diesel engine, delivering up to 816 horsepower.
- Mobility: Can reach speeds up to 103 km/h on roads, with an operational range of 700 km.
- Ammunition Capacity: Carries 30 fused rounds and 144 modular propellants, with a maximum rate of fire of 9 rounds per minute.
- Protection: Crew protection against heavy machine gun fire, artillery fragments, mines, and equipped with NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection.
Interestingly, the builders say it is designed for future adaptations to be operated remotely, reducing the need for crew exposure in hazardous conditions.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Mmm perhaps it would have been a better idea not to let our SPGs go while the replacement is still in the development stage!
They are doing far more for us in Ukraine than sitting around the UK
My potential enemy’s enemy is my friend and is using my SPG’’ that I’m not using, to kill my potential enemies so they are less of a threat to me.
Meanwhile I’m buying better ones 🤷🏼♂️
OK so it’s a bit of poetic licence but it sort of sums it up.
Well you and Taffybadger have a point,but we are betting on a system that is not even production and still apparently has issues! Then there is the production time all the testing and trails that need done that will take years. Maybe we could have kept at least a Regt for our own emergency situations.
Its a point I’ve seen a fair few American commentators point out. We built a great deal of this equipment to fight a land war in Eastern Europe against the Warsaw Pact, with the understanding that a lot of our people were going to die. Now, with large volumes of that equipment nearing obsolescence or just unsuitable for future requirements, that land war has come knocking. Except that this time, we can simply give the equipment to someone else to use and knock out the Russian conventional threat, without risking our own people and with a far lower chance of… Read more »
indeed, the kit should be handed over as quickly as possible to be honest…Ukrainian victory is fundamental to European peace.
Its not like we are starting from scratch, there maybe some tweaks required but it looks like it’s pretty much done and dusted. Plus, with a crew of 2, it seems ideal for our manpower shortage!
I totally agree to strip all our 155 sp fleet as replace it with just 14 second hand archers is totally barking mad
No we bought archers to fill the gap which are immensely capable. We have already taken delivery of them
14 archers to fill the gap!! Not really the point though we have signed up to a as yet unproven system for delivery when?
yes yes yes, more word salad, are we going to buy it or not?
Are we actually going to be getting them and if so how many? You’d think around 150 units minimum required to equip regular and TA army units.
Well if it was previous government I’d expect 50 units, under this government, I have no idea, it seems Starmer at least is very supportive of a strong defence, we shall see what happens
It won’t equip all the regular army units, let alone the TA ones. I suspect the most we’ll see is 3 Regular Regiments and maybe one Reserve.
Crikey, what are you drinking? 150? The original requirement was less than that when we had more Regiments to equip. There are only TWO Regiments likely to receive this, three If we are lucky, without a serious and massive army reorg. 2 Regiments of guns, 1 RHA, 19RA, each with 24 guns in 3×8 gun Batteries. They might even cut and have 3×6 gun. So 24 or 18 per Regiment. I’d hope 4RA also gets an upgrade from LG, so that might be a third Regiment. Plus those for 14RA, which is the training Org at Larkhill, RATDU, a few… Read more »
Morning DM , what is your opinion on the Boxer artillery platform ? Do you think Archer better capability ?
Morning. Oh mate, I don’t know, I know zilch about capabilities vs differing platforms.
It, to me, looks top heavy and wrong. I’d prefer a more traditional looking tracked SPG.
Who knows, wheeled and firing on the move to avoid CB fire would be a game changer.
I’d like some honesty for once in procurement on what the military want, not politicians
.
Cheers mate do have same opinion some how it does look some what rushed 🍺
I hope they don’t go down to 6 gun batteries. But if they did that and equipped 3 regiments it would provide be a better option than 2 regiments with 8 gun batteries.
You never know they may just decide to keep archer going ( it’s a new modern system) so keep 19RA with archer and then 1RHA and 4RA with the new system..
