The UK government has declined to disclose details on the procurement and domestic manufacturing share of the RCH 155, citing commercial sensitivities and ongoing negotiations, according to written parliamentary responses from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, submitted several questions to the MoD on 3rd March 2025, seeking information on:
- The number of RCH 155 platforms the government plans to procure.
- What proportion of the system will be manufactured in the UK versus Germany.
- Whether the proportion of UK involvement has changed since 5th July 2024.
Responding on 6th March 2025, Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that the Mobile Fires Project (MFP)—which is delivering the RCH 155—is still in its Assessment Phase, with the number of units subject to ongoing commercial negotiations and the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. She stated:
“I am withholding further information relating to the number of RCH 155 platforms being procured as it is commercially sensitive.”
On the issue of UK versus German manufacturing workshare, Eagle said that the exact proportion of British involvement will be determined through contractual agreements with industry partners. However, she emphasised that the government is seeking to maximise the UK’s industrial contribution as part of its Land Industrial Strategy, stating:
“Throughout this process, the Department will seek opportunities to maximise the nation’s workshare in support of UK prosperity and realisation of benefits to the Land Industrial Strategy.”
The lack of firm details on procurement numbers and UK industrial participation has raised questions about how much of the project will benefit British industry. With contractual negotiations ongoing, further details on procurement and production workshare are expected to emerge once agreements with industry partners are finalised. However, until then, the government is keeping specifics under wraps.
That’s understandable, disclose once agreement has been reached, not during negotiations.
What do we think, 200? That would do wonders for the RA.
Sorry to say my knowledge of the RA is bloody poor. Is that a realistic number? Where would that take the RA up to relative to strength pre-Cameron?
The deal is apparently worth £3bn. The unit price for Ukraine was $12m. Lots of assumptions, but if the £3bn value stands then around 200 plus support costs sounds about right. It would be a significant increase, we acquired “just” 179 AS-90s.
Rob, We acquired “just” 179 AS-90s for the post-Cold War army, fielding commencing in 1992. We still have a post-Cold War army. Logically the figure should be similar, but do see Daniele’s answer for the ‘reality’.
Yes I have no expectations, I am just going from the potential contract value which implies a significant order. That sum was probably mooted by politicians before anyone looked at the make up of the RA. It would certainly need a significant increase in personnel to field any more than the numbers Daniele suggests. We can live in hope.
Does that 3 billion include additional boxer hull’s?
Make extra profit every week… This is a great part-time job for everyone… Best part about it is that you can work from your home and earn from 100-2000 Dollars each week .….. 0 d Start today and have your first payment at the
end of the week… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
It would.
I was expecting no more than 60 to 90, based on who’s left in the RA to fire it and Bdes that would use it.
1 RHA, 19RA. 12 and 20 Bdes.
3×8 gun Batteries each with spares for attrition, training at 14, and some with RATDU.
The original 116 gun requirement was when 3 RHA was still a gun Regiment, its now MLRS, while 4 RA is a Light Gun Regiment in a light mechanised, wheeled Brigade based on Foxhound and Jackal.
It’s all been uncertain with the internal orbat changes expected and even more uncertain now with events of the last fortnight.
As normal mate you are probably more accurate on this 👍
Worth noting though AS90 has a crew of 5 and RCH155 has 2. We should be able to operate a lot more with in the force structure.
Except you still need blokes to load the RCH, and you still need blokes to stag on the hide, I suspect you’ll see a very similar force structure, just with more blokes mounted separate to the gun.
Hi Dan, I don’t disagree with who should be getting the RCH. But perhaps the numbers are a bit shy. If you look at the AS90, it needs a crew of five to operate. Whereas the RCH is 2-3. Will we therefore see a greater number of vehicles due to the smaller crew size?
Thinking more like 45, 2 x Regiments and a training pool mate! Need more but have little confidence in the Governments real commitment to defence, lots of talk but to much to do!
The contract value is “up to” £3bn. All sorts of assumptions can be made, but based on the unit price £3bn is almost 300. That won’t happen of course.
