The Ministry of Defence has said it is too early to confirm when the British Army’s new RCH 155 wheeled artillery system will enter service, though the project aims to achieve “minimum deployable capability within this decade”.

Responding to a parliamentary question from Conservative MP James Cartlidge, Defence Minister Louise Sandher-Jones said the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm remains in the assessment phase and has not yet reached the point where an in-service date can be set.

“The project aims to achieve Minimum Deployable Capability within this decade and will deliver the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) Calibre Wheeled Artillery System. The project remains in its assessment phase and therefore it remains too early to provide an exact in-service date,” she stated.

The RCH 155, developed by KNDS and mounted on the Boxer 8×8 chassis, was selected by the UK in 2024 as the preferred platform for its Mobile Fires Platform programme. The selection followed a joint agreement between the UK and Germany to collaborate on development, with the programme estimated to be worth more than £3 billion.

While the Ministry of Defence confirmed the RCH 155 as the basis for the British Army’s future self-propelled artillery system, the project has not yet advanced to full-scale production or contracting. Officials have continued to use broad language, committing only to a capability “within this decade.”

Earlier information indicated that the assessment phase is focused on refining technical requirements, costs and industrial participation.

The RCH 155 is intended to replace the retired AS90 and complement a limited number of interim Archer systems, which are currently filling the gap in the Army’s artillery capability. The system is designed to provide mobile, digitally networked firepower with high shoot-and-scoot survivability, reflecting operational lessons from recent conflicts.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

82 COMMENTS

  2. Archer is not filling the gap! The ridiculously small number of them can’t replace the large number of AS90s donated to Ukraine. The hard fact is the British Army does not currently have a suitable Artillery capability and is unfit to fight any potential foe.

      • It would but it’s insanely unlikely. Ukraine has weakened Russia to a point of no return. It’s had to pull from it’s soviet stocks and even they are almost depleted. Details of how many new units it’s building a year are patchy at best, but based on zero build up of stocks and no sudden involvement of them on the front line it’s safe to say tiny numbers.

        With Russia gone as a land army threat to NATO , there isn’t really anything on the horizon that would require large volumes of artillery to be deployed, so the decision isn’t insane. Give everything we have to Ukraine and rebuild slowly but faster than Russia.

        • If that was the case, why are the Baltic States so nervous and making real headway to defend themselves? Poland is not going to rest on its laurels and intends to create a defence par excellence. The current UK Government is too embroiled in the forthcoming budget and possible global market ramifications that may follow to worry about armoured vehicles. The old Labour mandate, welfare before guns, is still very much alive, and it will take a serious military crisis in Ukraine and surrounding nations for it to make a sensible response.

          • Are they?

            They have increased their defensive spending but no where near a war footing. If they were seriously concerned by it their expenditure would be significantly higher. They increased it to avoid negativity from the US and that’s about it.

            Poland has seen a gap in Europe left by the decline in the UK and aiming to fill it to boost their political influence to match Germany /France, but again far from a war footing. Will be interesting if the US special relationship moves their way in coming years

        • Gone as a land army?
          They can still field 750,000 troops
          They are currently sending 150,000 in a new push to the fight in Pokrovsk

          They still have:

          Main Battle Tanks 1,800–2,000
          Armored Vehicles 4,500–5,000
          Artillery Systems 1,200–1,400
          Air Defense Systems 600–800

          The day they can no longer advance on any front, is the day I will believe they are “Gone as a land army”

          • Where are you getting them vehicle numbers? All info I have seen is they have that number in reserve deposit but are so stripped of parts / badly maintained that it’s questionable they can be brought back. Hence the lack of tanks being used on the front lines.

            Yeah they have a massive troops number but most of them need to return to civilian life once the war ends, and the rest are going to be stuck on Ukraine protecting whatever gains they get, assuming the war ends anytime soon.

