With the shipping of the AS 90 to the Ukraine, the UK has procured the release of some Archer systems that Sweden had in reserve, these are with the original Volvo truck, BAE has already has produced a version with the Man SV truck, the standard UK military truck

@gusgone4527

5 ай бұрын

Paul, Archer is the initial obvious choice and the winner must ensure a fully 100% GB based production/supply line. 155mm artillery is of such importance to modern warfare, that its production is a vital strategic industrial capability. Especially replacement gun tube/barrel production, as they wear out very quickly during intense combat usage. Additionally, the loss of AS90 means we no longer have a tracked artillery system that can keep pace with MBTs and other tracked AFVs. Something that is of real concern. There are several solutions including the tracked Boxer hull option. It means that a 155mm artillery module for wheeled Boxer could also be used on the tracked hull variant. We already have a wheeled boxer production line. Therefore adding a tracked hull and 155mm module production facility makes some logistical sense. Especially if the tracked Boxer APC is also adopted as the Warrior replacement.

We need the worst one of these, then change the specification ten times so it is the most expensive and then demand it has a British engine :D

@rmamon2554

4 ай бұрын

Yes a Double Decker Bus engine. 300 HP are too much.

@robertwillis4061

2 ай бұрын

​@@rmamon2554Then drop the gun size to 105mm as the 155mm rounds are too expensive. And reduce to vehicles capacity to 5 rounds as the Troops waste so much money firing them at the enemy

K9A2 will be a best choice

@ruzziasht349

9 ай бұрын

why?

@petter5721

9 ай бұрын

Archer fron Europe👍🏻

@kshat2291

9 ай бұрын

The Boxer 155mm can fire while driving - shoot'n scoot redefined.

@The_Judge300

9 ай бұрын

Why have you not answered when someone asked you why? Most likely because you are clueless about it all.

An update: Sweden has signed up for 48 new units at ca €10 million per unit. The important point is this is not program cost. It is drive away cost with very limited spare parts as Sweden already operates Archer, it does not require additional package (training and ammunition etc). If it is to be a program cost, it will be closer to or over €14-15m per unit. It is shocking beyond comprehension as the last sales was $4.5m per unit. The price effectively more than doubled since the last sales.

@P4hko

4 ай бұрын

New platform. it's on a MAN truck now and the switch was supposed to be from demands from the British. I'm not sure what is costing now but would guess the price would go down kinda alot after more have been produced.

It would of been more informative if it showed the same info for each weapon. The basic info like range was shown but how accurate are they all. What are the shoot and scoot times? Cost would also be interesting to know. How long do the barrels last on the HX3 with the 80km range?

With the Boxer RCH the maintenance of the British wheeled armoured vehicles will be reduced to one or two systems. The Rheinmetall is future proof but it isn't proven yet. The Archer is already in use to replace the AS-90. In my opinion they are the most likely entries in the tender.

@_Richard_Pump_

9 ай бұрын

Rheinmetall would also make sense though, we already use MAN trucks and have the logistic chain in place, and Rh are doing the CR3 project in the UK, so this could in theory be done in a similar fashion for UK jobs.

@Kingkrock

9 ай бұрын

The swedish military have a lot of cooperation with UK so I wouldn't be suprised if Archers are the new deal

@axelackens2157

4 ай бұрын

The RCh -155 ist the first System operates by 2 Man crew and the most advanced System it is cabale aim and fire in motion.

RCH 155 Boxer will be the best choice since they have bought the Boxer IFV.

@rmamon2554

4 ай бұрын

No that's not the British Hooligan way. More different systems, and every vehicle maintainer is only trained for one type of equipment. THAT'S BRITISH MADNESS! 😋🤪😋😛😛😛

Pity they won't station them at Dover.

Why would a main demand be sustained rate of fire for ten minutes ? After one or two minutes if you're lucky the enemy will know your position and strike back. I would by far prefer a gun that is fast to deploy, fires of a rapid burst and is very fast moving out again.

@212thfives8

9 ай бұрын

I think its even less. If the enemy has an artillery radar they could know your position after the first shot. In this case the RCH 155 would be the best choice since it can shoot while driving.