Rob, Don’t forget that PM Sunak stated that the equipment needs further Anglo-German development work. That will swallow up £millions. Much will also be spent on training aids, publications, Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE), intitial spares packs, manufacturers support, fielding costs etc etc.
Not all of the budget will be spent on buying platforms.
The contract is never just for the systems themselves so you can’t just use the unit price, it will include spares, support, training and so on.
I certainly think we are looking north of 100 probably 116. If we were massively increasing the army back up to 100,000 then I could see us adding in a bunch of wheeled light mechanised brigades all operating with RCH 155 as there main firepower. Key for me is the need for only a 2 man crew. We have a pretty large budget compared to almost anyone else but we don’t have people and our people are expensive to employ.
RCH 155 has to be the most amazing artillery system in the world right now. Not only can it fire on the move but it also offers direct fire for destruction of enemy bunkers which we have seen from Ukraine is absolutely vital.
Like a challenger 2 with a 6 inch gun 😀
What if one of that 2 crew is injured? Seems wrong there isn’t a loadie alongside a driver and someone to command the vehicle.
I don’t see the fire on the move as game changing over the standard shoot and scoot after Derns explanation of ballistic trajectory physics the other week.
100k army? Blimey, if that happened then yes you’d have additional brigades.
I cannot see it.
Six weeks ago I would have agreed with you mate.
Now nothing would surprise me. Starmer’s increase in defence budget is all very short term at the moment, but I can see it being overtaken by events. Trump is still keeping everyone guessing so things could go any which way. The big risk is that Trump and his brigade of yes sir people think they are in control – they ain’t, events are always in control. All we humans can do is respond, it is how we respond that defines us – but in control – na. We control our response so we only think we are in control, life is full of car crashes…
So I tend to think about what the extremes might be. Back some kind of ‘normal’ or mass mobilisation seem to be the possible extremes these days.
Cheers CR
Morning mate.
As ever, the voice of reason.
Daniele, I recall that, years ago, the RAC rejected opting for a tank with autoloader and so coming down from a 4-man to a 3-man crew, due to the inability to do all crew duties with one man less.
Many crew duties on an AFV in addition to individual role – camming up, de-camming, radio watch, cooking, equipment maintenance, replen’ing etc etc.
Then who is actually humping ammo up to the ‘magazine’. It can fire up to 9 rds/min and has a stowed load of 30 rounds.
And as we know, CSS has taken a hammering.
I fear Sunak put politics over army requirement.
What ever changes with these people.
So not very efficiently done with only 2 people!
They have loaders at the ammunition depot to load it up.
@Jim So now every time you want to load your gun system up it needs to travel to the nearest ammunition depot.
So more down time on the guns, more wear and tear on the drive system. More time out from under camouflaged nets and anti drone systems, even less time for the crew to rest….
Not forgetting that autoloaders take a lot of maintenance and if it breaks at the wrong time your in trouble… finally safe from catastrophic explosion and autoloaders seem to be mutually exclusive.
Any plan for a reload ammunition vehicle like the K9 has in the K10?
Me neither but but troop numbers would be a start before kit .
If we are going to 3% of GDP then 100k should very much be on the cards.
Agree. Bringing the new kit and future tech into the British army over the coming years is the most important thing. If in time the British army could squeeze up to the 80,000 figure (Trained) or a little bit over that would be great, but I’m not sure if it will. Slight increase in the reserves would be handy also.. When it comes to all the chat about the Defence spending/GDP talk the recent announcement is very encouraging. The increase to 2.5% will be most welcome by the Military, but if we reach that figure of 3% GDP during the earlier 2030’s that’s the game changer. That is where you could see a larger increase in bulk to the armed forces. You could end up with a few extra Frigates for example more future technologies plus a possibility of extra people in numbers recruited and so on.. Will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Have a good weekend Daniele/all!
Bar WW3, I cannot see UK defence spending going above 2.95% GDP. We have maxed out the Countries credit card & can only spend more if we cut elsewhere. That gets harder & harder to do.