I’d be happy with that solution. 1 RHA and 19 support the 2 ABCTs, so I’d have them with the new system and 4RA with Archer as it’s with 7 Bde, 1 UK Div.
That would be sensible and balanced one boxer solution RCH 155 regiment per Armoured brigade…and archers for 1st division.
A contract for three billion has been agreed
The Boxer based gun appears to be more nimble than the 10 wheeler on offer from the Piranha variant. One wonders if any orders will include the base vehicle or will the RA have to depend on general army stock? The initial order might be for complete vehicles to allow a speeded up trial and training period. The speed and agility RCH 155mm is very impressive in the latest videos and ‘Shoot and Scoot’ capabilities are encouraging.
I didn’t know MOWAG were offering a 10-wheel Piranha SPG for the UK MFP programme. Anyway, Rishi personally chose the Boxer RCH-155 in a political deal with Scholz. Not sure I understand your ‘base vehicle/general army stock’ comment. We will order (when the development is done) complete equipments from the manufacturer. Concerns that I have – lack of proper evaluation of alternatives ie political interference in due process, possible mobility issues in deep mud/snow/ice, possible top heaviness, small on-board ammo stock (only 30 rds), resistance to near-miss CB fire of tyres and chassis, heavy workload for a small crew of… Read more »
The reason for my question on total vehicle numbers was the interchangeability of boxer pods. I would imagine the base vehicle will be standard Boxer, or does the gun variant have unique elements resulting in total vehicle procurement? I doubt Germany would purchase this vehicle if it did not meet its strict requirements nor would the UK for that matter.
OK. I don’t know the answer to your question. But we are not buying a number of extra base vehicles (aka drive modules), upon which we could drop the seperatley ordered RCH-155 mission module (ie turret). We are buying complete Boxer vehicles across the board.
I don’t believe it is a standard boxer, reading it’s not something you will just add on as a module..even the cabin protection level is different….sounds like they are reducing weight by reducing protection to manage splinters from counter battery fire, not direct hits from 40mm kinetic and shaped charge.
Interesting, so the UK may get another 50? complete boxer vehicles on top of the 600 already on order.
It’s worrying that it is still ” in development” when we ate told by Army staff and some politicians that we are three tor five years away from war. Yes it may be excellent, yes it nay earn UK PLC a share of export potential but we have very little left. K9 initially from Korean Stocks and then Uk assembled is already a product being sold. Bae are already supplying new M109s to the US army. The Krab turret was designed to fit AS90 Hull. Yes we hear lots of ” but the other systems aren’t as good”. Yet the… Read more »
My thoughts exactly. We could be 1 year from a war against a peer adversary and Army have meekly accepted a massive capability gap in hope of a 2030s VunderVeapon.
We have a now requirement so we should buy a now platform
It would be interesting to see if a Bofors Tridon Mk2 on the back. Also, which versions are the UK currently procuring?
RAF regiment needs its air defence role back, utterly strange it was taken away from them and into RA only
The naval and sub ports should alsp have some protection too. The UK can’t afford to lose such few key naval assets it has in any conflict. And build an additional naval port up near Edinburgh for speed onto station in North Sea and far North.
Not to me. Typical Labour defence cuts of the period when we were fighting enemies with no air assets.
Or adapt the existing CT40mm for AA, which the French are doing off the back of their trucks.
Far better to collaborate on an ongoing un proven design than buy something that exists and works eg Bae. Much more in keeping with out tremendous procurement record to date.😉
The most important point is that we buy EXACTLY the same version as the Germans. We must NOT let the MoD and the Brass-hats start fiddling around with the spec or demanding the “buy British” claptrap.
But it HAS to have the hot water boiler for tea!
And a mini fridge for the milk..LOL
So we are collaborating on the development and therefore contributing towards costs. Ergo does that mean we are getting a reduced price for end product purchasing?
Hate to see UK money simply going to a foreign armaments conglomerates profits.
There is currently no gun production capability in UK. Much less development.