            Let’s hope it doesnt happen but if the UK did a general call up we would have a force in the millions, we had that in ww2 when the population was a fraction of its current size. That’s before you add the rest of NATO

            • Not to mention that Russia is losing more artillery /tanks/air defences/ armoured vehicles than it’s producing /repairing by a signficiant margin. So whatever number they currently have will dwarf the number they eventually have once the war ends, as many many more are yet to be destroyed

              • Russia is producing/refurbishing more tanks and artillery than the UK is …..

                ATM Russia is producing enough to keep the war going on several fronts despite the losses.

                They are still a dangerous and capable foe, and that is why we need to rearm.

                • They aren’t though, they are net losing kit. They are just still in the fight because of the massive soviet stocks, which are almost fully spent. That’s before you take account of their human losses, which they are struggling to cover with new recruits. It’s a war of attrition, so a question of whether western support holds up, as Ukraine currently isn’t in a net loss in kit.

                  • Not entirely clear how much longer Russia can keep going based on the current losses, and that their reserves are almost spent.

            • You might not have those numbers in practice.
              Then the Indian Army which in itself was a separate all volunteer entity anyway. In which you had at least five main religious groups for want of another description, formed into separate battalions.
              We already have the Gurkha Regiment. Will all the others combine? How exactly you would organise a call up, I dont rightly know.

  3. Is is comforting to see that the powers that be have decided we still have several more years grace before we need to have actual kit in operational service…

  4. “UK still assessing new artillery timeline”… says minister.

    He’s lying again!! What that poli-speech actually translates into is… we do not wish to pay out for more equipment at this time.

  5. What a complete joke it is…🤣😒😡
    There is nothing to assess!!

    Meanwhile, the Ukrainians, as war rages on, manage to pump out their own Bohdana 2S22 plus improvise on other equipment

  6. “The project aims to achieve Minimum Deployable Capability within this decade”

    Wonder what that is? A Troop? A squadron?

  7. So we had 89 – AS90s – (I55mm) These have mostly been donated to Ukraine.

    That leaves the army with:

    126 L118s (105mm towed)
    14 Archers (155mm)
    44 GMLRS

    Taking the 14 Archers into consideration, that’s 75 less barrels, a large drop in 155mm fires capability.

    But again, no urgency to address this from the MOD

    • Further back we had more, 6 Regiments worth of AS90 around 2007.
      The MLRS is expanding to between 60 and 70, at least.
      Otherwise, pitiful.
      I’m sure it was stated that the FMF capability was being accelerated.
      As Spock said the other day, if they’re waiting for the UK jobs side and building a factory, it could be a while.

      • Well they’ll use the existing Boxer production facility to build the chassis. But they need to build over 500 of those first. Rheinmetall are going to behold the new gun barrel facility on the same site, so the only question is where is the actual turret going to be manufactured? 🤔

        • If they wait for the batch 1 and 2 Boxer order first, which is very slow placed, the Army will have no 155mm artillery for best part of a decade.
          Pretty ridiculous the lack of planning with getting replacements lined up from the mid 2000s.

      • The Babcock factory for Patria manufacture will be part of the calculation. Faster Patria production could mean earlier RCH Boxer builds.
        The deal for the land in the Plymouth Free Port is done. Checkout the Sherford council website.

    • Hasn’t the UK also ordered some HIMARS too? Why not another interim batch of 14 Archers? They won’t be wasted. Hope they’re still noticing tracked SPGs available like the Korean K9/10s and not being totally obsessed with just wheels. Talking of wheels, when are they going to order some mobile Shorad, like the Boxer Skyranger 30, to protect all these assets and personnel? Are they being assessed? Aren’t these needed as a priority?