Actually, I think they have the gdp % spend timelines the wrong way round. Commit to 3% now ordering a bunch of kit and new / refurbished facilities etc…then revert to 2.5% – 2.7% in 3-4 years time at a new level of normal as the additional kit and new and refurbished facilities etc are available. Replacement kit then carries on in a steady drumbeat over the long term
IF (*note the big IF) they were looking to increase the army to circa 100k how should/would that be distributed to produce the most effective force. Lets say (for arguments sake) both armoury and logistics/enablers could be increased to accommodate numbers (or vice versa). i.e. the Armies numbers (@100k) and organisation is based on what you want it to be capable of delivering not purely cost-so a proper review of the Armies deliverables/doctrine- how would/should that number be best utilised?
I was amazed when I saw on here the other day that the French force was currently 115k and they were looking to increase (x2) that, so maybe 105k isn’t pie in the sky (although I recognise that would be 50% (ish) larger than current.
Pretty simple really. The army could hit 7 fully deployable brigades, plus 11 RSB plus ASOB with a headcount increase of about 10k-15k.
The remainder would go on increases in divisional and corps enablers to allow for a 3 division structure.
Forget if one of the crew is injured, let’s go with normal operation. Your guns are in a hide, waiting for a fire mission, the crews are in all round defence, with stag positions covering all approaches. Our troop has 4 guns in it, so 8 blokes plus THQ, maybe 10. 3 stag positions minimum, plus a radio stag that means that to maintain a guard against infiltration every soldier gets an hour to cook, eat, wash, relax, sleep, maintain the vehicle etc, before they go back on guard for an hour.
Ask any soldier how brutal 1 hour on 1 hour off, 24/7 is. Realistically although the RCHs might carry 2 crew, Batteries would retain a large number of support personnel (never mind tasks like moving 155 shells off trucks onto Boxers, physically demanding or what happens when you need to replace a tire on a RCH).
My thoughts exactly, 7 brigades 3 divisions smaller nations add brigades to our divisions and we run a full core.
Get real. RCH155 won’t go near any enemy bunkers.
We’ve been over why fire on the move doesn’t really make a huge difference for artillery. As for DF against bunkers, why on earth would you ever want an artillery piece that close to the front.
It’s not well armoured, it’s ungainly, and not the best off toad mobility platform. I can not for the life of me see a Divisional commander sending his guns 15+ km forward to engage enemy static positions via DF.
(Also why would that even be a COA? In this scenario we have troops attacking, coms, and a 155 artillery system on standby. Just call in the RCH fire indirect and avoid exposing your valuable 155 to enemy ATGMs, RPGs or even FPVs).
It’s a much more mobile platform than a typical SPG so it has more flexible options. The demonstrations from RM show it doing this. It will depend on the circumstances how it’s employed but it’s a game changer in terms of capability over traditional SPG 155 systems.
Way to ignore every point raised, but we’re kind of used to that now. But here I’ll actually discuss the points you raised with no expectation of a similar curtesy.
It’s not “more mobile” than traditional spgs, hate to break it to you. It’s a top heavy 8×8 apc, which means it’s faster on roads, but not so fast it can it can be used as a QRF, and onve it needs to go off road it is definitely not more “mobile” than its tracked counter parts. Certainly no commander should be sacrificing his CS artillery and counter batteries fire for a DF 155 (loads of other options are available).
You can say its a game changer all you like, but that doesn’t make it so, and the reasons you keep listing can be taken apart really quickly by anyone with a cursory understanding of the actual dynamics at play.
Nonsense. There is zero need for any such secrecy except to spare the blushes of the dimwits running the show.
Be lucky to get 20 units.
I think we should devote a large part of our Boxer fleet to RCH 155 and just run out and buy the Patria 6×6 for the armoured personnel carrier role and as a husky replacement. Babcock is now building the 6×6 and it’s only around £1 million per vehicle. Germany and other boxer uses are doing something similar now. Boxer is great as is Ajax but they are expensive. We need numbers.
