On 21 January 2025, James Cartlidge, MP for South Suffolk, raised two written questions regarding the procurement and potential lessons from the use of the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) by the British Army.
Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, responded with insights into the collaborative approach between the UK and Germany.
In response to whether Germany’s decision to provide the RCH 155 to Ukraine would affect the UK’s certification process, Pollard stated:
“The Mobile Fires Platform project will deliver the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) Calibre Wheeled Artillery System through a jointly led collaborative procurement between the UK and Germany.”
He further confirmed:
“The project does not anticipate any direct impact to RCH certification following Germany’s decision to provide Ukraine with RCH 155.”
Pollard elaborated on the importance of the collaborative procurement process, noting:
“Underpinning the collaborative approach of the UK and Germany is the commitment to exchange project-related information that may afford a deeper understanding of the capability, to inform wider integration considerations.”
Cartlidge also asked whether lessons could be drawn from the RCH 155’s deployment in Ukraine. Pollard highlighted that this collaborative framework may include assessing “potential lessons from the training and use of RCH 155 by Ukraine.”
The excellent BFBS Forces News youtube channel has just uploaded an outstanding vid covering the roll-out of Ajax to the Royal Lancers and the Queens Royal Hussars.
Its seems that Ajax has been worth the wait
👍👍
Ah, cheers mate, I’ll have a look.
See, told you!
😉
Ian! I actually thought of you when I read David’s comment!
We are getting somewhere with it at last. As I have said before, YOU are the SME on this issue and that is good enough for me.
Have a pint.
Dunno if you saw it, or if army technology is a reliable source, but they’re saying that the order for the UJ might be up to 200-250 modules. Seems mental imo. If the M270 increase happens, would the British Army have ever had a more lethal artillery park?
Also worth looking on the ‘Army Technology’ website. They seem to suggest the UK’s order for the RCH -155 could be bigger than we thought. Thales are also going to pitch the Bushmaster (Land Protected Mobility – Medium) for the British army. Anyway two interesting articles to read.
Had a watch, nice production. The soldiers like it. Some of the comments on Youtube are so wrong and misinformed they are hilarious.
cheers
Sometimes I’ll look at Youtube comments just because of how stupid so many of the commenters are.
Same with any Facebook post I see about the Royal Navy – first comment is almost always how the ship (whatever type it is) needs to be in the Channel to stop the dinghies.
Hilarious how dumb some people are.
Yes the whole well it’s cannot stop a dingy..or the RN needs to be in the channel comments are alway ridiculous. It’s amazing how some people are unable to grasp the fundamental differences between boarder forces/local enforcement forces and navies.
10 million for an Ajax Scout!
Daniele, I am sure that BAES’ CV90 recce variant would have been far cheaper!
It looked the part. What do I know?
That ship sailed. Our own product as well….
Agree it probably is
Someone has kidnapped David Lloyd, clearly this is not him as he is saying nice things.
Collaboration in this case means buying German kit off the shelf with some bits made in the UK.
Sunak signed us up to this gun without the input of the RA! ‘Off the shelf’ has been the mantra of some on here so what’s it to be?
Good point, You are caught between buying an off the shelf (ish) design and buying a bespoke design and the costs of that. then you get people complaining it isn’t built fully in the UK.
Well said I always said it’s a Sunak deal . When has Sunak been a expert on Artillery, frist point of call British Army . Not a deal to make himself look good and to keep the Germans happy . 🙄
Well when people gripe about the army not doing procurement don’t be surprised when politicians take it into their own hands.
Fair point. Looks a good system to me, it can fire on the move u like most if not all others.
On a wider note we destroyed a national capability to produce indigenous platforms like this so we are where we are, but like so many other Countries we need to use programmes like this to gradually re-establish uk design and development capabilities but we seem to be a little laissez-faire on such matters historically in the name of just getting supposedly cheap timely deals on occasion, not that we generally ever get that in the end mind. Poland seems to be getting it right presently and that’s effectively in an emergency scenario for them. We will be going to them in a de ade to buy stuff no doubt.
