The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the RCH 155 artillery project, currently in the assessment phase, is expected to support over 400 jobs through a new Rheinmetall UK gun barrel factory.
However, the final number of artillery systems the UK intends to procure remains unclear.
In response to a parliamentary question from James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated:
“The Remote Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) project is currently in the assessment phase with the intention of delivering the system within this decade, therefore, it is not possible to provide a total figure at present.”
While the job support figure has been outlined, the number of RCH 155 units the UK may eventually acquire is less definitive. The UK and Germany are jointly developing the RCH 155 artillery as part of a long-range fires capability expansion.
The project, based on the Boxer 8×8 platform, involves the integration of a remote-controlled 155mm howitzer module. During DefenceIQ’s International Armoured Vehicle event, it was indicated that Germany plans to acquire 160 Boxer-based artillery systems as part of a broader restructuring of its long-range fires capability.
However, while the joint UK-Germany programme has discussed a potential combined procurement of up to 400 units, the exact division between the two nations remains fluid.
This joint procurement effort follows an agreement signed in 2024 between the UK and Germany, which is aimed at co-developing the RCH 155 system. The commitment to this project reflects the growing need for enhanced long-range artillery within NATO forces, driven by lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine.
Despite initial estimates, the UK’s final number of RCH 155 units may evolve as strategic assessments and budget considerations progress. The project is expected to be delivered within this decade, with the joint procurement potentially valued at over £3 billion.
This is rapidly turning into yet another massive cock up!
Just what are the RA regts that had AS 90 and are waiting for a new gun actually doing? Driving around in land rovers with a drainpipe on top shouting BANG no doubt🙄
Shouting
“It’s my Archer.”
“No, it’s my Archer.”
“No, it’s my Archer.”
The other very worrying thing is that has a prototype been made ? Do we even know it is going to work
Arent they alread manufacturing the RCH155 for Ukraine already so unless there’s more to do maybe the UK is in a queue for it or the supply chain still hasn’t been fully sorted out yet. Not sure it’s 100% sensible just to go with all wheels as many of us here have questioned before, when there’s plenty of good tracked systems ready to go to have a good mix. Plus Archer. I guess the main thing is getting a decent mass of fires platforms asap.
Hopefully tracked Boxer goes somewhere and we can have tracked 155s and use the wheeled hulls somewhere else.
The Bundeswehr trialled this equipment at least 3 years ago. It just needs the British kit integrated, bolted on and tested. Should not take too long. Haha!
It’s probably more to do with the standard commitment issue that seems to affect the government rather than the equipment itself, even if it still has some development left, the Germans seem to know numbers. The preference here is announcing partnerships rather than orders that actually require funds.
There are YouTube videos out there that are a few years old of it firing so I’m pretty sure it’s quite a long way along the development phase by now the video I saw actually showed it doing a fire mission while moving which is pretty impressive
Not an issue for the tac batteries tbf.
Major issue seems to be the stalled defence review. It’s been finished for ages and they are sitting on it. They are sitting on it because they don’t like what it says. The longer they sit on it procrastinating the worse things like this will get.
More and more decisions like AS90 replacement are becoming vital.
My guess is they are working on ‘the optics’. They won’t publish it until they have policies, defence pacts, manufacturing programs and finance ( access to EU finds) in place which enable them to say it will happen. They will spin re-shuffling, defence pacts and a handful of capital programs as delivering the review. Imagine Starmer at Prime Minister’s question time and you get the idea..’ under this government….’. NMH and RCH155 numbers will be announced with great fanfare, maybe an MRSS increase from 3 to 6, maybe a few more A400s. F-35 numbers might be paused at 72 ish so the whole package fits in the 2.5%
Paul, that never happens. If you waited for all these pieces to be firmly resolved you will be waiting another year.
Rumour was that the first version of SDR submitted by Robertson for MoD approval was too scathing of current capability and painted the picture that far more money was required than had been allocated or promised.