Agreed on Patria to supplement Boxer and possibly the ARES IFV the army are said to be wanting.
I’ve never been convinced by RCH155 myself, thought K9 the way to go.
What should be certain is the RA at last getting some love after decades of neglect. In both Fires and GBAD expansion.
Going to say, is there absolutely no place being given to having any tracked systems at all as many countries are still purchasing tracked? Are they mistaken? Going 100% all wheeled could be unwise. Why can’t they put the RCH155 turret on at tracked chassis…and we’ll all be happy? lol.
Poland in particular has dissected what is happening in the Ukraine War and made choices based on what they have learnt.For Self Propelled Artillery they have stated that they will only go with Tracked,not Wheeled or a combination of both going forward.
Depends where you’re fighting but if it’s in Europe short of Ukraine you definitely want wheeled for everything other than tanks.
Why – Even if we were only a European force (and we are not) surely Ukraine is not the only place with mud that cause issues with wheeled vehicles so necessitate tracks?
Uh, no you don’t?
Quentin, We have always had tracked artillery and wheeled (towed) arty. Both types are required. The army was never given a chance to test all options for AS-90 replacement as Sunak intervened, but the K9 was one candidate.
I am aware of that. But why didn’t they (Sunak) choose the K9? It’s the wood for the trees? Supposedly smart men making really stupid decisions. Even a mixed fleet might be a better choice. Talking of towed, why didn’t the British designed M777 ever enter service with the UK, why no tracked version, why no naval version? I’m not even a military person and I get mad at the lack of backing UK industry. And all this talk of expanding the Army, hope there’s adequate protected amd armed vehicles being taken up for all this as well.
Have you looked at the Tracked Boxer with the RCH155 turret on ! It does look better than the wheeled one.
No didn’t know they had one.
Yep go to KNDS BOXER website and have a look at it, it can use all the same Boxer modules such as Mortar, Skyranger and RCH155. Yep I know it pricey but it leverages all the other Boxer variants and engines / transmission etc. So is rather than buying more wheeled Boxers we added 250 odd Tracked ones you get a harmonious high end capability and can mix the module fit to suit the environment.
We are already in for Boxer so just add the tracked one and back it up with a home produced Patria for mass.
Would it not be better to develop a light APC on the Supercat TSV chassis, in fact Supercat already have a fully enclosed armoured TSV demonstrator. That way we would reduce the amount of AFV types in service.
Challenger 2/3 (Including CARV, Trojan and Titan)
Ajax
Boxer
Foxhound
Jackal
Bradley (GMLRS)
What would make sense to me is for the Boffins here to come up with an 21st century FV432 Replacement – a Simple Box on Tracks to move Infantry etc about.Protection to modern standards and call it done.
They did it, it’s the Patria 6×6
“on tracks”?
I think the lack of 432/113 replacement is mostly down to a fundamental change in battlefield roles for the APC. When both where developed a “box on tracks” was the heavy frontline infantry transport. Obviously the IFV killed that off, APCs becoming transport for supporting units or infantry that didn’t need vehicle support.
In that context: 432 and 113 both have soldiered on because despot being old they’re “good enough” and where they have been replaced they’ve been replaced with an eye towards COIN, so v shaped hulls, or, especially with 6×6 and 8×8 vehicles narrowing the gap, taking the trade off of slightly less off road mobility for more on road mobility.
I do not think we’ll be seeing any tracked general support “box”es any time soon in short.
Jim, we have ordered 623 Boxers and they are being built ‘as we speak’!! Should be more Boxer orders going in soon.
Hi Jim I would agree on the Patria as long as it’s STANAG level was increased to 4..France has used this level for all its APCs and protected mobility vehicles and got most of those for under a million a pop .the base STANAG 2 is just to low ( anything that can be penetrated by a 7.62 round is not adequate neither is and 80m blast from a 155mm).