Ukraine war experience is anything to go by… 1. Wheeled systems have low survivability. The tyres get damaged easily making the vehicle inoperable and expensive to maintain. With or without all the innovations for wheeled vehicles, its mobility and crew protection has more room to improve. Ukraine ordered 76 more Krab (Polish K9 chassis + AS90 turret) 2. Archer, Caesar both carry less munitions than K9 and requires manual loading. For example, for Archer 1 hour sustained firing would be 6 rounds per min for 3.5min (20 rounds magazine) plus 1.5min firing preparation plus 10 mins resupply, would result in 20 rounds per 15 mins, total 80 rounds per each hour. Caesar take even longer. K9A2 has 10 rounds per min firing rate, 4 mins for 40 round magazine, 30 sec prep time, plus 5 min resupply, 40 rounds takes 10 mins. Hence 240 rounds per each hour. 1 K9 can do the job of 3 Archers. K9 also has K10 automatic resupply vehicle which can resupply without any crews leaving their vehicles vs manual loading for all others. Archer and K9 costs are estimated to be similar. 3. UK requirement for 20 rounds per minute has a familiar ring to Ajax saga. We have no fxcking clue what is achievable and available in the market. With the tiny budget we have, get real and do your job rather than daydreaming at you desk 4. K9 and its variants (including Turkey and Polish Krab) has over 60% global market share. More importantly, all buyers (excluding new buyers who are still waiting for deliveries) have exercised their Options for further acquisition. India, Finland, Estonia have placed or in the process of placing further orders beyond their options. Repeat purchase is a strong signal of good operability. There has not been repeat purchase for any other systems named here. In fact, Denmark, former user of Caesar is planning to switch to K9 (after they clear up the corruption saga). 5. Once again, with such number in operation, K9 is likely to be in operation for next 40 years. Poland, India, Australia, Norway will contribute to further enhancements (MLU, mid life upgrade) and various spare parts will be available in foreseeable future. The other systems have not shown and unlikely to reach similar level of economy of scale. Archer has particularly low production number (2000). 6. Delivery is an important matter. Poland received their first K9 7 months after signing. Rheinmetall delivered their first unit of Leo2A7HU to Hungary after 4-5 years. It is different product category but still the same producer with same challenges. If this is anything to go by, we will not be able to complete the project even by early 2030s. 7. K9 Club. Hanhwa (producer of K9) actively coordinates annual global seminar on operability, maintenance and strategy on K9 with all its buyers. This provides unparalleled advantage in sharing knowledge and experience on the system. Furthermore, any idea on upgrades are collated and update on the next upgrades. There is a hidden benefit to this as well. All users get to know each others and in case of emergency, they have direct channel to speak to each other. As we have seen from Ukraine, being able to access others inventory and equipments are intangible asset on its own. For example, Archer, if Britain is to support Nato vs Russia conflict, where would we get extra spare parts or even extra systems? The same for Caesar etc. whereas K9, we can get it from Korea (1,100-1,500 units in operation), India (200 units), Egypt (ca 200 units), Australia (ca 50 units), Poland (900 units)etc etc would be an invaluable resources we can access. Their experience, spare parts, training etc are what would be available for the UK to join and use later on. Who else is offering such network? 8. On a side note, it is likely that UK suppliers will join Hanhwa supplychain. In particular, UK armour plate production is at risk (currently nationalised) and this can be an invaluable opportunity to join a ready made market. For example, Poland (300-400 units), Romania (currently in discussion for 300 units) and Egypt (200 units) does not have its own armour plate technology or steel mill capabilities to produce their own chassis. They will have to procure it from outside. Posco (Korean steel mill) is up to their eyeballs on their supply capacity. This can secure 10s of thousands jobs in the UK and reinvest to strengthen our own technology for the next gen armour plates. This is not an isolated case for armours, there are many other areas where we can take part and lead the segment again, securing tens of thousand jobs. Please for once, let’s look outside the UK borders and lead the world. If you cannot beat them JOIN THEM!!!!

@williamscrivener9807

9 ай бұрын

I see you have given this some thought. You should work for Hanwha

@bgshin2879

9 ай бұрын

If it helps the UK Army, I would any day.

@guaranaaddicted6897

9 ай бұрын

I quite don't understand the permanent mentikoning of the polish crap or poland itself. They are no military power and never will be

@The_Judge300

9 ай бұрын

@@williamscrivener9807 I bet he does.

