UK Mobile Fires Platform

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 May 2022, 10:36 For me the need for a Brimstone Overwatch platform with a 30 to 40 km should be high up the list followed by a upgrade to Spear 3 with a 80 to 100 km range
Spear (not Spear 3, thats the MoD programme name) range is way beyond that...more like 220km (dependent on flight profile). It would need a rocket booster added.

The rest is already likely to happen with BGOAA.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dstl ... es-project

Known as Battle Group Organic Anti-Armour (BGOAA), the work covers 4 areas:

- Close-In Self Defence (CISD): portable light weight munitions carried by Infantry sections
- Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO): a long range system providing anti-armour coverage to the battle group, with concepts carrying multiple missiles weighing up to 50kg with a range of up to 10km or more
- Close Combat Anti-Armour Weapons (CCAAW): Mounted and Dismounted, capable of destroying armoured vehicles even if hidden from view

The Land Weapons project aims to increase combat effectiveness by modernising the Army’s Guided Weapons that have been in service for over a decade. Using technology that can be launched at a greater distances and with increased force both outranging and overmatching the threat. A significant objective is to increase commonality and interchangeability between different platforms, providing greater flexibility and lower costs. Dstl is also exploring how such modular systems might enable launchers and missiles to be mounted across different trucks and armoured vehicles.

The new systems will incorporate a range of advanced technologies such as:

Non line-of-sight capability
Third-party/remote targeting and control
New sensors to overcome ‘active protection systems’ and defeat the enemy’s electronic or electro-magnetic defences
The current focus is the development of the MCCO capability. Dstl is leading work with support from industry partners including Lockheed Martin, MBDA and Thales, generated through Dstl’s weapons sector framework contract. The long-range system will be capable of engaging targets up to 10km away with missiles weighing up to 50kg.


You can pretty much guess where this will end up...

- Close-In Self Defence (CISD): portable light weight munitions carried by Infantry sections - Will be NLAW 2. After its showing in Ukraine...no need to re-invent the wheel at all, there isn't anything else like it out there right now
- Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO): a long range system providing anti-armour coverage to the battle group, with concepts carrying multiple missiles weighing up to 50kg with a range of up to 10km or more - Will be Brimstone or a derivative. Poland already moving that way.
- Close Combat Anti-Armour Weapons (CCAAW): Mounted and Dismounted, capable of destroying armoured vehicles even if hidden from view - This will be MBDA MMP. Already substantial elements made in Bolton. Javelin G variant and LWCLU does not have Man in the Loop.

Apart from that I can see a Loitering Munition arriving as well. Could be Switchblade 600 or the Army might look at the MBDA Spectre concept, or some other MBDA programme (they've recently announced a re-focus on Loitering Munitions). Sovereign capability is being revisited...

These would replace Javelin and Spike NLOS in UK Service.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Lord Jim

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: 29 May 2022, 11:51 system providing anti-armour coverage to the battle group, with concepts carrying multiple missiles weighing up to 50kg with a range of up to 10km or more - Will be Brimstone or a derivative. Poland already moving that way.
Timmymagic wrote: 29 May 2022, 11:51 Non line-of-sight capability
Third-party/remote targeting and control
If you put the last two points together with Brimstone-derived capabilities, then millimtr radars could be seeing more widespread use also in ground-launched weapons
- initially targeted by a concealed recce patrol on foot
- final homing with the said radar that is pretty good at defeating various forms of camouflage (as long as :) the 'plastic tank' won't make a comeback, too)
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Lord Jim
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 May 2022, 06:44
Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 It is really recycling the constant tracked vs wheeled debate.
Not at all. It's a question of size, regardless of the means of propulsion.

To repeat, there's nothing light about a 155 SPG regardless of wheels or tracked. Nor the ammunition carriers. Nor the recovery vehicle (SVR or CRAAV).

Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 As pointed out none of these can be considered lightweight platforms, but a wheeled platform would be far more easily integrated into a light BCTs ....
But why? They're completely incompatible with the doctrine of the BCT.
Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 HIMARS is more flexible, as is the M270, than what can currently be delivered from out of a Mk41 VLS. Yes both can be used in the precision strike role, but HIMARS has the option to use cargo rockets laying AT munition for example. Both these vehicles will be able to fire the US Army's new long range precision strike missile with a range of around 500km. It is the ability of HIMARS to easily cooperate in conjunction with a Wheeled 155mm SP platform, bringing the same cost benefits.
But HIMARS is a lightweight solution intended for rapid deployability. I can't see any reason why a light force would also require a land-launched 500km precision strike capability.