No idea if that was true. Seems unlikely, if Robertson was told initially to keep aspirational spend down to finance levels agreed ie 2.5% of GDP from April 27 and an ‘ambition’ to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
Parliament recesses on 22nd May. I would not be surprised if SDR is released on 21st May!
I see the new EU-UK defence pact ‘paves the way’ for the UK to access the EU €150b security fund, which I think is based on German finance. I do think the Germans are pleased to see EU-UK relations improving and would help RBSL for example, benefitting from this fund. So faster Boxer production perhaps. On another topic I rumours that Healey is pushing for a 3000 increase in army numbers.
It makes you wonder the value of a defence review if optics are the priority, surely the whole point is for it to highlight the issues that need addressing and whether commitments can be met or not.
It really isn’t something that should be politicised and given a spin, but even so, if they are going to be open about the realities it can still work to their advantage as they’ll blame it on the last lot anyway.
I saw ITV news claiming an exclusive…SDR publish date June 2nd.
Paul, many thanks. They seem to be the only media source with that info. I wonder when the Defence Command Paper with all the fine details will be released?
I haven’t seen anything on the Defence Command Paper. I can understand why RCH numbers might be undecided. The budget is the obvious constraint but beyond that is the build capacity and priority of the existing and proposed Boxer variants, the IFV question and other vehicle types. The key thing is drones. There are videos to be seen of Russian drones taking out Ukrainian MLRS launchers and I read somewhere that 80% of (Ukrainian) casualties are from drones versus 20% from artillery. Control of the air domain is a pre-req and must be exercising minds.
Do those Nog Heads in government realise time is running out!
They’re gambling, and like any gambler they have their fingers crossed… It’ll be good this, it’ll good this time. Until one day it isn’t.
The trouble is there is so much to put right, it wouldn’t surprise if they are simply struggling with the enormity of the challenge and it is not just facing the UK forces, but the rest of the Western World’s including the US…
We are in a bit of a pickle really.
Ho hum, CR
Does anyone know whether Larkhill has actually got their hands on one to play with yet?
I’d say with confidence, no.
I work there no we haven’t
I have a very bad feeling about this latest SDR. It’s going to be a nothing report. I can see it coming. Nearly thirty years of messing up the services and it hasn’t stopped yet.
Why expect a “nothing ” report? If the “experts” have had plenty of time to make an thorough analysis for this SDR then the outcome should still be to a more decent standard and not mediocre no matter how brief or comprehensive it is.
We have been listening to “experts” for thirty years and we have the weakest armed forces for two hundred years, relative to technology. We have only had further cuts since July 2024, no new orders and promise of something (?) later. It has already been suggested that the SDR will be an “interim report” and capital growth, if any, will wait until the autumn. Why would I be optimistic?
Unfortunately you are are probably right. It increasingly looks like the SDR2025 document, now expected to be published just before the NATO Summit of 24/25 June, will be just a very high-level policy document with lots of vague aspirational statements and heavily padded out with lots of full page photos and pointless graphics. A costed implementation document will then follow in “Autumn 2025”, i.e. by 31 December. The big advantage for Starmer and Reeves is that this delay avoids having to make any increase to the MODs budget in the 2025/26 FY, and will reduce any increase in 2026/27 on the basis that the implementation plan will be published after departmental budgets for the year have already been agreed and signed off by the Treasury and Cabinet based on prior spending plans.
Abslolutely correct, my friend. Another four years of “ah yes, maybe ,perhaps later” Meanwhile they are going to spend £18,000,000 “helping” Capita recruit. We have nearly one million young people between tha ages of 18 and 25 who won’t even look for a job. Are thay going to join up? I don’t think so. Neither would I.
RB, the rise to 2.5% has been stated to be from Apr 2027, for some time.