@The_Judge300

9 ай бұрын

What you write her is so flawed in so many ways that I am not even bothered to address all your statements. It is so extremely obvious that you do all you can to make the K9 look like the obvious choice and you totally disregard how modern warfare with artillery must be conducted in the future. Talking about 1 hours sustained fire is so utterly stupid that is becomes clown talk. Try to do that and I promise you that you will be a dead man for sure in future warfare. It is all about 'shoot and scoot' for the most part in the future unless you fight some insurgents in some mountains far away from the UK. You also claiming that wheeled systems are vulnerable and more expensive to maintain than than tracked systems, is utterly rubbish as it it is extremely far from the truth. The moment you destroy one track, the vehicle is a sitting duck, but you can get multiple wheels destroyed and the vehicle will still be able to drive away to safety. And maintaining tracked systems is extremely more expensive than maintaining wheeled systems. I am not saying that the K9 is a bad system, but it would be an extreme mistake by the UK to totally rely on a tracked system like the K9 only. It is way to slow and vulnerable in most 'shoot and scoot' situations. In most situations for the UK, a wheeled system would be much better than a tracked one. Specially for defending it's own country, where tracked systems would be close to pointless.

Hopefully the UK will go with the Archer,it's absolutely lethal and the perfect matxh of in and out quick

70km range with standard rounds thats insane

@jacksonteller1337

9 ай бұрын

Only problem is they aren't in production yet and the maintenance cost is unknown. If they need barrel replacement every few weeks due to the high pressure it will be a problem.

@sindbad8411

9 ай бұрын

yes, but even more crazy is the demand for 20 round per minutes for 10 minutes. Where does anyone store 200 rounds? logistics on the battle field for that ultra high supply demand? Is there a metal that's able to handle that much of wear and tear? Probably means a lots of barrels for replacement stored somewhere near by on the battle ground. Costs for excalibur rounds?

@212thfives8

9 ай бұрын

@@sindbad8411 Not to mention that there is no situation where an SPA is firing for 10 Minutes straight. For example when the germans developed the PzH 2000 all requirements had counter artillery and MRSI in mind to save ammunition. So the max salvos are more likely 5-6 shots with a PzH and mabye even less with others.

It would be prudent for the UK government to own two SPG's.... Wheeled - Ceasar Tracked K9 Thunder - Already in use by many countries around the world.

HX3 looks excellent

High rates of sustained fire will need water cooling. It will also extend barrel life.

Archer was Developed by Bofors which in turn was merged into BAE Systems. Maximum range with excalibur is actually over 65km dont know why Wiki english list it as 50 which should be what is possible with the Bonus round which in turn was developed by bofors and Nexxer just for ARcher. Archer is usually crewed by a Gunner a Driver and a commander but can be handled by a lone crew with full functionality.

I prefer sigma hx3 rheinmettel Elbit systems and archer plarform for minimum personell and future growth. K9A2 and Archer will be choice though. Caesar with Tatra has been battle proven in Afghanistan, Yemen, Africa and Ukraine with precision good feedback and massive good feedback caesar has been even used by USA in Afghanistan and bab el mandheb kuwait qatar bases to counter houthis with excellent results.

Hundreds? absolutely no chance it's the UK!!!!

@robertwillis4061

9 ай бұрын

More like 5

About time someone has woken up!

Give us the kit from wherever but build here the factories to manufacture the ammunition and presumably the barrels.

My money would be on the archer or k9. A wheeled system is faster, uses less fuel and is easier to maintain, but tracked will do better on rough ground and will potentially give more crew protection from counter battery shrapnel.

@zedeyejoe

9 ай бұрын

What about the vulnerability of the wheels.

@immortallvulture

9 ай бұрын

@@zedeyejoe a landmine these days will disable a tracked vehicle as easily as a wheeled one so I’d say they’re about even on that point.

@zedeyejoe

9 ай бұрын

@@immortallvulture Well I was thinking more of artillery fire. A near miss disabling many tyres, so the wheeled artillery unit is stuck there and destroyed.

@two-five-one

9 ай бұрын

@@zedeyejoe 1. Wheels are more likely to be hit by shrapnel by enemy fire. 2. Shoot and scoop takes a relatively long time. 3. Lack of off-road driving capability. 4. The original wheels have a light weight advantage for air transport. Especially the british army wanted to carry two wheels on the A400M. However, all the wheels introduced here are heavy, so they have to give up. However, K-9A2 cannot be transported by A400M at all. 5. Caesar can be severely damaged by enemy fire, especially because his crew is active outside. 6. Of the four vehicles introduced by this channel, the K-9A2 is the cheapest. The main reason is the low cost of mass production. The British army can buy a set of K-9A2s and K-10 ammunition carriers for the cost of one Archer or HX3. The K-10 is an armored vehicle based on the K-9 and can load 104 155 mm shells and supply the K-9A2 with a fully automatic shell supply. 7. The British want to use transport planes to quickly move self-propelled guns into foreign conflict zones. Wheels are possible, but K-9A2 is impossible. The K-9A2 guarantees the highest performance, viability, and lowest acquisition costs, but this is the biggest drawback. The K-9A2 can only travel long distances with transport ships and vehicles. 8. However, the wheels are too disadvantageous given the battlefield environment in Eastern Europe, where the threat from Russia is most feared. Ukraine is proving this, and that's why Poland bought the K-9A1. 9. The British army have to think about what kind of battlefield environment they will fight in the future. Who is the biggest enemy of the British army now? They have to ask for answers first. That way, they can choose the champion.