The medium and heavy units should have a full 12-pack launcher equipped, on wheels if necessary.
Lord Jim wrote: 29 May 2022, 04:00 The current Royal Horse Artillery unit designated to support the Royal Marines would instead become the HIMARS equipped Regiment and would support the
29 Commando support the Royal Marines with indirect fires.
Going bottom to top.
Yes 29 Commando Regiment ROYAL ARTILLERY, do provide the indirect fire support for the Royal Marines at present, but it is an Army unit.

If you read the whole piece and ones I have previously posted, I cannot see teh FCF retaining a dedicated Artillery unit, but will rather receive long range indirect fire support from naval units including HIMARS fired from ships decks, as the USMC has successfully done recently. These for I suggested the conversion of 29 Regiment into a HIMARS equipped unit to provide such a service as well as support other units including the two light BCTs.
I only see the heavy tracked M270 GMLRS having a home in the Deep Strike BCT, which will hopefully end up being based in eastern Germany or western Poland, with the related reserve personnel being flown out regularly for training with the BCT as a whole.

As for the Wheeled 155mm SPG such as Archer or the RCH155, both are definitely compatible with both the light and Heavy BCTs. In both the crew operate the Guns from under Armour and have very quick fire mission cycles, better then the current AS-90. Both have good cross country performance, the RCH155 is using the Boxer chassis after all, and the Swedes made a big deal about the cross country mobility of their archer given where is was going to operate and even the MAN 8x8 is very good across country. Both meet the current criteria the Army has set for the AS_90 replacement which also puts a large emphasis on being bale to move hundreds of KM under its own power, aka. not requiring a HET. As a result both platforms can keep up with those units that should end up equipping our two Light BCTs, and the latter certainly need effective indirect fire support as the importance of long range and effective raillery has really shown its importance in teh current war in Ukraine.

That will do for now as its 6:15 am here.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 May 2022, 06:12 Going bottom to top.
Yes 29 Commando Regiment ROYAL ARTILLERY, do provide the indirect fire support for the Royal Marines at present, but it is an Army unit.
Glad you looked it up.
Lord Jim wrote: 30 May 2022, 06:12 If you read the whole piece and ones I have previously posted, I cannot see teh FCF retaining a dedicated Artillery unit, but will rather receive long range indirect fire support from naval units including HIMARS fired from ships decks, as the USMC has successfully done recently
Whilst it's fantastic it's been done, it's an absolutely ridiculous waste of resources to use a wheeled vehicle as a launcher off a ship. Absurd suggestion as a permanent capability.
Lord Jim wrote: 30 May 2022, 06:12 As for the Wheeled 155mm SPG such as Archer or the RCH155, both are definitely compatible with both the light and Heavy BCTs. In both the crew operate the Guns from under Armour and have very quick fire mission cycles, better then the current AS-90. Both have good cross country performance, the RCH155 is using the Boxer chassis after all, and the Swedes made a big deal about the cross country mobility of their archer given where is was going to operate and even the MAN 8x8 is very good across country. Both meet the current criteria the Army has set for the AS_90 replacement which also puts a large emphasis on being bale to move hundreds of KM under its own power, aka. not requiring a HET. As a result both platforms can keep up with those units that should end up equipping our two Light BCTs, and the latter certainly need effective indirect fire support as the importance of long range and effective raillery has really shown its importance in teh current war in Ukraine.