In reality the army needs a bulk buy of around 2000 Basic STANAG 4 APCs, then it needs an air mobile protected mobility vehicle for 16 brigate and 400ish tracked infantry fighting vehicles…. Boxer at around 8 million a pop with STANAG 6 is just pissing money into the wind and always has been ( France is getting around 8 APCs for the cost of every boxer).
If the new Labour government is serious about rebuilding the British defence industrial base they should scrap the RCH155 system being built on the 6X6 wheeled Boxer chassis. Sunak, advised by that well-known military expert Grant Schapps, rejected the tracked and armoured S Korean K9 SPG system that was favoured by the Army and artillery specialists in the MoD. The Koreans offered to build a purpose built factory in the UK to make them, transfering intellectual property, digital tech and machine tooling .
The German RCH155 is an 8X8 wheeled vehicle and despite apparently being able to fire on the move it’s not tracked, neither does it have much protection for the crew. It will be vulnerable to shrapnel and small arms fire, is unsuitable for winter warfare and is humungously expensive
Artillery is the god of war. The experience in Ukraine shows that prodigious amonts of firepower are required for counter-basttery work and to halt and break up enemy attacks. I hope that the decision to by the RCH155 system mounted on a Boxer chassis is reviewed. Experience shows that if the MoD is organising this project it will come in late and over budget. Better to talk to the S Koreans about swiftly building their factory and making the K9 here
I agree on RCH155, but i fear it’s far too late.
Even before our politicians were running to Paris like frightened rabbits trying to look important after Trump telling Europe for years what he intended to do and that we need to do more on defence, Labour were cosying up to Germany as part of the “reset”
That in reality started with the Tories, as several defence developments were already underway, RCH155 just one.
So I see zero chance now we’d leave a European provider for Korean.
So why hasn’t the details been sorted yonks ago when Sunak signed us up for this mistake?
We are looking at years before we get our hands on one let alone how many we actually need!
K9 would probably have been up and running by now looking at the way the SKs work,
Still “ mind the gap”🙄
Talking of timing K9 & K20 has just been delivered into the Australian army last week. And India is going to make under licence. Why is the UK caught up in “all wheeled” madness?
That is the first deliveries of units from Korea. They’ll also be a significant quanity manufactured under licence here in Australia.
We had Sunak, an interfering PM and Grant Schapps as the Defence Minister – both with no military experience whatsoever. Schrapps was a wide boy politician from Essex. They were sold on RCH155 by Kraus-Maffei Wegmann. Schrapps wanted it taken off the German 8×8 chassis and built on a 6×6 Boxer chassis instead. The mock-up looks top heavy and unbalanced to many people
I think you answered your own question with the last word…”madness” it says all you need to know.
Jacko, Iagree that we are looking at years before getting RCH-155. The UK Boxer factory is busy making 623 Boxers for the BA first! Also Sunak said that the RCH-155 needed more Anglo-German development work.
Yes 8 million pound APCs..just what what needed.
Would the same MOD not be fundamentally organising the details of the project building any K9 order as it is in the building of Boxer/RCH155?
It would. But surely just giving the Koreans a brownfield site somewhere – maybe an old Royal Ordnance Factory site – letting the Koreans specify what they want and then getting Sir Robert McAlpine or another good contractor to build it would minimise DE&S involvement
RCH155 on 6X6 Boxer will need all sorts of re-design. We have tried to do this many times before. Once the MoD have gold-plated it and all the committees have had their say, the costs will treble with years of delay as it turns into another Ajax. Anyway it will mostly be built in Germany by KNDS Deutschland
Why will it need a redesign? First units were delivered to Ukraine in January, so we will soon know how they perform. It is more likely that the ongoing considerations are are about workshare and supply chains than any alteration of the weapon system.
If a wheeled vehicle can’t operate in certain extreme conditions ( the rasputitsa), why not retain some AS90s as back up?
How’s the RCH155 doing in Ukraine as haven’t they got some of these already? Or, not yet?
As ever, the procurement of new land systems seems to be proceeding SO slowly but I guess this is the nature of the commercial beast. That said, it would be nice to act and not just speak as if we were in an urgent crisis!