@sindbad8411

9 ай бұрын

@@two-five-one great comment answering several of my questions, thanks

The UK needs to develop and make their own.

@trevorhart545

9 ай бұрын

British Aerospace Archer IS British but built in Sweden.

@johnbooth3073

9 ай бұрын

The Korean system uses a British turret. Co working with Poland on their next gen tank makes sense too.

I like that HX3 👍🏻

@flyingdutchman7757

9 ай бұрын

me too😊

@jonathanbuzzard1376

9 ай бұрын

Unless Germany gives a re-export waiver then it's out of the question. The conflict with Ukraine has proven Germany to be an unreliable defence partner. Having to wait months for re-export license while the snivelling German's naval gaze is unacceptable.

@MyPonyLooksKindaWeird

9 ай бұрын

@@jonathanbuzzard1376 no country has asked for an export license, to supply ukraine before germany made the decision to supply leopards. Just because some countries said they would send some and germany wasnt ready to send its own, does not imply unwillingness to issue such licenses. Why answer a question which has not been asked?

@jonathanbuzzard1376

9 ай бұрын

@@MyPonyLooksKindaWeirdThere is no point asking a question to which you know the answer. The answer for a long time was that Germany was not going to permit the re-export of Leopard tanks until other Western countries also sent tanks because stupid reasons about history that just made them look bad in everyone else's eyes. Then here in the UK getting fed up with the snivelling Germans we sent our own Challenger II tanks. At which point the weasel Germans said it had to be the USA sending M1A1's before they would allow Leopard tanks to be sent. At which point the USA said OK we will send some M1A1 Abrams, leaving the Germans no room left and had to agree, at which point it was worthwhile doing the paperwork. Claiming that there was no impediment because nobody had done the paperwork previously knowing the answer would be no is more disgusting snivelling German weaselling. Basically, the Ukraine war has shown that Germany is an unreliable defence partner. So either you don't buy their kit or you are granted unconditional re-export licenses at the time of purchase if you are sensible.

@MyPonyLooksKindaWeird

9 ай бұрын

@@jonathanbuzzard1376 wow. just the tiniest bit of prejudice swinging there. "no need to ask, if you know the answer" is just you making assumptions. You got some sources in the german government? one can plainly see that you want germany to be the bad guys. you like tearing down others to make yourself feel better, no? germany is one of the greatest supporters of ukraine in military and refugee terms. (about same as uk in military aid and about double of uk when factoring in refugees). you are so fking angry for no reason at all. take a step back, check the facts. realize you are wrong.

If the Army said it needed something to bark after a variety of lengthy and expensive studies the MOD would probably buy the worlds most expensive cat pour petrol on it and......WOOF! , job done bonuses all round .

Hanva K9 is good option, Indian army having those and they are best in operations

Great stocking stuffer.

Given our lamentable military procurement and development history, buy whatever is available off the shelf!

odds on, it will go to rheinmetal, as they are doing the challenger 3, although the archer is the better platform

BAE is not pronounced like "bay". It's an accronym with all three letters pronounced seperately in sequence: Bee Ay Eeeeeeeee (British English - not yankee doodle English).

@sagardebnath7256

9 ай бұрын

Lockheed Martin is more appealing than BAE

@deidresable

9 ай бұрын

Baby

@sparkiegaz3613

9 ай бұрын

Short for bad at everything.

@trevorhart545

9 ай бұрын

Joke?@@sagardebnath7256

@davidrobertson5700

9 ай бұрын

Bacon And Eggs systems

but only 148 upgraded tanks :(

@jimmiller5600

9 ай бұрын

Well, what does the future say given tanks performance in Ukraine?

@peterlangan1181

9 ай бұрын

The factories that built them are gone…..the story of NATO. These guns and the tanks will be droned too. Battleships were replaced by Aircraft carriers because the planes could go much further and be more accurate. These expensive bits of kit will get destroyed by a £5,000 drone for the same reason. NATO is set up to fight the last war ….and that one only badly. The actual as experienced in Ukraine combined Arms warfare is way beyond NATO’s capability.