Topic is not w/in my wheelhouse of expertise, but curious whether a two man crew would have the same degree of resilience under combat conditions as a traditional AS-90 crew? Examples of tasks might include clearing jammed weapons and/or continuing operations after sustaining casualty(ies)? Dunno, simply musing…🤔
Many non-gunnery tasks for the small crew. Radio watch, vehicular servicing and level 1 maintenance, camming up and decamming the vehicle, re-ammunitioning, refuelling, attending Orders Groups, local ground sentry duty. It most certainly will be an issue doing gunnery and non gunnery tasks with just 2 crewmen…and the army doesn’t work a shift system within an AFV.
I heard it often said that a reason why we were never that interested in having an autoloader for a tank, was the loss of the fourth crewman to help with all these tasks.
Thanks for the input! 😊 One wonders whether the British Army has fully considered the implications. 🤔
The Army probably has, but the politicians haven’t.
😁👍
My bet will be that every battery will have a TCV with a few extra bodies for stagging on.
🤔🤞
All M107 and M110 had a Bedford allocated in the British army
Still do, just a Man SV, in the BHQ for the BQMS AFAIK.
The British Army will be well aware of the implications – but they didn’t get to do a full and proper evaluation of all of the possible alternatives. PM Rishi Sunak forced through Boxer RCH-155.
Understood. Sometimes one gets the elevator (lift), other times the shaft. 🥴
Sometimes our politicians meddle too much in procurement.😁
Archer is autoloader there’s no manual backup doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling
Yes, I’ve heard that before. Let us hope Swedish engineering is top notch.
I’m afraid I’m not that convinced
If I can add, will the wheeled based Boxer’s be able to survive bomb, shell shrapnel blasts, even cannon fire into their tyres? How come no tracked in the mix at all? Why are other countries still ordering tracked, like the US with Paladin, Aus & some European, the K9/10? They must have different thinking on this. Having a mix covers both bases. Is the UK overly focusing on speed and manoeuvrability and some how that means more survivability?
This might be silly as, but if this gun is as good as its said to be, they could develop a lightweight naval mount for it? With a range up to 54 km this is precent decent and with a compact turret mount. It might give the BAE 5″ a bit of competition.
I work at the royal school of artillery I’ll believe it when I see it parked in our gun sheds in the meantime we should be retaining at least a regiment of As90 I’m afraid 14 second hand archer just doesn’t cut the mustard
Isn’t 3RHA ? with the Estonia BG still with AS90 at the moment?
Until March next year its 1rha
👍
3 RHA has MLRS now mate.
👍 never was much good with numbers😂
Me neither mate, my maths is naff 😀
Totally agree. How many AS90 are left now? In Regts and in the Trg Org?
We hold six at the school of artillery there’s six in Estonia there should be at least another thirty floating around the army . 1 rha had to use the school equipment to train for Estonia because they physically have no guns
Thanks David. So c.36 AS-90s. Plus 14 Archers if they are all in UK now.
Tragic!
If 3 Div had to go to war in the next few years, it would be sunk.
Currently Graham As90 is going out of service next March so the only 155 the British army will have is 14 second hand archers so unless someone in authority puts a stop on and retains a regiment worth plus training fleet of As90 we shall be up the proverbial without a paddle . We actually are finding it difficult already to get parts
Yes, of course David. Senior moment on my part to overlook that.
It is unbelievable. A significant army such as ours with just 14 x 155 artillery guns. 3 Div will not be able to deploy. We will be the laughing stock of NATO.