That will do for now as its 6:15 am here.
Still completely ignoring the simple fact they are too heavy to deploy there, too heavy to provide battlfiet engineering support (I.e. bridges and crossings), too heavy to provide logistics support and too heavy to provide recovery support when placed within a Light group of approximately 10t vehicles.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 30 May 2022, 09:24 Absurd suggestion as a permanent capability.
Agree with this one, but while the first wave (may be only the recon advance parties have gone ashore) firing them off a suitable platform
"orthographié hors d'œuvre, correspond, dans le repas occidental classique, au deuxième plat (avant le potage)"
while the 'real' first wave is going in
- and the firing platforms themselves taken over the baech as part of the second wave ... assuming the third to be mainly logs, to sustain whatever has been achieved 'for starters' and to help to expand to where ever 'the boef' is
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 12:44
RunningStrong wrote: 30 May 2022, 09:24 Absurd suggestion as a permanent capability.
Agree with this one, but while the first wave (may be only the recon advance parties have gone ashore) firing them off a suitable platform
"orthographié hors d'œuvre, correspond, dans le repas occidental classique, au deuxième plat (avant le potage)"
while the 'real' first wave is going in
- and the firing platforms themselves taken over the baech as part of the second wave ... assuming the third to be mainly logs, to sustain whatever has been achieved 'for starters' and to help to expand to where ever 'the boef' is
Why would the second wave require a 50 mile+ deep strike capability from the beach head?

That's what I don't understand, the light forces and commando raiding forces will be fighting in a largely tactical battle.

So forgive my ignorance on this, I'm not a boot, but isn't distance to the horizon with some elevation of observer measured in a few 10s of km. What benefit is there in bringing the GMLRS capability onto shore?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 30 May 2022, 13:30 Why would the second wave require a 50 mile+ deep strike capability from the beach head?

That's what I don't understand, the light forces and commando raiding forces will be fighting in a largely tactical battle.
Well, compare your note, above, to a 2017 note on Joint Entry, to be revised after proving it with exercises:

"By exploiting all domains as manoeuvre space, the joint force will be able to threaten a greater number of the adversary’s critical assets, as well as increasing the unpredictability of the force. Manoeuvring through all available domains to multiple entry points and surprising the adversary enhances the potential for the joint force to avoid direct conflict against the adversary’s areas of strength and gain advantage in their areas of weakness. Our actions will eventually become obvious to the adversary, but, too late for them to react effectively. However, repeating the same manoeuvre more than once may increase the risk.

Approach.
Joint forces should begin shaping operations once sufficient understanding has been developed. Shaping activities will employ the four component part of joint action, namely: • manoeuvre; • fires; • information activities; and • outreach. Airlift is vital to support entry operations across environments"

Shaping operations then goes on fro "there', to give the specifics depending on the scale, but as you can see from the above 50+ km is not the limit ( err "land where they are not" and also observation is not limited to EyeBall Mk1; while having any such on the "ground' is invaluable).

Rinse and Repeat:
By exploiting all domains as manoeuvre space, the joint force will be able to threaten a greater number of the adversary’s critical assets, as well as increasing the unpredictability of the force. Manoeuvring through all available domains to multiple entry points and surprising the adversary enhances the potential for the joint force to avoid direct conflict against the adversary’s areas of strength ...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

You're going to have to make your point clearer. I've not said they don't require deep strike, I'm asking why they need it on the beach.

It also contradicts the statement that "airlift is vital".

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 14:18 a 2017 note on Joint Entry
RunningStrong wrote: 30 May 2022, 17:15 I've not said they don't require deep strike, I'm asking why they need it on the beach.
Joint in the note on entry (where 'beach' will be part of the equation to an 'appropriate degree'.
-Deep Strike? Ours fly out to almost 100 km; not something that would be determined Deep Strike
- Entry point (that is yr beach or like 10 nm off it/ them... the idea is that several should be used; some of them faints)
- Now, you draw these 100 km minus 10 nm circles onto to target area, and you may (?) be able to strike what would/could have been the hardest to overcome defences... while never touching them AND also reaching the objectives of the raid (does not equate to 'tactical battle'). A quick 'in & out job' and I don't attribute it to Alex, but rather the note on Joint Entry
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:04 -Deep Strike? Ours fly out to almost 100 km; not something that would be determined Deep Strike
You might want to speak to 3RHA and 26 RA within the 1st Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team then...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:42 speak to 3RHA and 26 RA within the 1st Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team then...
They know this (you might not?), 150... 499 km :
"Taking advantage of the long-standing MLRS collaboration with the US and key allies, work will start on upgrading the first tranche of launchers in March 2022 with the fleet going through production over a four-year period. The upgrades will keep the equipment in service until 2050.