@alangunningham5667

9 ай бұрын

@@jimmiller5600 ho so attack with infantry on foot ... like the First World War... are you dreaming .....

@andrewaustin6369

2 ай бұрын

​@@peterlangan1181I can't decide if your making a joke or are serious combined arms warfare has been the focus for NATO since the early 90's and they have a number of strategies built around it. Ukraine cannot be taken as applicable to all modern warfare they are using weapon system's that are not familiar to them and as we have seen often they don't understand how to use to them to to make the best use of them. The other major difference between NATO and Ukraine is air power and that will be a significant advantage that can't be overcome quickly or easily. The United Kingdom has spent too long reducing it's military our numbers are bad the state of a lot of the equipment is bad and we still cling onto British submissions for contracts when they are not the best option in terms of price and capability. There needs to be a massive clearance of the civilian staff working at the MOD they eat a huge chunk of the defence budget and achieve very little beyond delays and ignorance.

Based on Ukraine war, My preference would be: -1) longest range with cheap ammunition. Who cares what the system costs if you can’t afford to fire thousands of rounds (range for drone protection) 2) reliability over months of battle duty 3) only 2 people to minimize losses (or need less personal)

@212thfives8

9 ай бұрын

Last point is hard to handle. If you are using less personal for the artillery system you need additional personal to operate "reload" vehicles (e.g. K2 has such a reloading vehicle). If you are using more personal for the SPA than you don't need such reloading system depanding on the SPA

@fungames24

9 ай бұрын

Should buy russian systems. These are proven winners.

@jamesdean1283

5 ай бұрын

Outdated garbage.

archers are the future if you hit on the first round you dont have to fire 5 rounds

Archer as we are getting some now.

By the 2020s? I thought we're already there, it's 2023, time to wake up!

I don't believe that 'one size fits all'. I'd go for a mix of Archer and K9. That gives you the speed of 'shoot 'n' scoot' of the Archer and the rough ground capabilities of the K9. I'd see Archers being deployed first to make quick runs and clear the way for the K9's to widen the field.

@The_Judge300

9 ай бұрын

I totally agree. They should have about 2/3 or even 3/4 of them as Archers and then the rest as the K9s. That would give them optimum capability and good solutions for any situations. With how the anti-artillery systems are developing, 'shoot and scoot" becomes extremely important. What you are capable of doing after the first minute, is not interesting at all, as you should in most situations be on your way as soon as possible after the first minute of firing shells. And because of how the use of drones is becoming extremely more common, it is also extremely important that the time from you stop the artillery vehicle till you have fired your first shot, is as short as possible as well. It is all about standing still as little time as possible for you to fire the shots needed. And the Archer excels at this.

@DieyoungDiefast

4 ай бұрын

Archer in the short term, K9 in the long term :)

Boxer or hx3 has the best chance, as the MOD already uses both chassis

@diedampfbrasse98

9 ай бұрын

would be stupid to not go this route ... but then again, british government has been the purest incarnation of stupidity and corruption for a very long time now ... best chance has the producer who sends the most cash to some offshore bank accounts of a few select politicians relatives.

This announcement was made seven months ago!

@flyingdutchman7757

9 ай бұрын

so what?

@trevorhart545

9 ай бұрын

You mean the fact that we, UK, are getting some second hand vehicles from Sweden, i.e. BAe Archer, is proof that the decision has already been made. A good 7 months ago!

HX3 or Archer are probably the best systems. However aBoxer based solution woud make sense with Boxers are already being used in the UK. I would expect BAE makes the race as it is a British company and we all know how this things work...

@mbv88xxx

8 ай бұрын

The K9 is a great system but armies are moving towards wheeled artillery rather than tank based for cost and logistic reasons so I do not expect it to be selected. The French CAESAR is just trash compared to the others if you ask me...

K9's and Archers seem to have won this contract over. K9's are coming and Archer systems are already in service (a small number thus far but I have spoken with artillerymen who have used the Archer have told me the AS90 is still valid though becoming outgunned and the Archer is the one they would choose if the finances are in place to afford a complete re-armament with. They doubt this is the case or will be the case and although the individuals I spoke with have not yet had the chance to see a K9 let alone use one they expect it to be top notch as in their words, "The Koreans have shown they do not produce shite products". Wonder if and when delivery is started with those new systems if the venerable AS90's will get a makeover and passed to Ukraine. I repeat they all said the AS90 is still a valid and effective weapon.

If past British military expenditure is anything to go by, they will buy the wrong quantities of the wrong weapons and spend a small fortune doing so.