Starmer’s Government has done a lot for Ukraine (the 5,000 LMMs etc) but there is so much more we need to be doing to 1. re-arm 2. de-Trump our capabilities (Trident missiles where we need to investigate storing them here or looking at an alternative missile). I am hopeful that a lot of this is happening behind closed doors so I, for one, will just have to be patient.
On a related topic, I came across this Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report into drone usage in Ukraine and I found it to be a real eye-opener (link below).
I could highlights lots from it but the opening quote is as good as any: ‘ “On the battlefield I did not see a single Ukrainian soldier. Only drones. I saw them [Ukrainian soldiers] only when I surrendered. Only drones, and there are lots and lots of them. Guys, don’t come. It’s a drone war.” — Surrendered Russian soldier’
I was also reading some commentary on the forthcoming massive German defence investment where it was being suggested that the German MOD should look to a technological jump, fewer tanks and more investment in drones and AI. Seems like there may be a consensus building on this.
Cheers.
CSIS link: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraines-future-vision-and-current-capabilities-waging-ai-enabled-autonomous-warfare
Possible euro uk rush to sign contracts with arms suppliers but a lot of this won’t relieve the current situation for some time.
‘Time’ the one commodity you never have enough of and it is that one you have absolutely NO any control over… Waste it, and its gone.
Cheers CR
Can we get this carved over the entrances at Abbey Wood?
Unfortunately this was a classic of why you actually do sit down with a proper procurement and weigh up your options. Although the army did that for its APC and ended up buying one 8 times more expensive than most other reasonable APCs on the market.
There should be a very simple tick list
1) is it good enough and fit for purpose ( need not want should be the issue…as in we “need” to eat but we “want” cake)
2) can it be built in this country and increase our industrial base
3) can it be built quickly and in numbers if required for a national emergency ( a long peer war)
4) is it cheap enough that it can be purchased at a decent mass
5) can any other nation prevent us from using it how we want
Essentially if kit cannot tick all those boxes it should not be in the race…any kit then in the race, you can then score against each other….
You underestimate the ability of two-year project civil servants to royally fcuk things up and then move on to the Treasury. The worst that could happen to them is they get asked to write a “justification” – probably in Latin which they all seem to learn at school
I always liked “Si vis pacem, para bellum” shame they don’t understand it properly
neither do I …..
I think it’s ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’
It’s from Vegetius, De Re Militari (Of Things Military), which is itself effectively a massive rant about the state of the Eastern Roman Army after Adrianople. The actual quote is “Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum.”
Or
“Therefore, he who desires peace: prepare for War.”
But it tends to get shortened.
Hi M8, I like your list but other than the AI sniper rifles, the CR2, FV432 and the L118 I’m struggling to think of anything in service or planned that can fully meet them. Industry has just gone too multinational, even the closest Allies can scupper us by either withholding support or a contractual veto.
Your point 5 is the killer as it has to be mitigated rather than an absolute. As for point 2 yes it’s a great ideal but it pretty well kills OTS buys that we just can’t justify the cost / delay of building ourselves or urgent operational requirements such as the NSM or Archer buy.
For instance we are building Ajax and Boxer both use German made MTU engines, but the mitigation is it’s owned by RR.
Don’t get me wrong most of my working career was in U.K Defence related industry based here in Derby, but we still needed to source some components or equipment overseas. Bear in mind not even the French are 100% and they have had a Nationalistic purchasing ethos since mmm we’ll always 🤷🏼♂️ They even introduced the metric system just so they could avoid using other countries parts.
Jon, for MIV, I wonder what alternatives to Boxer were considered?
@Graham, depends how far back you want to go, because Boxer was the product of multiple equipment programs that kept getting kicked down the line. But for MIV itself I think the final choice was between Boxer, Piranha V, VBCI and Patria AMV.