The work will be carried out under an existing production contract with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control with the work being carried out at Red River Army Depot and Lockheed Martin's facility in Camden, Arkansas.

The UK is also developing UK-specific systems for the new launchers, including Composite Rubber Tracks (CRT), and a vehicle camera and radar system. A new Fire Control System will be developed collaboratively with the US, UK, Italy, and Finland.

The CRT will provide better fuel economy and allow the launcher to travel further, giving greater operational and tactical mobility to support deployed troops in a range of operating environments. A single launcher will be used to fire many payloads.

To ensure soldiers are not outranged, the Army will develop a new extended range missile with MLRS partners, to be fired from the updated launchers, which should be in-service by 2025. The Guided MLRS Extended Range (GMLRS-ER) missile will extend the Army’s reach from 84 to 150km.

The 44 updated launchers will also be able to fire the US’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) which has a range of 499km and is expected in-service from 2024. These weapons will place the British Army at the cutting edge of global deep fires capability, ready to respond to long range air defence and missile threats presented by hostile actors.

MLRS is owned by the Royal Artillery and is operated by 26 Regiment RA from Larkhill, Wiltshire and 101 Regiment RA (Reserves) of Gateshead, Tyne & Wear." as per the Army website
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 19:40
RunningStrong wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:42 speak to 3RHA and 26 RA within the 1st Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team then...
They know this (you might not?), 150... 499 km :
Are you okay? Your posting is unusually disjointed and irrelevant.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I would say that you have changed tack.
(?)

From relevant, to a tactic that all with a journalistic training (or interrogation, for that matter... won't say which one I've had) know will be good at disorienting a discussion:
Go with in open-ended questions, and demand closed-end answers
... you clearly lost the plot when I turned the tables. Now, good old fellow, come back with some of the concrete/ uptodate input that you used to do. Or may it be so that the handle that was established, over a length of time as per usual, by someone actually knowing "about the topic" has been :roll: passed on

Certainly a new :?: , and a very different tone... I must say
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 21:12 From relevant, to a tactic that all with a journalistic training (or interrogation, for that matter... won't say which one I've had) know will be good at disorienting a discussion:
Go with in open-ended questions, and demand closed-end answers
You've clearly had neither training (your spelling is atrocious for a start), because I've done nothing of the sort. You've provided inconsistent and weird responses.

I said 50+ miles. You replied with km and 'limit'. How is 50+ a limit!?

Then you've said ours fly to 100km and that's not deep strike... And yet our GMLRS are part of Recce Deep Strike BCT, and yet you said they will have a have a capability of 150-499km...

You haven't turned the table, you've flipped it and tried to start a game of Scrabble.

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by sunstersun »

PrSM initially by 2023 is supposed to be 500km. Then by 2025 add on the ability to hit moving targets, and finally by 2028 double the range to 1k km with naval targeting.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... Functional

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

What is wrong with having a couple of HIMARS on the deck of a MRSS to provide indirect fire support to a raid by a LSU? If everything goes swimmingly they probably won't be needed buy if it all goes to hell the HIMARS can rapidly throe a screen of HE between the LSU and the Bad Guys allowing them to be extracted. This is what the USMC is looking at but to a greater degree, using HIMARS as a key component in accessing an A2/AD zone and then creating friendly bubbles as well as threatening other key sites in teh enemy's A2/AD zone. They have trailed it and it works and is far simpler than designing a ship mounted systems when few HIAMRS on deck provide the capability if and when needed. This was never suggested as a permanent capability but one that would be ad hoc, just to be clear.

As for the Royal Artillery supporting the Royal MArines, yes I double checked to make sure the statement that the artillery was manned by Royal Marine Commandos or else a basic pedantic stirring due to boredom.