I think the issue they’re up against is that they don’t know what the budget is. Reports are 3.5% on core spending by 2032 for all nations, increasing by 0.2% of GDP per year until the taeget is reached. We have a 3% aspirational target pencilled in at present. If the NATO target is firm, then the budget is bigger, as is what we do.
They spend more time in discussion than they do in placing orders. How difficult can it be? Order 100 now and the other 100, which is the number we need at least, and the rest in a year or two.
Paul C, we do know. Defence spend to increase to 2.5% from April 2027. Ambition is for it to further rise to 3% in the next Parliament.
This equipment replaces AS-90, which BTW is doing a brilliant job in Ukraine, therefore the order should be for 179.
Agree a number close to 200 is about right. We should get comfortable with the concept of ordering in hardware and if not required immediately put it into storage. Order 200, operate 120 ISH, keep 80 as an attritional war reserve.
Other countries do that. We should too.
Yeah but that would be logical remember they didn’t want to spend 9 million a year to month ball 2 assault ships (but spend 2 million a day on hotels for trespassers) so there not going to buy new equipment and stick it in storage
Mr Bell, We bought 179 AS-90s. I have never experienced an equipment replacement to be ordered in higher numbers than its predecessor.
Hi Graham. I think they’re not too keen on it being out of date immediately. Has to be a good chance they’ll wait for an announcement at the end of the NATO event.
Thanks
How can they not know what numbers they need?
They are reorganising via doing FUTURE SOLDIER…Divisional structure, Brigade structure, and so on
Those structures then dictate how many you want front line and reserve \ training as a minimum operational requirement…
I like the idea of RCH 155 and support its purchase; however, our procurement process is overly complicated, there is a lack of urgency, and there is a serious lack of common sense.
ONLY a simple artillery design is needed, as cheap as possible. WHY,? because it will be targeted by drones
ATTRITION will be high
“Quick to build and easy to use” is the way forward
Lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine. NOPE
They don’t seem to understand what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine at all💯
Further to your comments,
Bohdana SPH battle proven and being built in the middle of a war €3m
ArcherSPH $10m latest price
Caesar SPH $4-7 M depending on spec
RCH unproven not yet in service so costs WILL go up £12m
Now I’m sure that if Supacat can deliver an AA system to Ukraine why on earth cant a British firm develop a gun for us?
No we will pay mega bucks for a Gucci system that is not working yet🤬
If we were to implement an interim 155mm solution like the Bohdana, what could be used as the chassis?
Some kind of Truck would do. The opening stages of a war will start with roads being the primary means of getting about. As we retreat the road network is more complete so all is well. You could bang these out for a couple of million. Job done for 400m GBP. In the last big one; all artillery except Sextons were truck drawn. Or we could go horses, like the Germans. Next…
Why would we be retreating the reality is Russia is our potential enemy if anything Russia will be doing the retreating
Future Soldier is well into the rear view mirror, the Divisional and Brigade structure outlined in it is no longer being pursued, so rather irrelevant. Project Wavell (ongoing) and the fall out from the SDSR will determine the new structure. The SDSR will have to start with threats (which have evolved since FS released) and budgets (which again have changed since FS released) and work from there.
Next: RCH 155:
You can’t complain that the UK’s procurement process is slow and convoluted and then point to RCH 155, as the procurement process was circumvented by Rishi Sunak’s government and RCH was simply selected by them, rather than procured through an army trials program. The selection literally took about a month, and was faster than even most army UOR programs. The only issue is that RCH 155 production is still starting up, so yes, it will take a while to physically build the things and get them into service.
Also no to only simple artillery designs. Precision does actually matter, especially in western countries that have to worry about the PR optics of collateral damage (and yes we still have to plan for the possibility of proxy wars instead of direct confrontations with Russia, hell, we are technically in a Proxy War right now in Yemen). Artillery will suffer losses, but the drone threat 15+km behind the line is considerably less than it is on the front, and having a platform as heavily armoured as Boxer is will go some way towards mitigating that threat.