@mushroom4051

9 ай бұрын

On purpose of course corrupt as f

@michaelmurphy8667

7 ай бұрын

Saw a program on this. Seems uk always try to change things mid development rather than taking ordered off the shelf design already agreed to. Result. Late kit massively over budget.

Archers?

Makes sense

By Airfix. Paint and glue not included.

70Km?

Exactly who is there to serve these guns?

so cool

That Archer looked flimsy af as it wobbled when firing 😂 Reckon on stress cracks after a few years…..

@zoom5024

9 ай бұрын

Been active in Sweden since like 2010, no problems with the frames.

Hundreds of heavy guns, doubtful. Probably more like 12.

Archer is the system for UK👍🏻

K9A2 is the only decent one.

We still make things then

wow

Computer VO kills this film.

Even using a tank chassis can be destroyed by drone attacks, let alone using a truck chassis. The fired artillery will perform a samba dance because it is unstable if it chooses a truck chassis. Reckless choice 😂

@andyduhamel1925

9 ай бұрын

Proven untrue as a consequence of real world tests in Ukraine, the Nexter Ceasar platform has performed well is already proven in theater, with high probability strike rates. Worth remembering Himars is also on a wheeled chassis for "shoot and scoot" mobility.

@baruna-jc7gv

9 ай бұрын

​@@andyduhamel1925 It cannot be equated between the Howitzer and the Rocket. The rocket exerts little pressure on the chassis as the rocket leaves the barrel, whereas the Howitzer exerts a lot of pressure on the chassis as the rocket pushes the bullet out.

@williamzk9083

9 ай бұрын

It's clear that new anti-drone defenxes will be needed. I suspect air burst guns that were radar equipped SPAAG like skyranger will make it very difficult for any kind of drone. These have radar and optoelectroics to detect and destroy masses of swarming drones.

@zoom5024

9 ай бұрын

@@baruna-jc7gv The archer has not had any problems with the chassis, they have been in service in Sweden since 2010 ish. They are made of Volvo dump trucks which is very sturdy. In the civilian market they are used for mines, logging in the deep forrests etc. Very good mobility.

@The_Judge300

9 ай бұрын

You clearly know nothing about this and just come with clown statements.

This guy is driving me nuts

Clickbait thumbnail with an electromagnet cannon

Yes we will buy hundreds, and then put them with our hundreds of tanks, right next to the Unicorns.

millimeter not millimeters, ie, one five five millimeter.= 155MM, easy peasy

Archer by Bay-systems? WTF?

Bet it’s not drone proof. 💥💥💥🔥🔥🔥😂😂😂

@petercollingwood522

9 ай бұрын

There is no such thing as a drone proof armoured vehicle.

@nihilmiror6312

9 ай бұрын

@@petercollingwood522 I know…I was poking fun at idiots who think any piece of new military equipment is a game changer, only one is, an ICBM! 💀💀💀

Hundreds? Expect 10-12 then

Why do you keep talking about range they are all Caliber 52 except the Rheinmetall with HX3 which might be upgraded with caliber 60 all the other guns have the same range only difference is the ammo you put in it. What you should focus on is rate of fire (Both short burst and sustained), time in and out of fire position, crew requirement, number of rounds carried, speed on road , weight (Last 2 is strategic mobility) ability to fire on the move, combat proven/Prototype status, upgradeability, top speed on road/terrain, drone defense , and price The rest is just clickbait

I’ll see all you experts at DSEI… 😉

Why no PZH2000? With the newest munition developed for it it exceeds the 70 km requirement, and matches, or almost matches all other requirements. And it has proven to exceed some critical specs in Ukraine (barrels last 4-5 times as long as the spec says with no significant loss of precision, it is able to fire many times more projectiles than the 100 from the specs). This directly translates to much lower operating costs than what the specs say, at absolutely stellar performance. The only critics it has received is sensitivity to dust, of which there is little in the grassy steppes of Russia and being somewhat easier to damage by bad roads than other similar systems - shouldn't be the case on soft ground in Russian steppes either.

Can they hit the French coast and sink dinghies?

Please try to make an effort next time to research and choose the right illustrations, every time NEXTER CAESAR is mentioned it shows illustrations from ELBIT ATMOS,

"Let's start an inferno." - says INFERNO CANNON.......

Thank you Tsar Putin. You're single-handedly rebuilding NATO while adding powerful new nations to the club. LOL.