Grinch, the non-artillery Boxers that we have ordered in 2 Tranches totalling 623 vehs are all, bar the initial small batch, being made in the UK. Why are you so convinced that RCH-155 will be made in Germany?
The drive modules will be made in the UK, the guns & turret in Germany. I don’t see that as collaboration in any form except a politicians spin.
I don’t care where it’s built – as long as it works and is good value. We can’t keep hobbling national defence by demanding special unique kit that only sells to UK forces in small quantities for ludicrous cost. MoD should not be a jobs programme propping up defence contractors who can’t otherwise survive. If the Government want an industrial strategy they should create one rather than hiding it inside defence procurement.
On the contrary: Every £ spent on foreign equipment is a £ that doesn’t return to the UK economy, turning into a long term loss, as well as a loss of strategic autonomy. Defence Procurement is 100% linked to a jobs programe, and the amount of “bang” you get for any individual purchase needs to be carefully weighed against the benefit to the UK economy of spending that £ at home.
Not sure on Boxer artillery platform think it’s a quick fix has not originally planned as Artillery system. But hopefully it succeeds it would of been Archer for me personally. 😏
There is clearly a support advantage in having just one platform, Boxer, for the MIV and the RCH-155.
True but as per conversations on another page, you end up with a SPG that has to withstand direct 30mm fire, instead of just splinter proofing.
Andrew, Boxer RCH-155 has undergone quite a bit of development in Germany. The German Army evaluated the platform in 2023. However Sunak told us that it needed further Anglo-German development.
I have always been an Archer fan, but mounted on the Man Hx chassis, as it would allow the longer 57 or 62 cal barrel. I thought the Boxer RCH was a rushed project, that it was too tall and unwieldy. Yet after learning and seeing the RCH firing on the move, this has changed my opinion of it. As far as I know the RCH is the only SPG that can do this, which is an absolute game changer for shoot and scoot tactics and artillery survivability in general. I still think the RCH is too tall, it is too tall for a Herc for example, but can just about squeeze in an A400M or comfortably in a C17. I understand the maths of how it can fire on the move, but it still looks wrong firing without stabilizing jacks.
The litmus test will be RCH being operated in Ukraine against the Russians. The Archer with the Volvo chassis has been doing sterling service according to the Ukrainians, will Boxer RCH do the same? Ukraine has supposedly ordered 54 Boxer RCHs, with the first 5 or 6 staying in Germany to train the Ukrainian gunners how to use it. It’s expected to be in service in Ukraine later this year, though Ukraine are being sketchy about the exact dates for obvious reasons.
Sweden has ordered 48 Archers on the Man Hx chassis.
Any rethink of also getting a tracked spg system for a mixed fleet or is it still an “all wheeled” solution? Many allied countries are still going for tracked including the US and Australia and India are building the K9 under licence.
Sunak selected the RCH-155 to meet the MFP programme to replace AS-90. The army was not permitted to assess in detail other options, such as K9, by physical evaluation
Absolutely bonkers and blinked to not even listen or to get any input from the Army who are the end users! Maybe getting feedback from Ukraine and seeing our allied acquisitions might or might not, have some influence with this and future decisions. I’m just a man in the street but this RCH155 looks totally top heavy! A big torso with skinny legs…LOL.
Even Vietnam has just ordered the K9! Nice and close to S Korea. See Janes, 23rd Jan.
Firing on the move is not an acurate way to provide fire support its unlikely to be put into practice especially on spta there would be rounds dropping all over the place
Arguments regarding the wisdom of which gun system would be preferable miss the key point here – i.e the fact of the matter is that AS90 is all but out of service with the British Army – donated to Ukraine. So, as I understand it, our tube artillery park will soon be reduced to a few recently delivered ‘Archer’ wheeled 155mm systems and old towed 105mm light guns of very limited effectiveness on the modern battlefield. While it has is blindingly obvious that the Ukraine needs everything it can get at the moment I don’t really understand how any of our mechanised brigades can be considered combat ready when there is so little heavy artillery available to them? Yes we still have MLRS and are investing in the modernization of these weapons, but tube artillery is still a vital battlefield capability is it not?