Hi Dern, is Project Wavell expected as part of the SDR or is it a separate item, as it seems like it would have a major impact on the direction, resourcing and orders that should be determined as part of the SDR.
Hi ATJohn,
Project Wavell is separate from the SDR. It was a project that the army started in the aftermath of Future Soldier during the Conservative Government for further alterations the the army structure. It’s actually been partially implemented at this point (for example, one the the things that was done under Project Wavell was the dissolution of 6 UK Division and the grouping of ASOB and 11 Brigade under the Land Special Operations Force instead, and 16 AA being resubordinated to 1 UK division). From the PoV of UKDJ posters Project Wavell is pretty frustrating because it’s a) ongoing and b) it’s recommendations and changes are not being released to the public in a nice tidy package like Future Soldier was.
They want to triple the army’s lethality you know. The army without history’s biggest killer on the battlefield, artillery (I don’t count immobile towed artillery which these days is classed as nothing more than a target) . The army is a joke, a handful of tanks, no artillery, crumbling housing for personnel, no wonder they can’t meet either retention or recruitment figures.
New Me. The dilemma is that the beancounters will think that to triple the army’s current lethality represented in tube artillery terms by 24 Archers, then you just need another 48 guns!
Oh god. Yes. Seen what you’ve done there. The thickos and bean counters will spin it out as a 3x increase in lethality from the point of having virtually no artillery left.
The situation at the moment seems to be one of decision paralysis. The question is why?
If we are being cynical we could argue that it is situation normal, after all governments have been kicking cans down the road for as long as anyone can remember. The result is our infrastructure from schools, to hospitals, courts, barracks, the list in endless, is crumbling. Our armed forces are too small and equipment is taking too long to arrive. Now we face a huge and accelerating threat environment that has being coming for decades but seems to have hit home in just the last 4 to 6 months and Europe, indeed the whole of the Western World, finds itself totally unprepared.
This UK government now finds itself left facing a fast changing geopolitical landscape with too little in the way of an industrial base and hollowed out armed forces. It would be bad enough if it situation was bad but stable buut add in the highly unstable nature of geopolitics at the moment and your problems start to multiply exponentially. If you are not careful, you get behind the decision curve and event control you.
I get the impression that the SDR and the conversations around it are possibly putting some very stark choices in front of politicians who now realised that they do not have the option of kicking the can down the road anymore. To mix my metaphors, the music has stopped for the last time and Starmer’s government is that one that will have to face up to the possibility of having to fight a major war in Europe at any moment and they will likely have very little say in the matter!
The big problem they face is that the solution will take 20 years at least to put in place but the threat is here, in their faces now! Someone was always going to draw the shittiest of short straws, many a politician has said admitted as such in the past (usually as they leave office!), but it looks like it has finally arrived.
I kinda feel sorry for them really, but only a little bit.
They need to get a grip and show some leadership or we will all be FUBAR. They can run and hide, or they can write their names into history
We will see.
Cheers CR
Starmer, Labour, get a grip? Sorry mate, great post, but our political class are shambolic, on both sides of the house.
You might be right, mate, but we will see. They haven’t been in power for a year yet and sometimes it takes a crisis to bring the best out of people.
However, I do think there is an element rabbit in the headlights at the moment and there will be an argument going on between the realists and those who are clinging to the business as usual model, probably because the enormity of what they would have to do if they faced up to the truth is simply more than they can comprehend. They are after all human.
They did, however, want the job and privilege of governing, so they caught the can and responsibility of navigating a minefield. Tough! They need to step up and get past the fright or we will all be in the most frightening and deepest of trouble
Cheers CR
CR, Hitler was elected in 1933, and we could tell he was set on European domination. By 1934 we had a committee established that was esentially a rearmament committee, and rearmed reasonably well (but short of ideal) by Sep 1939 (ie. over 4 years).
Many doubt we have 4 years now to rearm and the process is more expensive and complex than it was in the 1930s.