@romanmelnyk1956

6 ай бұрын

🤡

@alex-E7WHU

5 ай бұрын

Not really, the illegal regime change instigated by NATO in 2014 kicked it off and Boris Johnson "advising" zelensky to cease peace talks sealed it. Try learning stuff, you might enjoy it.

@samcam8284

4 ай бұрын

You are a clown, these new powerful nations you speak of 😂 have tiny militaries, the only real military in NATO is the US and they couldn’t even beat the Taliban. 😂

so what do wheels have over tracks ?

@trevorhart545

9 ай бұрын

SPEED at the cost of Off Road Mobility

@andyduhamel1925

9 ай бұрын

A wheeled chassis is based on commercially available components, thus components are not entirely specialised and can be obtained quickly, tracks are maintenance heavy, and slower to deploy from location to location tracked vehicles in general require a dedicated transporter to bring them to the front.

@banhof2223

9 ай бұрын

@@trevorhart545 The cost of a tracked vehicle are much higher than a wheeled vehicle, in terms of fuel (heavier vehicle), maintance etc. The off road mobility should be better with a tracked vehicle, but it doesn´t have to so. The Archer chassis is based on the Volvo articulated hauler, that have extrem good off road mobility. Tracked vehicle have a very low ground pressure. this can be adjusted (let air out) on wheeled vehicles too. However, the best off road mobility are dependent on the driver. A bad driver, bad off road mobility, Good driver, good off road mobility.

@Alex-oc2vi

9 ай бұрын

As has been mentioned, gets around faster on things that resemble roads, easier to maintain, and better fuel economy(fuel in a raging war can be hard commodity), so less stress on logistics.

I don't like the idea of wheeled artillery. Far too vulnerable.

Chasis? Do you not read your work?

Except they don't produce enough ammo fact

🇬🇧👍

Archer for me, simple design and capable of doing what it says. Let's face it, if we fear the Russians, it'll end up as scrap metal on the battlefield like everything else

That picture really looks FAKE

Waste of money. Money better spent on Himars or like multi launch rockets

B.A.E, not "bay"😂

RheinmetallDenel South Africa has already 155/52 missiles in production firing 72 to 76 km. They are busy now with the developing a missile that can be fired by the G6-52 a distance of 150km. Rheinmetall Germany and other Nato countries gave orders for 155mm and other tipe of ammunition . The local factories of Rheinmetall Denel will be expanded to dubbel their production.

It is 2020

UK will need to deploy these on their own streets with allowing their enemy to fester within.

80 km what a JOKE

thats great we will get them , most probably give them away too , as the army will have no one to use them . as all the cut backs they are doing . its just piss poor .

if its not british then dont buy it. we need something thats designed and built in the uk!!

@mikebikekite1

9 ай бұрын

I think if I was a British soldier then I'd just want the best there is, no matter where it comes from. Better range, quicker shoot and scoot, better armour.

@jonathanbuzzard1376

9 ай бұрын

@@mikebikekite1 The Problem is for example the HX3 is German and that means should we want to re-export it to an allied country we would need the German's permission and as the conflict in Ukraine has shown that might take months or possibly never as the Germans have shown themselves to be an unreliable defence partner. Strategically that is unacceptable so anything German or Swiss should be completely out of the question no matter how good it is. That is unless the German's are willing to give us an upfront unrestricted re-export license with the purchase.

@immortallvulture

9 ай бұрын

That approach has not done well for us recently. Ajax was built mostly in Britain and it’s been a very expensive and difficult programme because of it. We just don’t have the defence industry to design and build everything ourselves because we order new stuff like once every 20 years and always cut the amount we’re buying. It would be better to worry about buying the best equipment first regardless on if it gets built here or not.

@guaranaaddicted6897

9 ай бұрын

@@jonathanbuzzard1376 posting that under every post doesn't make it true. It is nonsense. Also, Germany has a reliable, effective weapons industry. The UK Does not have one. So for a soldier it's easy to choose. You are no soldier, that's for sure. 🤣

@jonathanbuzzard1376

9 ай бұрын

@@guaranaaddicted6897 If the Germans spend months prevaricating about whether you can reexport weapons purchased from them to your strategic partners then they are an unreliable defence partner. It might well be able to make reliable effective weapons, but if you can't use them for your strategic interests, or are delayed for months then they are an unreliable defence partner. Defence procurement is not just about getting the best weapons for the cheapest price, there are other strategic considerations to be taken into account and the recent experience of Germany's reluctance to allow owners of it's weapons to reexport them to their strategic partners is a clear demonstration that they are not a reliable defence partner. I would also lump the Swiss in with that too, anyone buying Swiss weapon systems is an idiot.