      • No.
        No HIMARS ordered, just acquiring more M270 MLRS from various sources and refurbing them.
        The obsession with wheels is reducing in some areas as NATO want a PROPER IFV out of the British Army. That isn’t Boxer and it’s not ARES either no matter how much spin HMG put on it.
        RCH155 wheeled, Titan and Trojan on the chopping block, more tracks replaced with wheels.
        On SHORAD, apparently Patria is the next mount for HVM Starstreak.
        More tracks ( Stormer and 432s ) replaced with wheels.

  8. In the meantime, we could buy some M777s. The army tested the LIMAWS(G) portee version years ago. Not as quick to shoot and scoot as the RCH 155, but still highly mobile.
    And a high UK content, especially if a Supacat vehicle is used.

      • Once you get out of the wide open spaces of the central European plain they make complete sense. Norway for instance or Southern Europe.
        Especially relevant to the British Army that could theoretically be deployed anywhere world wide. To send them without 155mm support is short sighted and asking for trouble. Besides who are we making all that Ammo for?

          • I would argue that the L118 light gun is the best choice for towed artillery over the M777. It is air mobile by medium lift helos, it can be dropped out of a parachute, AND its ammo burden is far lower than a 155mm gun. The L118 can suppress a target for dismounted infantry assault just as well as 155mm, and bring rounds in far closer. An infantry assault at the Company level takes roughly 45 minutes of planning, and moving into the FUP, then 45 minutes of assault through. That is 90 minutes of firing. 6x 105mm guns will fire 1020 rounds at the sustained rate, versus 4x155mm 720 rounds. But the weight of the 105mm gun will be about 16,000 Kg versus the 37,000 KG of the 155mm. For every 1x 155mm you get 3x 105mm rounds, which is extremely important if you are at the end of extended supply lines, relying on helos for resupply such as in the High North in the mountains. Is the L118 ideal for the plains of Europe ? well before Ukraine I would have said no, but the shorter range L119 is doing great service…. Get 155mm Self propelled guns for conventional fighting, and reinvest in 105mm towed for complex terrain such as mountains, jungles and islands. And short and long range drones for precision.

    • The RCH-155 will be high U.K. content.

      Boxer chassis production is already underway here and Rheinmetall are going to build a gun barrel production facility in Telford.

  9. I wouldn’t care so much about the current state of the army, if the navy and air force were getting the equipment they need instead. Which they aren’t
    We are an island after all, you could shrink the army down to 50,000 men if it meant the navy and air force getting larger in the process.
    Let the european members of nato worry about land threats

      • Good, because I don’t. In peace time the Army always gets hammered and shrunk. Then we have to build it back up again and take it back to where it was the hard way.

    • But we also have interests around the world where the army may need to be deployed. Ultimately our entire military needs expanding.

    • So you would expect NATO to help defend Britain against air and naval threats but leave the land war to them!how does that work in the scheme of things?

      • Our main job should be to counter russian air and naval threats to NATO’s northern flank. Why should we also have to spend a large amount of money on a land force at the same time?

    • Clunker, your island status comment would have relevance if the armys role was solely Military Home Defence, but it isn’t. It may have slipped your notice but we have been in Nato since 1949 and as such have an obligation to commit forces to deter and if necessary defend the Euro Atlantic area. There was a reason we had a strong BAOR facing the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies…and now have equipment pre positioned in Germany and troops in Estonia and Poland. Our army has been frequently deployed overseas on kinetic operations with allies and at some scale, more so than the other two services.

      • Why should we have to do everything at once when most of the rest of nato doesn’t fork out the cash to do the same? They should pull the majority of the weight on land and let us focus on threats specific to our area aka the north atlantic and north sea.

          • Stop making excuses for our worthless allies please. Most of them are far worse off then us when it comes to military spending and equipment and some e.g. Hungary and Turkey aren’t even likely to fight russia if push came to shove. Once they begin to pull their weight then I’ll have nice things to say about them

            • I’m not making excuses for anyone,so to be clear is your answer to dissolve NATO and let countries go their own way then or do you want an exclusive club for the favoured few? Please bare in mind for us to do our business on the north flank those orc boats and aircraft will already have run the gauntlet in the Baltic defended by other NATO countries👍

              • Nice strawman. I simply said we should not do and be everywhere all at once and allow other members to finally pull their weight. Be whatever helps you sleep at night, turd

                • No need for sarcasm is there?I asked you for your answer to what you think is wrong about NATO. Those Russians coming from the north have still got to come past Sweden Finland and Norway haven’t they?