The Light Brigades are going to be a bit heavier than a maximum of 10t. How much would a fully loaded Bushmaster way, let alone a Mastiff also fully loaded. Yes their will be Jackals and Foxhounds/JL:TV, but they are also going to need 6x6 or 8x8 Logistics truck who will also carry the major bridging equipment. As For Engineering, that is what a combat Engineering version of the Bushmaster would take over of at most a Combat Engineering version of the Boxer. Remember the "Light" French forces in Mali took along some heavier VBCI to give them more punch with better protection. The 105mm Light Gun has given Stirling service for nearly fifty years, longer than any other piece of towed artillery since WWII. But in "Bush Wars" everyone and their Father in Law has access to BM-21 Grads and D-30 122mm Guns. The Light Brigades would be better served by a simple SP 81mm Mortar and one or two batteries or heavier equipment such as Archer 8x8 or the RCH155, or even your Bug Bear HIMARS. A Battery of either could be easily flown out in a combinations of C-17 and Atlas. A Firebase with such a Battery would command a substantial area of land within which any units form the Light BCT could operate in confidence. Indirect fire support is gong to be vital as fixed and rotary wing air support is likely to be limited, to what the locals can being to the table.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Tempest414 »

We are jumping around a bit here but if Spear has a range of 220 Km and tomahawk has a range of 1600 Km then from the RM / RN stand point a type 26 could give deep fire support using its 127mm gun out to 90 km's , Spear out to 220 km's and Tomahawk out to 1600 km if we add to this a Viking with a 18 round Spear launcher rear module the RM would be in a pretty good place

Now for the Light mech BCT's if we were to give them

81mm SP mortar on Bushmaster
105mm SP gun on Coyote
12 to 18 round Spear launcher on Bushmaster

They will be in a good place and would remain light

As for the L118 v D-30 they have the same range if fact the L118 has better range in standard config

Also for me I am not against have a regiment of HIMARS

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Let me add some time order, as the already started 5-yr prgrm will produce 'this' by 2025... and then we could add some 'goodness' from the US, as per the second quote that follows:

"A new Fire Control System will be developed collaboratively with the US, UK, Italy, and Finland. The CRT will provide better fuel economy and allow the launcher to travel further, giving greater operational and tactical mobility to support deployed troops in a range of operating environments. A single launcher will be used to fire many payloads. To ensure soldiers are not outranged, the Army will develop a new extended range missile with MLRS partners, to be fired from the updated launchers, which should be in-service by 2025. The Guided MLRS Extended Range (GMLRS-ER) missile will extend the Army’s reach from 84 to 150km"
sunstersun wrote: 30 May 2022, 23:18 PrSM initially by 2023 is supposed to be 500km. Then by 2025 add on the ability to hit moving targets
@RS... do continue (some facts pls, not just ad hominem... I still do not quite get it why you have suddenly changed 'style'?)
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Oldrusty
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Tempest414 »

Just to put this in to some focus with a missile capable of 550 km's I could cover the whole of France from my farm in the centre of France do the BCT's Heavy , Light or otherwise need this capability . Yes the army needs this capability but do the BCT's

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 May 2022, 11:48 do the BCT's Heavy , Light or otherwise need this capability . Yes the army needs this capability but do the BCT's
With that sort of range it is a good question (except for the fact that the capabilities have to be housed somewhere... before they are deployed, perhaps using a different template.

Such a template could be
"“The reactivation of the 56th Artillery Command will provide U.S. Army Europe and Africa with significant capabilities in multidomain operations,” Maj. Gen. Stephen J. Maranian, commander of the 56th Artillery Command, said in the announcement. “It will further enable the synchronization of joint and multinational fires and effects, and employment of future long-range surface-to-surface fires across the U.S. Army Europe and Africa area of responsibility.”["] in which framework the ever-increasing range would not only make them theatre/ NATO AO level assets, but would also be coordinated as part of the mentioned multinational fires.

Now, the same question about a 155 mm tube artillery platform?
Yes, a resounding one as far as the BCTs are concerned. No need to look further (time wise, rather than in km) than how the Russian are grinding down defending units in Donetsk, from afar.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

SO one way forward would be for each BCT, especially the two heavier ones, should have a dedicated Artillery Regiment equipped with a modern 155mm SP Gun with a range of at least 40km and be able to travel significant distances on roads as well as effectively off road with the rest of the BCT.

Our not quite two Regiments of updated M270 GMLRS should fund a permanent home in the Deep Strike BCT and receive the new ER Rockets as well as the Long Range Precision Strike Missile. We could possibly a Regiment of HIMARS to provide the BCTs a longer range fire support capability as a means to conduct Counter Battery Fire.