We need new 155mm artillery and we need it yesterday.
Moonstone, Many consider the artillery to be the ‘God of War’ – certainly the Russians do. Yes, a mix of large numbers of tube and rocket artillery is vital, and always has been.
Our two armoured brigades (or BCTs if you like US terminology) have no permanantly assigned artillery. Within 3 Div, it is all in 1 DSR Brigade. However for specific operations armoured brigades may be assigned some of that artillery in support.
Hi Graham, regarding current arty dispositions, what’s your opinion on best setup?
1) Siloing all guns in DSRB as per future soldier plans
2) assign rgts to brigade level to give organic fires
3) retain at divisional level, and assign to bdes when and where needed (which I believe the US Army has reverted to, after post-cold war decades of arty embedded in BCTs)
And as a follow-on, what is the purpose/expectation of DSRB? Is it supposed to self-deploy as a self-contained, coherent combat formation? In which case, shouldn’t it have some infantry support and other enablers? Or is it a brigade of convenience, acting as an in-theatre sustainment brigade that can provide divisional HQ with recce and arty where needed to support the combat brigades?
Hi Marquis, I cannot add to anything in Dern’s answer. It all makes perfect sense.
Artillery regiments are rarely held directly at divisional level (in the US Army they are grouped into an artillery brigade which in turn is assigned to the division). In practice having your artillery grouped in a DSRB or Artillery brigade allows the divisional commander some flexibility with their arty that they might not otherwise have (eg he can easily assign 2 regiments to a brigade, or focus on deep effects while his brigades are not fighting in the divisional close). The downside is the working relationship isn’t as close between an artillery regiment and it’s habitual brigade commander. (On the plus side you elevate artillery as a career path as you create more opportunities for artillery COs to become 1*s).
DSRB has 3 basic components,
1 Find and Screen – 2 Ajax, 2 Jackal and 1 STA regiment, whose job loosely is to fight for information and deny enemy that information. Effectively this the old BAOR screening force.
2. MLRS – 3 regiments of rocket launchers, these support the Find and Screen (along with air assets) and are probably more at the divisional commanders discretion.
3. Guns – 3 AS90/Archer/RCH155 regiments habitually support the AI brigades but can be used by commander DSRB/Divisional command if deemed needed.
In a lot of ways it’s similar to an old US Army cavalry regiment (which consisted of 3 “recce regiments” an “mbt regiment” and an “artillery regiment” (not really it actually had 3 identical battalions, but each consisting of recce, mbts, and artillery in those proportions)) with an artillery grouo mixed in. It’s should be able to fight, and either delay or hold ground, but not to the same extend as a full fat brigade.
I’ve said elsewhere I’d like to see the split formalised, with a Cav Group and Arty Group within the brigade for easier control, and one of the Jackal regiments on Cr3 to emulate the more fighty oompf that the American armoured cav used to have… but the concept isn’t completely out of left field (Also more drones, the brigade is a perfect place for drone troops imo).
All power to that.
Hearing rumours that 1 DRSB might get a twin, with 11 ditching the SFA and doing similar for 1 UK.
Their own Logistic regiment would be handy?
I cannot see how relying on the 2 Transport Regs with 101, and a single one in 102, is sufficient.
So 2 Divs. 12,20, 1 DRS. And 4,7,11 DRS. 6 Bdes, all with enablers, would be the ideal.
16AA goes back to independent status.
What gets cut to achieve that if there is no increase in headcount, which apparently they’ve confirmed?
I don’t know the establishment of CSS formations vs an Infantry Bn, if they ended up cutting 4 or 5 of the non SFA ones as well.
I’ve not heard ang rumours but I’m siloed and focused on my little bit of tbe army. I’m guessing 11 would get both 4 and 7’s light cav. Re roll 3 infantry battalions into artillery (no way would Irish guards be re rolled).