    • The trouble is they are shying away from land forces and building up their Navies. They know Armies are meatgrinders and who wants to be part of that until that small cheap anti drone weapon is available. The panzerfaust vs drones anyone?

  10. You don’t like it, but you should have gone all out with Archer, CAESAR MKII or K9.

    Chasing paper systems won’t get you anywhere. The RCH155 is also very expensive.

      • Totally agree with you it’s a good platform , plus probably works out cheaper than RHC155 and Archer purchase could enter service a lot quicker than Boxer artillery platforms .Can’t see the Army having the luxury of two different big gun platforms . Would be interesting to see Archer vs RHC155 in an Evalaioshion .My money’s on Archer .

    • MoD often seem to buy the expensive options. Now why is that?
      First me, money to the MIC, as I keep suggesting.
      If they buy something affordable in bulk such as Patria it’ll be a revelation.

      • Hi M8 Only problem with it being money to the MIC is “who’s MIC ?” it’s an odd one as it’s the German MIC that benefits, assembled in U.K sounds great but the majority of the industrial cost benefit is in Germany.
        If it was the U.K MOD pandering to the UK MIC it would be large orders for the BAe Archer system (which I actually like) if they are hell bent on a wheeled SPG it would make more sense to stick it on a standard in service truck like the MAN 8 x 8 just like Sky Sabre.
        I do sometimes wonder if PM Sunak had a Bo Jo T32 moment and the army has been left to pick up the bits 🤷🏼‍♂️
        Meanwhile take advantage of the new factory in Sheffield and buy some M777 as a stop gap and then pass them onto reserves.

  12. If Boxer RCH has been selected as the mobile fires solution. Then what precisely is the assessment phase? As surely that would have been done prior to selecting the weapon system.

      • Exactly. So why an assessment? I’ve heard rumours there might be a change of plan. NATO wants proper Armoured Brigades, they should be tracked.

        • You know the answer to that! Mmmm let’s have a look see if we can put a gun on a Ajax chassis👍that would put at least 20 yrs on the need to make a decision🙄

      • And that is the real concerning bit. We don’t even know quite what was signed up for. The only good thing is at least Germany is looking to place an order for 3000 to 5000 Boxers

  14. I seriously don’t understand why an off the shelf system wasn’t selected, after the previous failures one would think they learned their lesson, even as a temporary solution I would not select Archer, only now in MK2 they started fixing it

  15. AS90 wasn’t retired it was given away leaving a capability gap.

    Archer is a stop gap and this will end up only half working as usual.

    • In official MoD listing’s, all equipment cut is described as being “retired.”
      It’s the latest spin and fools none.
      Retired equipment is replaced as it leaves service.

    • Dave, as you say those 14 Archers replace (as an interim measure) AS-90s. We once a fleet of 179 AS-90s. As a stop gap Archer lacks credibility.

  16. No need to rush, we can always throw stones at the beastly Russians if needs be. There is no desire to rearm, it is all lies.

    • I agree its all smoke and mirrors. There have been virtually no meaningful substantial orders under Labour since they got in and published their defence plan. In fact we hear they are looking for savings.

  17. So in plain English, Either :
    Someone has set their heart on a sexy German wunderwaffe
    Or
    Treasury have no money and are using RC155 as an excuse to push to the right

    Either way it’s a major risk and shouldn’t be allowed. UKr bought a batch of 18 Archer for 295 m USD. At the very least a purchase of that size to tide us over with a minimum capability should be a priority

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.