As for the 105mm Light Gun, yes the D-30 may only be comparable in performance but you still have to consider the readily available 122mm MLRS, as we as the lone serving but impressive M-46 130mm Towed Guns, the USSR gave away in significant number to friendly nations. This is still a premier weapon in many countries and out ranges moat legacy 155mm weapon, one of the reasons the Israelis hung only the M107 175mm SP Guns for so long, and why these same guns were used in Vietnam by the US Army, as it was the only land based gun they could readily use to counter the 13omm.

All of the above is just my opinion, nothing else. What is certain though is that the British Army need to replace the majority of its artillery with more modern and effective weapon systems, through upgrades and purchases of new platforms. It also need a greater capacity in this area, either increasing the size of existing Regiments or standing up new ones. This can be added to the growing list of equipment the British Army urgently needs, together with a greater slice of the MoD's Equipment Plan funding is new money is not available.

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by sunstersun »

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/arm ... nvergence/

I will be shocked if the UK doesn't go HIMARS. It seems very British to have such an expeditionary capability.
These users liked the author sunstersun for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacLord Jim

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by mr.fred »

sunstersun wrote: 18 Jun 2022, 15:13 https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/arm ... nvergence/

I will be shocked if the UK doesn't go HIMARS. It seems very British to have such an expeditionary capability.
There's an interesting argument against it where the single pod is down to getting it on the C130 - Since the UK doesn't operate the C130 there's no advantage for doing so and they'd be better off with a twin pod on a truck that fits on an A400M or resurrecting LIMAWS-R so it's transportable via a helicopter.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
RunningStrong

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by SW1 »

I don’t get that argument tbh it maybe right up against the c130 weight limit but you could potentially get 2 in an a400m or take one and deploy it a long way which may have more strategic benefit to the U.K. if you can have vehicles that aren’t pushing up against the limits of the aircraft it gives so many more options particularly if they were supporting our lighter forces
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: UK Mobile Fires Platform

Post by Lord Jim »

At present the only two option for GMLRS and the soon to be in service long range precision missile, the M270 of which we have around 36 and HIMARS. There is no truck mounted double pod platform that I am aware of as given HIMARS is truck mounted, it would take a much larger platform, especially wider to mount a two pod launcher on such a platform. If it is possible to carry an M270 in a A400 Atlas then that would improve the platforms expeditionary credentials but not by much as it is tactically inferior to the HIMARS when it comes to mobility.

Ideally I think the UK should either have a mix of HIARS and M270s or re equip itself with just HIMARS. In theory we could provide Ukraine with out stocks of M370s, far ore useful to them than the three of four we have given them already. We could then purchase HIMARS, which includes all the upgrades we had planned for our M270s for the start. WE could purchase sufficient vehicles to equip two Regiments with four six launcher Batteries which would form the core of our planned Deep Fires BCT. If required the forth Battery in each Regiment could be attached to the Artillery Regiments attached to the Heavy BCTs to improve the dedicated firepower of those formations. These Batteries could also be attached to support either of the Light BCTs if needed.

Alternatively we still create one enlarged Artillery Regiment with six four Launcher Batteries, and a second Regiment equipped with HIMARS as described above. The latter would be partly finances by only upgrading around 30 M270s. This second Regiment would be able to attach batteries to either or both Heavy and Light BCTs as the need arises.

I strongly believe that moving forward we should not aim to simply match a possible enemy's Artillery capability but overmatch it. WE cannot afford to overly rely on air power in any future conflict, so we need to adopt Artillery platforms that are more accurate, fire faster and have a longer range than that of our opponent. We need to have as small as possible sensor to shooter loop, and we must be able to operate in a far more dispersed format whilst still being able to concentrate the fire effect we can attain.

This will dictate that our Mobile Fires Platforms have a high degree of mobility and be able to travel such distances that would usual require the use of a HET. We also need to have an efficient re supply systems allowing the guns/launchers to be rapidly reloaded and have said reload vehicles subsequently resupplies. This is most likely going to mean that any reload vehicle will need to be equipped to reload a gun/launcher with as little manual labour as possible, ideally with the crew being inside the platform.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply