British Army News and Discussion
- Thread starter RobWilliams
- Start date
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
True but if the west were more NATO united and focused they would be offering a sustainable package rather than dribs and drabs. This war could drag on for years. And maintaining disparate fleets will be become a nightmare which the ukrainian state will still be paying for and could lead to vehicles being junked for lack of logistical capacity to get spares out to and into.
Leo2's, leo 1's, abrams, challenger 2's, pzh2000, as90, paladin, zusanna, bradleys, m113, marder, piranha's.... The list is getting crazy.
They need gripens in my mind.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
True, but as long as these are weapon types the previous owners still use, there's always the option to return to sender for some credit.
Gripens would be good, but the supply is limited. SAAB can't make large numbers quickly & Sweden doesn't have a lot of spare aircraft. I think the biggest stock of spare fighters is the USA's reserve F-16 fleet. May not suit Ukraine's needs quite as well, but it could get more sooner.
I expect they'll concentrate all of the penny packets, each type in one unit. And I think M1 may be off the list. More likely that Poland would get secondhand M1 on loan, pending delivery of K2, to allow it to donate lots of Leopard 2 (of which it has about 250. Probably easier to operate for Ukraine, & with other donations it might be able to get enough to meet its announced need for 300 modern(ish) tanks.
I suspect the biggest benefit of the UK donation in practical terms is that it opens the door for Germany to donate and permit the donation of the Leo's out there. Other than that, 10 or so CR2 can't make much difference other than increase the amount of spares they're carrying.
Update on the Ajax IFV.
One MP on the select committee had it spot on when he said about the Boxer delays and that is a MOTS vehicle.
One MP on the select committee had it spot on when he said about the Boxer delays and that is a MOTS vehicle.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The big one for Ukraine though, is, a lot of these weapons from NATO use the same Ammo, so while you may be using Leo 2s and Abrams alongside each other, both can use the same 120mm Ammo, same as the 155mm Howitzers, that is why NATO has standard sized many of its weapons.
And there was a fairly frank admission that the requirements had been too complex from the outset. Hopefully someone will write that on a postit note for future reference when specifying weapon systems.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
British Army has ordered 14 Archer 155mm Guns to replace some of the AS 90s given to Ukraine.
Hint that they may buy more in using the phrase "first 14":
Why not pick the artillery system they want long term and start buying them?
Is it because they have an agreement to buy artillery from Australia when the Hanwha factory is open at Avalon?
That is the only thing I can think off.
www.gov.uk
Hint that they may buy more in using the phrase "first 14":
Being called an interim buy. Why do the British like "interim" purchases?
Why not pick the artillery system they want long term and start buying them?
Is it because they have an agreement to buy artillery from Australia when the Hanwha factory is open at Avalon?
That is the only thing I can think off.
British Army announces new artillery deal with Sweden
The British Army will receive modern artillery platforms to replace those supplied to Ukraine, as part of an agreement struck with Sweden.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Just saw this on twitter and was coming to post.British Army has ordered 14 Archer 155mm Guns to replace some of the AS 90s given to Ukraine.
Hint that they may buy more in using the phrase "first 14":
Being called an interim buy. Why do the British like "interim" purchases?
Why not pick the artillery system they want long term and start buying them?
Is it because they have an agreement to buy artillery from Australia when the Hanwha factory is open at Avalon?
That is the only thing I can think off.
British Army announces new artillery deal with Sweden
The British Army will receive modern artillery platforms to replace those supplied to Ukraine, as part of an agreement struck with Sweden.
My only comment
HOLY CRAP ! ! !
About time we had something better than AS90. Nothing wrong with the platform AFAIK, & fire control can be updated if needed, but the gun's outranged by both allies & potential enemies. We should get either more Archers or something equivalent.
Should get more MRLs as well. With modern ordnance they're precise & much longer-ranged than guns. They complement heavy artillery such as Archer, PzH2000, etc. I'm not saying we need as many as Poland plans to buy & build, both guns & MRLs, but I think more than we currently have.
Should get more MRLs as well. With modern ordnance they're precise & much longer-ranged than guns. They complement heavy artillery such as Archer, PzH2000, etc. I'm not saying we need as many as Poland plans to buy & build, both guns & MRLs, but I think more than we currently have.
It's the only way to avoid the long, drawn out process that inevitably results in BAE systems getting the contract...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
IMHO, yes, but it depends on budget and likely deployment regions. Each platform has its strengths.
What I don’t understand is why just 14? Seems like a very small fleet even for an interim capability. What’s that mean … they use them in the interim and give them back?British Army has ordered 14 Archer 155mm Guns to replace some of the AS 90s given to Ukraine.
Hint that they may buy more in using the phrase "first 14":
Being called an interim buy. Why do the British like "interim" purchases?
Why not pick the artillery system they want long term and start buying them?
Is it because they have an agreement to buy artillery from Australia when the Hanwha factory is open at Avalon?
That is the only thing I can think off.
British Army announces new artillery deal with Sweden
The British Army will receive modern artillery platforms to replace those supplied to Ukraine, as part of an agreement struck with Sweden.
I personally like the archer for a few reasons including speed and range vs tracked vehicle, under cover load using a modular reloading system, protected fire and reload capability, very fast shoot and scoot times, reasonable level of protection and lower logistical support as it can self deploy without a transport loader. I do t know the answer but expect a wheeled vehicle would have lower maintenance costs than a tracked vehicle. I thought it would of been suitable fur Australia.
I think you're bang on in the wheeled vs tracked debate. Artillery like this is great for supporting wheeled formations. As a self propelled system it's more optimal for the modern battlefield than towed solutions but it's cheaper than heavy tracked vehicles and it can move long distances with the formation without much support. On the other hand tracked formations still need their tracked artillery. IMO these systems should replace towed systems but should exist beside tracked systems.
As for the "interim" buy, I don't know what it means. But this deal provides a capability in a (uncharacteristically) quick way which is refreshing to see. And it at least gives them a "foot in the door" for any follow up requirements.
Interim likely probably means it's a small enough order to get under the floor for urgent requests, someone can just get the Amex out and to an "add to cart" which is pretty much what we need to do.
They can then run a proper competition, work out what they want longer term and either buy more or donate these to Ukraine or whatever in a few years time.
They can then run a proper competition, work out what they want longer term and either buy more or donate these to Ukraine or whatever in a few years time.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
This is exactly the case. 14 units can be justified more easily than 40 or 80. Plus it's easier for the Army to find the money.
Also, procurement negotiations can be slow, as the MoD has to put things out to tender. The bigger the contract, the more companies will want to pitch their options and scrutinise the results if they think they unfairly lost out. I'm sceptical whether the MoD could have run a full AS-90 replacement competition in such a short period.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
14 is what is available for immediate acquisitions and rapid fielding.
Only 48 operational systems exist. Sweden had 24 in service, 24 in storage/reserve. Last year Sweden ordered an additional 24 new systems on a new chassis (Rheinmetall HX2 8x8). They are transferring 8 to Ukraine, selling 14 to the UK, retaining 24 in service & 2 in storage/reserve. Sweden's new systems acquisition is planned to be completed in 2025. If the UK ordered new weapons they could not expect to receive them for several years. The British Army had already been evaluating the system under the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) program. This acquisition has been reported as only an interim solution pending the results of the MFP program.
14 systems give the British Army enough to field 2 batteries with 2 systems for training/reserve
Archer is