The timeline for this goes all the way back to around 2007 2008 time frame. 6 Regs of AS90, down to 5 as 19 Mech Bde went to 19 Light. 2010, 7 Armd Bde and 4 Mech Bde reformed as infantry Bdes, so down to 3 AS90 Regs. Then the cuts as part of Strike, with 26RA converting to MLRS as part of that ridiculous musical chairs fiasco when MKRS went from regimental to batteries in other regiments then back to a regiment, but neatly removing another regs worth of AS90 in the process! Now we give the reminder to… Read more »
It’s a laughable fiasco totally
Thanks mate. The musical chairs thing is not, as we know, restricted to the artillery. It is hard to keep track on the number of AS-90 gifted to Ukraine. I have seen figures of 32 (20 runners and 12 wrecks) + a further 10 and also of 60. If we really come down to zero AS-90s and 14 Archers, before RCH-155 kicks in then we really won’t be ready for that war that is 3 years away! A new CGS doing a speech to RUSI needed to say something positive, upbeat and even a bit impressive – but without speculating… Read more »
Apparently, MoD/British Army hierarchy is emphasizing expeditionary mobility, virtually to the exclusion of every other consideration. Not certain, but isn’t this concept somewhat reminiscent of the WWII BEF? The Wehrmacht’s blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and the Ardennes rather disproved the hypothesis.
Uncertain of the validity of this comparison, certainly willing to consider alternative perspectives.
The British Army has largely always been expeditionary, although the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) perhaps strangely was considered to be a home posting. Domestic operations have been few and far between, the most well known being Op Banner in Northern Ireland – and other domestic deployments have been small scale and low key such as support to Other Government Departments. But it is the mobility point that you mention. We invented the tank and depoyed it in 1916 on expeditionary operations with the BEF in WWI – and again deployed warfighting forces including heavy equipment with the BEF… Read more »
Thanks for the tutorial, it was beneficial. 👍 The point I attempted, but failed, to make w/ my previous post is that w/ only 14 Archers and (eventually) 148 CR-3 available, the British Army should be very judicious re its selection of foes, over the near-term. 😉
Thanks. These figures are totally tragic, when you consider we had 179 AS-90s (and of course other artillery assets) and also placed orders for 386 CR2s in the post-Cold War era.
Of course it is not the British Army that ever selects its foes – it is our ruling politicians who will be required to deploy forces on NATO ‘call-outs’ and will also be minded to deploy forces in ‘Coalitions of the Willing’ as led by the USA.
🤔😳😱☹️ Shouldn’t someone be writing open letter editorials in influential newspapers? Contacting local PMs?
I’m sure someone in authority probably is fully aware of the situation there’s people higher up the food chain than I at the school of artillery that know the score
…MPs? 🙄
MPs, you probably mean – we only have one PM – Mr Starmer.
Sadly no-one is very interested in our lack of artillery. Not Joe Public, not the Tories, not British Industry.
Don’t forget CGS words, twice as lethal by 2027! With half the firepower, or less, re 155mm.
The only thing that is lethal is ‘enemy forces’ – ie a beancounter with the ear of the PM and a sharpened pencil, ready to cut once more.
Well now we’ve got 14 Archers which is a ridiculous number I think we’d be better off sticking to more of these platforms it is a good weapon system.For Boxer think it was a quick fix Sunak deal to be nice to the German government.And like I’ve said before is Boxer artillery platform really what the Army want ?
A 155 howitzer that fires on the move is pie in the sky the balancing system alone would fill that turret and the firing forces on the turret ring would be immense
The manufacturers say that it does have that capability. See video from August 2021 – https://esut.de/2021/08/fachbeitraege/ruestung/29196/rch-155-kmw-zeigt-schuss-aus-der-bewegung/
Six of those 14 will be in Estonia to replace AS90 that leaves 8 with 19 regt what’s 1 rha going to do sit on their hands
Will need 2 for the Trg Org (RA and REME)
We don’t have a gun shed in rsa / 14 that will take archer it’s about 48 feet long
That’s interesting.
There’s no plans as far as I know to alter the infrastructure at the school of artillery to accommodate archer and regarding mlrs we don’t have enough for two regiments the mod has procured some from norway and even the mlrs gate guard at Rsa has been bought back into service
I had not expected that comment! Looks like the ILS process went askew!
The newer Rheinmetall version is only 43 feet!
I’ve read a suggestion that 1 RHA may convert to MLRS. With the expansion of Deep Fires where are the extra batteries coming from? I’ve mentioned That a few times, the Army is not being forthcoming despite much fanfare on MLRS expansion.