Yet the politicians seem not to be worried.
Hi Graham,
I wasn’t aware of the Rearmament Committee, but boy do we need one now.
As for the politicians not getting it that is underlined today with the news that SPEAR 3 is being delayed until the mid 2030’s. The bloody thing will be obsolete before it enters service. Although to be fair some of the issues could be down to the platforms e.g. F-35 Block 4 software..!
Cheers CR
CR,
Fear nought. The Cavalry is enroute, bearing the precious cargo of sufficient funds to commence significant rearmament. Between the twin threats of Mad Vlad’s neo-colonialism and The Donald’s isolationism, ENATO has finally embraced realism. Official rumours abound that NATO will adopt the goal of spending 3.5% of GDP on core military functions by 2032, at the next NATO Summit in June. Evidently, there will be additional, incremental, verifiable spending goals. ENATO rearmament will commence before the CRINK hordes pour through the Suwalki Gap, envelope the Baltics as a whole, descend from the High North and strike north from a militarized African continent.
Hello mate,
You paint a very graphic vision of the end of a free and democratic Europe! That is some pincer movement you describe!
3.5% GDP by 2032 sounds great, now all we need to do is to get our economy growing on the one hand and get our politicians to actually deliver!
That will be when we find out just how hollowed out our industrial base has become..!
Fingers crossed for the 3.5% anyway. I hope you are right.
Cheers CR
PS. I just hope the CRINK’s don’t read your post or we could toast 🙂
If/when all ENATO members are spending a minumum of 3.5% of GDP on defence, the CRINKs would be well advised to consider ENATO as if it was a porcupine. A much healthier option for the CRINKs would then be to attack and consume less formidable prey elsewhere.
The thing is mate, the porcupine is a herbivore with little or no ability to hit back which ENATO will need to be able to do if it is to effectively deter the CRINK axis.
Our Commons Select Committee on Defence described the RN fleet as Porcupines a while back pointing out that the Russians did not see the RN as a threat. Since then we have managed to fit NSM anti-ships missiles (with a limited land attack capability) to a couple of ships. Big deal! The F-35B can drop Paveway IV with a 10km stand off range… Well you get my point.
The UK has NSM, Storm Shadow, TLAM and Trident stand off offensive weapons. The conventional weapons are only available in very limited numbers, with the exception of Storm Shadow. The rest of Europe isn’t much better off as far as I can tell. 3.5% might allow us to bring more in to service, but it is taking way too long.
The 3.5% isn’t going to arrive until 2032 which demonstrates that the politicians are still thinking in peacetime terms. We are now in a pre-war era and we need rearm urgently.
I think ENATO is along way from being a porcupine, let alone a porcupine capable of hitting back.
At least things seem to be changing, hopefully.
Cheers CR
To be honest I think one thing trump is correct about is in the modern geostrategic battle of democracies vs authoritarian Europe is not the main gig and WW3 is not starting in Europe, WW3 is starting with Taiwan and the first to go will be the liberal democracies in the western pacific.
Where trump has made a very very big mistake is that without Europe the U.S. is I think doomed to lose that war one way or another ( either it does not fight it and losses without a shot, fights and wins but like the British empire before it is fatally wounded in a pyrrhic victory or actually losses full stop and is forced into a humiliating peace)
I think the moment china feels the US is truly isolated from Europe and or that it’s not 100% committed to defending Taiwan china will take Taiwan. It will then cut off and isolate Japan, essentially forcing it into capitulation and engage in a land war over the Korean Peninsula.. essentially taking control of the entire western pacific region and cutting the US from the indo pacific. It will then use that to lever control of t Africa and the Middle East..isolating India and forcing it into its zone of influence as well as forcing itself into South America essentially cutting the Atlantic powers ( US and European nations ) off and isolated in a world that is essentially now a Chinese hegemony.
China is not coming for Europe it’s not its aim and it’s to far away.. its aim is the indo Pacific and through that South American, Africa and the middle east.. Russia will follow china like a poodle..because however it bellows it knows its nothing without china and cannot face Europe ( the simple real is it’s been driven to a statement by a European nation a tenth of its size and ENATO is 100 times the size and power of Ukraine and 10 times the size and power of russia)..Europe will face its test when china has hegemony as china will use Russia as a way to bring Europe into its control as one of the last 2 pieces on the board..the U.S. will take chinese domination at around the same time..
The simple fact is either the entire west world fights together or it losses together… but the first pieces to fall will be Taiwan, Japan and Korea.
F/USAF, going from 2% to 3.5% by NATO is a huge leap. How many countries will be able to get to that figure?
As mentioned here many times, 116 is an old figure before the latest changes to rhe RA, when maybe as many as four Regiments, 1RHA, 19RA, 3RHA, 4RA, we’re in line for re equipping, when these Regiments supported 2 AI Brigades and 2 Strike Brigades.
With the endless changes to the Army ORBAT and regimental roles, that is now out of date.
3 RHA is now GMLRS. 4 RA supports 7 Brigade, uncertain if Boxer suits that formation.
My own guess remains from 60 to 90 guns, the Regiments don’t exist to support many more without structural changes or a great expansion in number of guns per Battery.
6 Regiments of AS90 at their peak, down to currently zero, beyond the 2 Archer Batteries needed to sustain 1 in Estonia.
An absolute shambles no journalist is capable of pinning a minister with on national TV or press conferences.
No accountability, therefore, they care not.
Again you might be right , mate. The British Army reduce to 60 to 90 guns. Madness. I know drones are having a big impact, but guns are still hugely important and will remain so for the foreseeable. Frankly, the size of the order for these guns will indicate how seriously both Germany and the UK are about rearming and standing up to Russia and the rest of the CRINK nations.
Fingers crossed
Cheers CR
I would have gone and bought that K9 myself, with build here in the UK as offered.
Cynically speaking, knowing how the Army manages to spaff money away and seems to insist on paying the highest prices ( see Boxer ) while ignoring cost effective procurement like more CH3, it was probably too cheap!
Then there’s the political angle, always more important to ministers than actually equipping their military correctly.
There is no comparison really between boxer155 and k9 the boxer is cheaper uses less men uses the same parts as the infantry version the boxer is like 10 ton lighter it’s faster I think the fire rate is either the same or better and the coolest thing I think is it can fire while moving it also has direct fire mode so can shoot at tanks (not that I would want to be 8n that situation) and can be used remotely it’s a better system in every way over the k9
Direct Fire mode doesn’t mean you can “Shoot at tanks,” as Artillery in Indirect Fire modes still shoot at tanks. Fire on the move is a gimmick for artillery really, as the lag between firing and shells arriving means there really isn’t a huge need for it. Boxer on wheels is less mobile on difficult terrain, and honestly it doesn’t look horribly stable (speaking as someone who has seen an AS90 get flipped on exercise, that is a risk).
Boxer itself might have a smaller minimum crew, but realistically that won’t reduce unit sizes since there are enough jobs that are not on the gun in a artillery battery that you’ll probably just have a truck with the remainder of the unit following the RCH around.
Direct fire mode means it can shoot directly at close targets including tanks if u disagree with that then maybe take it up with the manufacturer as that’s there claim, firing on the move is not a gimmick mobile artillery at at the most vulnerable after firing if u can move while firing u can’t be targeted by counter battery fire as to it looking unstable lol is that a serious comment lol im pretty sure they test there products it’s not like there not a experienced company or anything are they and modern wheeled vehicles have proven time and time again to be just as effective as tracks plus there easier to work on and are generally faster
Okay let me rephrase what I said because I see how you might have misunderstood what I said:
Artillery doesn’t need to be able to fire in DF in order to engage tanks, as artillery routinely engages armour in indirect fire mode.
