"Ultra-Modern British Artillery Outmoded?" Topic

Not sure how accurate this is, but suspect it may have at least some truth to it, compared to the latest developments, like very-long range, rockets and rocket-assisted projectiles:

link

It will be interesting to see if the British army actually gets more funding, especially given current events in Ukraine, and threats in other areas, like the small Baltic nations, Finland, etc..

Apparently, at least some Challenger tanks and other armored units have been deployed to the Baltics region, and/or Finland for military exercises and support recently.

link

link

link

link

Is the UKs artillery arm cutting edge? No.

Is it good enough? Probably, I assume we're not planning to go to war with the USA anytime soon.

Could it do with some capital expenditure? Yes, but not a knee jerk reaction to what we've see in Ukraine. I doubt we will see a repeat of a country organising its logistics in such a way that a handful of HIMARS can pretty much break it.

Can the UK afford it? No. We're in recession, the social care system is creaking, we have a low wage base, problems in our international trading arrangements and a chunk of the country (granted a subsidised one) is agitating for a divorce. Military spending by and large doesn't affect elections in the UK and we're just two years out from an election where the incumbent governing party will be looking to save its skin.

No sure this guy has got a real grip on the situation, seems like some sort of pathetic click bate. Artillery covers a lot of things.

We have M270A1 as part of our artillery it's (HIMARS) on a fully tracked chassis, we have even sent some to Ukraine so not that sure we are out of date. Seems to me the guy writing has no grasp of the real world.

AS90 was one of the world's best SP arty systems in the 1990s/early 2000s. It had a 'burst-fire' capability long before the PZHB 2000 was conceived. AS90 is still not bad at all but could do with a longer-barrelled gun for longer ranges (one is available in theory) and fire control upgrades.
On the plus side, the AS90 technology is quite mature, and the Royal Artillery is VERY good at getting the best from it tactically- as it is the L118 Light Gun (similar in appearance but superior in performance to its M119 derivative). British standard arty rounds are also generally very powerful for their calibre, although they can fire US/NATO standard ones too if necessary.

The British Army has been focussed on COIN operations in sandy places with – being charitable – mixed results for a long time whilst there has been little or no upgrades to tanks, IFVs or heavy artillery.

But. We already have 42 M270 MLRS. These are being increased to 70 or so (ie, as many pocket pods as 140 HIMARS) and upgraded to the latest fire control version. The 155mm SPGs are also supposed to be replaced (having missed previous opportunities to upgrade them).

Let's just hope that these programmes are run better than the Ajax fiasco.

Whenever you hear some ex-Army type complaining that all the budget has been taken by the Navy building two white elephant aircraft carriers with no aircraft, remember the Army has spent more on not buying Warrior Upgrade, FRES or Ajax.

I suspect the concern is that the AS90's range is inadequate compared to more modern weapons, like long-range rocket launchers.

The plus side is that the AS90 can carry more rounds, and are more economical to fire a salvo, compared to rockets, so it seems to me each is useful in its own niche, though it is outranged by other weapons.

Looking at the sheer volume of artillery necessary for a modern war in Ukraine and the ranges of weapons in potential enemy arsenals this seems like a valid concern.

HIMARs and M270 are phenomenal at what they do. I got to have a sit down recently with a retired colonel who had been on staff at NATO hq. Pointed out these systems are precision systems and best employed against logistics, command and control, air defenses, counter battery fire. They can be saturation weapons but it is expensive. That's what the guns are for. There is a reason the US army is upgrading its 155 artillery tubes to increase range. Need to be able to go toe to toe with the best Russian and Chinese systems. If there is one thing the Russians value it's having ample, decent artillery.

"I suspect the concern is that the AS90's range is inadequate compared to more modern weapons, like long-range rocket launchers."

All conventional artillery is short ranged compared with long-range rockets but the AS90, with its 39 cal barrel is a bit short ranged compared with the latest competing howitzers. Its a pity that the project to up-gun it with BAE's 52 cal barrel (so the same gun and turret that the Poles now use). Apparently that could increase the range to 40km.

link

To be honest I don't understand why they don't just do that upgrade now rather than the current plan to retire AS90 and buy a completely new replacement, which might even be M109 – the system AS90 replaced back in 1992!

Of course the bigger challenge is that it looks like we need a lot more ammunition of all types than has previously been allowed for.

Is the UKs artillery arm cutting edge? No.

Is it good enough? Probably, I assume we're not planning to go to war with the USA anytime soon.

Yes, I'd say this is the bottom line.

Plus of course, no worries about another updated US-UK War of 1812 2.0.

HIMARs and M270 are phenomenal at what they do.

Agreed ! FA is still the "King of Battle" …

If there is one thing the Russians value it's having ample, decent artillery.

Yes, seems with FA, they are now just trying to beat the Ukraine into submission. As their actual combat ground ops with maneuver units have not been very "successful".

Of course the bigger challenge is that it looks like we need a lot more ammunition of all types than has previously been allowed for.

We are seeing something "wargamed" in the past by US/NATO forces if USSR/WP crossed the IGB(WIII).
They tempo of combat would probably be intense, especially in the first engagements. Ammo may not have lasted more than 3-4 months(?) along with lose of troop and material assets. Even with massive resupply efforts. Combined Arms requires a large Logistic tail. Russia obviously missed that concept.

So, IMO short answer, the USA should once again become the "Arsenal of Democracy". And get the manufacturing of some of the key ammos/ordinance ramped up. We see this war, which is a test bed for the "Next" conventual war, in reality. E.g. the Spanish Civil War before WWII.

And I am always critical of the current US gov't's waste of $ on too many Green, Social Welfare, illegal aliens, pie-in-the-sky, etc., etc., projects. When it is clear the US Military needs to be a priority. Being combat ready … now. And they are not. Along with the Military is wasting too much time on non-combat topics/dogma. As I have said many times before.

Combat Readiness & "Peace Thru Strength"