Having just entered service as an interim capability, Archer is eventually planned to be replaced by the Boxer RCH 155.
No one is making an argument to double down on Archer.
But, I am going to make one anyway.
I watched the various media from the MoD, BFBS, and others, about this recent live fire exercise in Finland, and after years of bad news stories, it was a positive.
A start, a turning of the tide, something to build on.
The Case for Doubling Down
Starting from scratch, would we go for a Volvo articulated hauler and Bofors FH77B, perhaps not?
An alternative universe might have seen us evolving the British designed and built M777, similar to the FCS era Lightweight Self Propelled Howitzer, on FRES.
Or even a longer barrel variant with autoloader, but one that retained a high level of commonality with the towed version, that also might have been in service as part of the LIMAWS(G) programme.
But we are not in that Universe.
Our universe is one that saw the British Army neglect its heavy artillery (arguably for reasonable reasons) and that led to AS90 becoming obsolete, with the remaining usable fleet gifted to Ukraine.
Archer is a stop gap until we can bring into service the Boxer RCH 155, a very advanced system.
Putting Archer on a MAN SV might have been a better option if we wanted an alternative to RCH 155.
But we are where we are.
That where is a place where the British Army is not awash with cash, it has gaps galore and not enough resources to fill them, a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) looming.
Let’s see what SDR brings, but I would not bet on the British Army being a major beneficiary.
With Tempest/GCAP and the deterrent refresh likely to consume the majority of the defence budget, the British Army must not only be Pound wise, it must be seen to be Pound wise.
And let’s be blunt, it doesn’t have the best of records for spending taxpayers’ hard-earned wisely, does it.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, Archer is in service now, the training and support pipeline is in place, we have people who are qualified on it, and we will have more.
Archer is currently in Ukraine, right now
I would argue, that in terms of specification, it is good enough, and if the British Army needs one thing, it is more of good enough.
Doubling down on Archer comes in two parts, buying more, and expanding out.
Buy More Archer
There may be a path to eventually moving the gun units over to a MAN HX2, but building mass is one of the things that seems to elude us of late. (Sweden is doing just this, moving to HX2)
The articulated loader base vehicle is adapted from a class of vehicle made in quantity, about a thousand a year.
Spares are readily available, especially in the geographies the British Army is likely to find itself in during the upcoming years.
So, buy some more, build on an existing fleet to increase mass.
After purchasing more, spend on training, ammunition stocks, and novel natures such as BONUS (include this in the Land Precision Strike matrix of options), or Excalibur.
BAE contracted with Hanwha Aerospace for their Modular Charge System for use with their 155 mm ammunition, that will be manufactured in South Wales.
BAE are also working on the whole ammunition range, click here to read more.
All these things need investment.
People often forget that artillery is not just the gun, we have just withdrawn Watchkeeper, don’t have a UK range that supports Archer at max range (or RCH for that matter), and have many things within the Royal Artillery to spend finite budget on.
Expand Out
Articulated dump trucks (or haulers) are designed for rough terrain and heavy loads, they are not suitable for sustained or long distance road use as the method of steering articulates the two bodies instead of turning wheels.
On roads, tire wear can be significant, but some applications might benefit from adapting these vehicles, so it is probably best to view them as an alternative to tracks rather than an alternative to trucks.
Torque is significant, but speed, modest.
They are, arguably, not the best platform (and Sweden seems to agree), but they are what we have.
A Volvo A30 articulated dump truck forms the basis of the Archer self-propelled gun which has a 4 man armoured crew cab, but Volvo can also offer variations on the 4×4 and 6×6 theme, and different capacities
Volvo offers a solutions service for different transport options.
Volvo haulers are not made in the UK, unlike Caterpillar, who have been making articulated trucks in Peterlee (Northern England) for decades. The front end of the Archer is, arguably, military off the shelf, and doubling down means living with the fact that they are not made in the UK.
First on the shopping list would be to ensure that the Archer ammunition logistics system has the same mobility as the Archer
The vehicle can be fitted with either a hook lift.
Or, a side loader.
Read more at Volvo Defence
Anything you can containerise or put on a flat rack, you can shift with an articulated hauler, the Sky Sabre anti-aircraft missile system, a containerised Nemo 120 mm mortar, a water, or fuel tank, or just a load of pallets.
Given the importance of the C-UAS mission for mobile artillery.
Something like the Terrahawk Paladin starts to make a lot of sense.
The base vehicle can be used to haul trailers, with especially heavy payloads.
They could be used as a heavy transporter or recovery transporter.
To summarise, this is just an alternative thought, it isn’t ideal, but it is pragmatic.
Don’t take this one too seriously, by the way, just thinking out aloud.
Discover more from Think Defence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another great article but people just can’t/won’t look beyond the dump truck (or Boxer).
Keep up the good work.
Your opening salvo appeared also on defensepost.com, where they added that it was also the occasion fort the first live firing (a bit hard to believe, after the time elapsed on the project).
But as (no?) one would recall from my posts ten years back, been a great Archer fan… And surely the stability issues devaluing the multiple rounds for simultaneous impact capability have been resolved by now.
You didn't mention that one of the reasons for choosing the dumper truck platform was mobility in a meter of snow
…I hope Lapland had that much; just to prove the point
Peterlee is in County Durham, not Northern Ireland. Traveling by road it would be a case of a low loader and the British Army doesn't have that many so, the next option would be rail travel, like we did in Germany and judging by what I have seen still do. it's the same each time the Army get new kit there isn't enough of it , as a ex gunner we soldiered on with out of date kit IE: Abbot SPG , we were told the 'new gun' would be taking over , the SP -70 and nothing became of it . a lot of broken promises. So I hope that Archer fills the gap , but we shall see.