Firing on the move is a gimmick, if you don’t think it is you don’t understand physics, projectile flight times, reaction times, or all three. Counter Battery fire, at the sort of ranges artillery like RCH155 engages from, takes at least a minute to have arrive on the far end. You don’t need to be able to fire on the move to avoid counter battery fire. Hence it’s a gimmick.
If your only come back to the unstable point is to say “lol” you don’t have an argument. As I said, I’ve physically seen vehicles with much lower centers of gravity get flipped. Again, this is basic physics: Boxer 155 has a lot more weight a lot higher up, and is narrower and taller than it’s tracked counter parts like AS90 and K9. Sure they test the product but we’re comparing, and if you are going off road, where there are ditches and uneven terrain centre of mass and how stable a platform is a valid comparison point especially when you are claiming Boxer is a better system “in every way”.
I don’t think I mentioned tracks vs wheels, though wheels are still not as good on soft terrain with heavy weight as tracks are but, as I said, didn’t mention that. I said that Boxer 155 specifically is less mobile on difficult terrain, which is true, again due to that big gun very high up on a rather narrow platform.
So because u have seen a totally different vehicle designed decades ago tip over u think u know about this vehicle I find that laughable I mean as I said before it’s not like the designers don’t know what there doing and firing on the move is not a gimmick otherwise why would the company’s investment time and effort into creating this ability the boxer 155 is the most advanced vehicle of its type in the world far better than bloody k9
Congratulations Tim, you’ve officially gone over the deep end, and I’m trying to decide if you’re just being really dishonest or if you really are this stupid (given that you don’t know how to use a period I’m going with the latter):
I’m that Boxer is narrower, taller and has a higher centre of gravity than it’s tracked counter parts and that physics is a thing. Yes of course it would have been tested, and please show me where I said the “designers don’t know what they are doing.” What I’m saying is that offroad mobility and stability would have been deprioritised in the effort to get a 155 on the Boxer chasis, and that simple physics says it will not be as stable over rough terrain as other vehicles. And since I’ve witnessed comparable other vehicles, with lower centres of gravity flip onto their roofs, that’s a real concern to have if we are comparing other SPG’s to Boxer.
Why would the company invest time and money into the ability? Because it looks great on sales brochures and gets higher ups who don’t necessarily know what they’re talking about to pony up the cash.
And finally you’ve yet to make a single statement about in what way the unstable, gimmicky, expensive, compromise design Boxer RCH 155 is “more advanced” in any real world sense than the purpose build, stable, K9.
Surely this is not so hard to work out ?
The Army states its current needs in Arty platform numbers and ammo to stockpile.
The government states what it can afford from the army wishlist.
BofF, that is exactly how it works.
The entirety of the 155m fleet, wheeled, tracked or otherwise is the 14 Archer units as of 2nd May. That’s it. That would also suggest we have 3 Regiments of Artillery twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do. Shades of the Bundeswehr going on exercise with broomsticks.
In addition, there are capability gaps, then there is 4-5 years of almost zero 155mm close artillery support. That is beyond frightening.
Puzzling that the number of RCH remains uncertain. Could they be considering increasing the number of Archers?
Not really, hard to decide how many RCH’s you’re going to buy if you’re not sure how much money you’ll have to spend on them.
Well, to be sure that’s the simplest explanation. But everything is connected – seems to me that the constraining resource is Boxer build rate. So if you prioritise RCH it’s at the expense of the main APC replacements and valuable new variants. They have announced the OSD for the vehicles Boxer will replace so they have decided the pace of introduction. Was just thinking more interim guns which could be made in parallel, might ease the Boxer production schedule and increase artillery firepower faster – only if more Archers is what you want of course. But as you say, it’s more likely they are just thinking of ‘phasing’ the introduction of RCH; this would defer some spending.
Shouldn’t they just equip Regts with a battery each and build from from there.