CSS regiments size varied by role. Med was usually in the 300 pax range though, maybe less if they only had 4 Squadrons, so smaller than most infantry units.
Thanks mate. So IF they cut say 4 Light Infantry rolled Bns, plus some of the smaller SFA ones, we might be able to generate something if the likes of RE, RA, RLC, RAMC Regiments are for the most part smaller than a standard LI Battalion?
I know you’ve then asked “Who?” given the roles they already have, but that’s another question.
A thought. Your outfit, I think you were serious when you said 2Y the other month, apologies if I read you wrong.
Of course, the E&TG Bn with LWC. So a single Battalion for the wider army in role.
Could there also be a Bn with the SFA, mentoring role, rather than using 4 small Bns in a “Brigade” ? to keep the skills. I understand the Army did it for years on a more ad hoc basis with the BATTs?
Make it multi Infantry Cap Badge so people from other Regs could go in to it?
Is such feasible?
My outfit? I’m pretty sure my outfit isn’t going anywhere 😛
Thanks Dern for the comprehensive reply, and sorry for the delay in responding, makes the DSRB concept much clearer, and quite far away from the Strike Brigades concepts of Army 2020, rather bewildering to think of what has happened over the years…
I can see how adding drone units into DSRB as you say would build on its capability – i guess bringing them in would make DSRB quite large with a lot of different types of units with their own needs, so it would be a trade off between admin/logistical complications versus ever closer integration between the different recce and deep fires units and the benefits that would bring…
They is one future kit purchase that doesn’t quite fit. Which is the mobile 120mm mortar system. Be that the Ajax version with the Patria Nemo breech loading mortar, or the lighter version mounted on the back of a Supacat HMT/Foxhound type of vehicle. Where will this fit within the Army, as traditionally the 81 mortar is a regiment asset and not RA. The 120mm mortar kind of fills the same role as the 105 light gun. Where with the rocket assisted and guided “bombs” the 120 can nearly match the 105 for range and effects. Which would then put it in the RA territory.Be interesting to see which kit gets picked and who gets to play with it?
There was talk of replacing 105 with 120mm mortar when I left the army 20 years ago and we still have 105mm now
Surely the most basic lesson learned from the Ukraine war is that we don’t have anywhere near enough artillery of any kind!
However many RCH-155 Boxers we’re planning to get, we should at least double it. That’s got to be the most basic lesson learned, surely?
Russia don’t do air superiority.
Their tactics from the wrong century.
The same guff gets shared on every thread here, every time.
With the tiny size of our air force, neither do we!
It’s still a valid point, though. All of our artillery (actually, this applies to everything!) is so small in number that a few losses would be disastrous.
We don’t have any depth or ability to sustain losses in our forces.
…and quadruple the barrels planned for inventory
240 units for us?? In your dreams. 24 more like!
Between 60 and 90.
TBF it looks like it might be in the 200 range, as ARTEC is talking about having a 400 unit order from the UK and Germany, and Germany don’t want more than 200.
If true that would mean there is substance to the talk of ‘doubling the lethality’ of the British army.
I hope we are not just buying them to gift to Ukraine.
The original FMF was for around 90 to 110 guns, if I recall?
Then, 4 Regiments. 1 RHA, 19 RA, 3 RHA, 4 RA.
Since then, 3 RHA has become MLRS and 4 is Light Gun for 7 Bde.
Leaving 1 and 19 for 12 and 20 Bdes, and possibly 4 Reg if 7 Bdes artillery is uplifted.
Each of 3×8 Guns, so 24.
72 guns, plus some for RA TDU, 14 RA, and spares.
Which was my thinking for that number range.
Wow, if it is 200, what implications does that mean for the current RA ORBAT? That is more than the original AS90 order spilt amongst 6 Regiments.
I’m doubtful, but intrigued.
Interesting question on the ORBAT – one for the professionals. It looks like the money is going into deep fires, Ajax ‘deep strike recce’ and Boxer APCs. RIP the IFV and the MBT?