So just use existing and MLRS Regs become 3. For now? How much retraining would be required?
3 Rha are already converting to mlrs
I know mate, I said 1 RHA, the AS90 outfit.
3 RHA I understand has 2 fire batteries, like 26. I was expecting a 3rd fire battery for each, but if they’re not taken out of suspended animation and reformed where else do the additional MLRS go.
Which is why 1 RHA has been suggested as they’ll soon no longer have any guns.
Fair enough but there still isn’t enough mlrs the Norwegian ones are being stripped of norwegian stuff before shipping for conversion to gmlrs the only guns 1st have now are the six in Estonia.
Sounds like the army is out of control of artillery-related events. Too much happening fast by politicians (gifting a lot of AS90 and some MLRS(?) to UKR; deciding to buy Archer as an interim; quickly opting for Boxer RC-155 before full evaluation of alternatives and before said Boxer SPG is fully developed).
The army never really got a chance to fully and comprehensively evaluate all of the alternatives to Boxer RCH-155. Sunak chose our next SPG.
“continue developing” that is the worrying part of it
Indeed. It seems like the Germans have already done most/nearly all of the development. KMW produced a protoype RCH-155 turret in 2021. Firing on the move demonstrated in Aug 2021. Evaluated by the Bundeswehr a couple of years ago.
We Brits need to integrate British radios and a BV!
most important part being the BV!! It seems the Americans now have a smiler item of equipment now
Yes, it took the Americans many years to put a BV in their tanks (and to put an aux engine in to do silent watch).
I think we fitted BVs from the late 1940s as a result of WW2 experience, and not just in tanks. I think all British AFVs have BVs?
I had one fitted to my 24v FFR Land Rover!
i think they have been fitted to a wide range of vehicles. pretty sure even the lorries have then fitted now. i will try to ask some one who worked for me as he was a vehicle electrician in REME
I’d be interested. Your mate was a REME VE? He must be an ‘old sweat’ – we phased the trade out some 20-30 years ago. Since then VMs do a VE module in Basic Class 3 trade training (ie Phase 2 trg) and more later.
Not a good idea to have phased out VEs as vehicle electrics and electronics have grown in complexity etc massively over the years.
I had a chat with him. he has been out for 30 years + so it was all very out of date. However he said the BV was a life saver and on exercise you learnt pretty fast that it was a good way to keep in everybody good book if any faults with them were fixed them ASAP. He could only remember them being on AFV vs Land Rovers as the current draw was a lot and required good battery’s. Also said he could remember the yanks have portable Coke Cola machines on exercise in Germany !!
Thanks Simon. The current drawn by BVs is colossal. My LR could power one as it was a 24V FFR vehicle, but of course it was not a standard fitment on a LR. Never heard about the Yanks’ Coca Cola machine – mind you – we did not exercise with them in Germany as they were CENTAG and further south than us in NORTHAG.
This can be very good news, if they order in decent numbers— 150 guns +— and they can get them produced quickly enough to be in service within a couple of years.
But these are huge caveats, with budget concerns and the current glacial build rate of Boxers.
We ordered 179 AS-90s towards the end of the Cold War. You think MoD would get funding to order 150 replacements? My guess is well less than 100.
I’m questioning how quickly they are going to be able to produce these when they’ve finished development. AFAIK, they’re struggling to produce enough Boxers as it is. Unless they are going to open an additional line for these?
You’d think that will be needed. The build rate of Boxers so far has been incredibly slow.
The Germans ordered Boxers built in Australia so their own manufacturing capability can’t be great.
Will have to wait and see how well the Telford site spools up.
The MOD’s description of what seems to be a straightforward overseas purchase as “continue developing the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm Wheeled Artillery Systems (RCH 155) in partnership with Germany.” appears a bit disingenuous.
Where and what is the UK component of this collaboration? What is its value and is UK industry involved (and how)?
At least, the Swedish maker of the Archer is owned by a UK company.