This RCH155 ,a part from it been a Sunak deal still have know idea what the Army think of it .How does it compare to the K9 ? Or price wise HMG don’t do expensive . Never quite been impressed with this RCH 155 Boxer with it not been Artillery platform from scratch looks like it’s a make do job . Still looking like it’s to late now and our artillery are going have this System . Hope I’m providing wrong and it works out ,maybe we should call the Sunak Gun 😀
I never really understood how that procurement ever came about…it was like going to look at cars for a company car pool at the nearest dealer you lived to without really knowing what your staff wanted it for ..and then coming back with the first thing you saw “cus it was a good deal”… (maybe your mate owned the dealership or was the salesman you spoke to and he offered to buy you a pint at the local next time he saw you)
Grizzled. Funny but not true. The Requirement always comes first.
Oh puleeze, commercial sensitivity my ass.
Embarrassingly small budget and small number of systems to be acquired are much more likely to be the reason for the secrecy.
What is more important is what are the support vehicles going to be? Ammunition resupply, protection/spare crews etc etc.
is this included in the budget allocated? I would think drops platform would be ideal for the rockets and shell resupply.
Will a more protected vehicle be needed than a truck?
I think about 116 to 124 will be ordered, any more would mean enlarging the Artillery, unless RCH 155 replaces the light gun in most Regts. Less for 7 RHA and 29 CDO
It was originally reported in the defence press as 116. That seems an awful lot to replace the AS-90s in 2 regts. At most, with 24 per regt, a trials and training unit and maybe a field training battery, that wouldn’t exceed 60.
Could the rest be destined to replace the L118s in 7 Bde? It looks a heavy piece of kit, not suitable for 16 air aslt bde and 4 inf bde doesn’ have any regular artillery to replace.
Possibly kitting out one of the reserve bdes, replacing the L118s?
Even if all above was planned, it still wouldn’t add up to 116, unless MOD is building in a 25% war reserve, which the beanvounters at the MOD don’t seem to do anymore
In nearly all the daily reports of equipment purchases, the approx numbers beingprocured and the purpose are given. The Rishi gun seems to be shrouded in mystery. I wonder how much input the army staffs had in the process, have to hope that Sunak and the DE&S didn’t jump the gun here and lumber the army with kit they didn’t have in mind.
Concur with that analysis.
I also considered the possibility of the existing Archers going to 7 Brigade.
I might be old fashioned but this RCH 155 looks wrong to me, as if some German woke up the other morning and said to himself (in German) “let’s take a 155 howitzer, put it on a Boxer and sell to the British as cutting edge technology”
100% ++
Except putting it on Boxer was Grant Schraps’ idea
Damn, we can’t even blame the German 😉
Ukraine is buying around 54 of them. The first was delivered at the end of Feb. The first 5 are being kept in Germany for training. The rest will be going to Ukraine and then in to combat. This will be the real test on how they perform.
200 is a great number. We can live in hope. Let’s hope HMG are about to massively up our firepower. Let’s hope SDSR really reflects the huge threats we are facing.
Uhhh…for the benefit of the uninformed, please translate/explain further the role of “blokes to stag on the hide…” Thanks.
Question answered fully above. (Thought it was either a maintenance or security reference.)
Yeah sorry, I wrote the second post first, and when I wrote the 2nd post I was just ever so slightly exasperated at having this conversation yet again.
Yeah sorry, I wrote the second post first, and when I wrote the 2nd post I was just ever so slightly exasperated at having this conversation yet again.
F/USAF. Stag equals guard or sentry duty. AKA Ground defence of the gun and the battery position. Has to be done by Gunners. There is no spare infantry to do this. It is a 24/7 task.
Do I like the idea of new kit for the RA yes, do I like the RCH155mm No! For wheeled artillery I do think we should go with Archer and HIMARS or Elbit PULS. For working with armour then the K9A3 with the K11A1 and M270 will do. Wheeled artillery for the Boxer formations, tracked artillery for the Ch3/Ajax/Ares formations.
We all know the terrain conditions in the Ukraine, but Poland is also bad in some parts of the country. I know I dug up enough of Poland putting in a new communications network.
Ron, yes. As we have always done. Tracks with tracks. Wheels with wheels.