A few people spotted my cock-up on Peterlee Neil, have updated!
Really TD, if I was the def sec I would be banging down your door and hiring you and a few others that post great content.
The pragmatic approach has been totally lost by the British army as it tries to keep up with the US. We shouldn’t even try anymore.
Simple solutions are often the best, wilder with power trailer for light forces, drops units all round etc.
Keep up the good work
Stop naval gazing go full ARCHER. Fill the orbat, train the Orbat, take loads of notes. No new gun till you can utterly outmatch ARCHER against the pacing threat. Spiral develop at a 2 year Tact.
I did not throw my hat in the ring for fear of pile ons ..
I have my reservations over the Volvo ADT chassis, but when viewed as you suggest, as an alternative to tracks, not wheels, they make more sense.
To quickly regenerate a capability, it makes no sense to move away from Archer, with its existing training and logistics within the army, RCH155 would be starting from scratch all over again. The cost savings of A30 or MAN over Boxer is not inconsiderable either.
The only area of concern I see, is that it has a non NATO standard chamber volume (25 litres vs NATO 23 litres). This might limit ammunition commonality in the future or add additional certification costs for Archer users, which are currently limited so shared certification costs might be higher.
As a retired Gunner; M110, Light Gun, Abbot, M109, M107 and GMLRS before it came into service, I have seen just how neglected the UK indirect fire capability has become. Despite considerable research efforts, almost nothing has been funded, developed and fielded. LIMAWS, both G and R are just two examples – there are more. The 105mm Light Gun was fielded almost half a century ago, the 81mm mortar preceded it by a decade and the AS 90 came some decade and a half later. Since then, almost no significant changes (other than a reduction in numbers of all systems) have occurred.
Now, in spite of the fatally flawed "Trials of Truth (sic)", Boxer is being slowly procured after an embarrassing (from UK's point of view) development. As a wheeled fleet, rapid, long range, self deployed strategic mobility is now, arguably, a new capability. No tracked vehicles, including Ajax could match it. Whilst the towed Light Gun could support Boxer formations if the opposition is not too great, it is likely that a more intense scenario, prompted by the Russo-Ukrainian war would require greater indirect fire support to such a force. This would include a 155mm system with counter-battery STA able to match the force's mobility which can only be achieved by a wheeled, armoured SPG. Examples are not rare and range from those reliant on manual handling (the least expensive) to fully automated systems (more expensive) and, in the case of the Boxer mounted RCH 155 (most expensive?), even able to fire on the move. For whatever reasons, the decision was made to acquire Archer, perhaps because it was the most available to be procured by a UOR-like mechanism.
By good fortune, perhaps, the ordnance, with its associated mechanical handling and deployment systems on the Archer Volvo A30 is, arguably, the best in the World today. As a 52 calibre piece with the ability to fire all NATO standard projectiles, including a variety of sensor fuzed and extended range projectiles, it is a match for any similar system (the chamber volume notwithstanding). Its times into and out of action also appear to be as good as or better than other wheeled SPGs. In addition, it can be operated remotely under armour with automated loading and a much reduced crew. It also has the ability to fire "Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact" (MRSI) missions in less than a minute making it highly effective and, given it's "shoot and scoot" potential, highly survivable.
The only real potential problem is the speed and range of the Volvo A30, together with its associated logistical load of spares not made in this country. However, if this is found to be problematic, It would be likely to be relatively straightforward to change the systems the UK has bought to be mounted on the MAN Rheinmetall HX2 8×8 (HX44M). given that this alternative is due to be delivered next year, it would be relatively inexpensive as contribution to the costs of further development would not be required. The UK should, as the article indicates, increase its fleet of Archer, on the MAN chassis if economically possible.
As to the future, there will, inevitably be arguments over the prospective selection the RCH 155. Although it is likely to be the most advanced and effective wheeled SPG, is it likely to be cost-effective when compared with the Archer that the UK will then have in service? If experience is anything to go by, the most cost – effective solution would be to reject RCH 155 and retain the barely less effective MAN Archer.
There are many other questions about how to support the Boxer equipped force, including the need to replace Watchkeeper, for example and the suitability of whatever the UK procures to support other task organised forces such as the heavy armoured force.
I thought archer was quite a pragmatic solution, I would have joined the swedes in their new order. I would have had camm, SPG artillery and mlrs all on the Mann platform. If the BAE HVP ammunition works and could be included that could be an interesting addition to the system.
I do not get the logic behind a lot of what we are doing anymore.
Re the comment about the Volvo not being produced in UK is a disadvantage but the MAN Rheinmetall HX2 8×8 (HX44M). must share the same burden as well?
Yep, very true, I was more contrasting it against Cat dumpers, but you are spot on
Arty Systems in DE&S has been disjointed for years, and that is perhaps half the reason we are where we are. I first saw “Archer” when it was transiting through Ashchurch, when I was up there running the MAN UOR Program. It seemed pretty capable, but it does annoy the hell out of me when DE&S try and sell this as a great new bit of kit. We could have had it in service 10 years ago.
Going for the Boxer variant is in my mind complete madness. It will be very expensive and will be years before it comes into service. Stick it onto the MAN as already done, and it could be on a battlefield near you by the end of 2026/ mid 2027.
As always both Andover and Abbeywood will procrastinate and it will be at least 2029 before anything happens.