Another ‘GC’ ?

I like the K9. Samsung was making advanced electronics long before most Americans had an idea to buy a computer.

I would suggest purchasing the excellent South African G6. with some first world backing it'll continue to be the best

@robertwillis4061

9 ай бұрын

No buy nothing from them. They are part of BRICS, which is anti NATO. Get the Archer.

@dproulx222

9 ай бұрын

South Africa chose to side with the aggressor - so no sales for them....

@wolverineqtg976

9 ай бұрын

@@dproulx222 Politics aside, the G6 is still an amazing platform

No we won’t 😂 and if we do they won’t work or fire the wrong shells or they will be given away

sending em to ukraine?

@alex-E7WHU

9 ай бұрын

Of course.. it's a sinkhole for taxpayer funded military equipment.

@antonysimpson5304

9 ай бұрын

Yes, give them away for free as per usual.

Rheinmetall looks good with great range, low crew requirements and good crew protection plus future proofing. Archer’s shoot and scoot provides excellent system protection but needs more crew who are exposed during use, fitting on a MAN chassis would aid commonality. K9 gives better mobility in European theatre and is cheaper. Boxer provides commonality and ability to switch firing module onto another base vehicle if it sustains damage. Hmmm, it’s nice to have a range of choices for a change….

Yes buildthem and give them away.. A sure well balanced plan.. Rather out the money into the NHS

@williamzk9083

9 ай бұрын

Blame Putin. He's the problem.

@mushroom4051

9 ай бұрын

@@williamzk9083 nah zionato started this

@williamzk9083

9 ай бұрын

@@mushroom4051 Israel is taking a neutral stance and several prominent Jewish peacenik activists don’t even support Ukraine. Yet you must blame the Jews for provoking Russias aggression. Russia should blame itself rather than scape goat Jews like Nazis. Let’s look at the difference between the EU and NATO and the Russian Federation. Everyone wants to join the EU, it’s hard to get in. The EU was created to ensure peace. Everyone wants to join NATO to gain protection from Russian imperialism and expansionism. No one wants to join the economically, politically corrupt Russian police state federation. Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine all want to leave. Russia has no respect. It’s not looked up to or admired. It’s getting more hated every day as it continues to hurt people and impose itself. These things such as a Putin dictatorship were created by Putin, Gopnik FSB and other Vatniks. Don’t blame the Jews. Take some responsibility. You will loose and you will suffer.

What a load of crap. Money wasted that should be spent on thing that benefits us rather than others. Either build in UK or forget it.

@dproulx222

9 ай бұрын

I'm sure everything will be built in the UK under a license agreement.....

I just hope they make the decision based on what the Army wants and not some inane political logic.

Great to see not one British manufacturer bidding on the job... Strange that BAE produce the US Paladin 155mm. Ben "the div" wallace has another procurement that stinks wonder if this will be a complete disaster like Ajax.

@andyduhamel1925

9 ай бұрын

Hence Rheinmetall was asked to complete the Challenger 3 uprgrade , from its expertise in weapons akin to HK breathing on the much maligned SA80, that is now suitable for the British Army.

@thebritishengineer8027

9 ай бұрын

@@andyduhamel1925 Like the CTA that can be adapted to 105mm and further offering twice the kinetic damage. I draw your attention to 120 drain pipe rounds from M1's bouncing off Challengers Gulf War 1 & 2. With one incident unreported that the British crew fired back with HESH.....just one round. As for the L85 if the idiots had gone with 7.65 not the US insistence of 5.56 we would not have been problematic. My assumption that the gaa blow back was not enough to throw the bolt back unless it was spotless. Anyone could pick up that weapon, put the needle on target, fire and be within 3" of a bull at 500 yards. That was not a failure. German stuff really.... is not that good but it's British PR is fantastic.

Simply, buy the Russian one.

@dproulx222

9 ай бұрын

Moron

@petter5721

9 ай бұрын

Hahaha

Of course they will buy it because they don't know how to made it...

A Stanley knife would be a much better buy available from B anQ can be used to sink inflatables sent from France 🇫🇷 today.😅😅😅😅

Has the Defence Minister or his replacement any understanding of Artificial Intelligence or (Dumb Computer talk that resemble nothing of the English Language .

If any other contract being given to BAE that £800 million will double. They are a cowboy pirate company. There are more honourable Somali pirates.

@The_Judge300

9 ай бұрын

BS

😂😂😂 modern uavs

And we all know just how truthful the russians are about their equipment