The British Army’s acquisition of an interim artillery system is a reasonable and step, given the donation of the AS90 weapons to Ukraine and the potential obsolescence challenges with any AS90 systems that remain in the UK inventory. The selection of the Archer system that has been acquired via a Government to Government arrangement with Sweden raises some questions that bear further consideration relating to how the Russian invasion of Ukraine, may force the British Army and other European armies to reconsider long cherished regulations and procedures.
Perhaps understandably, details of the arrangement with Sweden have been sketchy, however we do know that at least 14 weapons, along with a stock of ammunition, were transferred to UK ownership in Sweden in April 2023. It is reasonable to assume that training is taking place in Sweden. Additional weapons may be acquired to create the interim 155mm tube artillery capability for the British Army pending the procurement of the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP). The MFP programme has been accelerated to achieve Full Operational Capability before 2030, although given the age, and challenges of the AS90 system, there is an argument that the artillery capability gap should have been filled before now.
The British Army’s tube artillery capability gap that has been growing since the mid 2000’s when investment in the AS90 system ended with the demise of the Extended Range Ordnance Modular Charge System (ERO/MCS), the Ballistic Sensor Fused Munition (BSFM), and Indirect Fire Precision Attack (IFPA) programmes.
The broader concern as to whether 14 systems provides a meaningful capability is probably better addressed in the context of the future of the British Army, that should be clarified by the imminent update of the 2021 Defence Command Paper. Whilst an interim system is good news for the Army the Archer acquisition raises some questions that are no doubt being addressed by those involved. Nevertheless they may merit further consideration.
In the first instance it is reasonable to assume that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has followed the CADMID[1] or similar project lifecycle management process. In that regard given the timescales of the procurement how has the Demonstration phase of the cycle been completed? Is there a Systems Requirement document for the interim capability and a body of evidence that Archer meets those requirements? It may just be that the system was selected and acquired because it was available, and as such it shows that the Army is addressing its addiction to requirements. If that is the case the Army is missing an opportunity, to show that it is being pragmatic and is setting aside the dogma that has infected land procurement over the last twenty years or so.
Given that MFP is due to be delivered in five years, how will the MoD Dispose of the interim capability? As the MFP programme moves forward those companies that are expending resources on the bid phase will need some reassurance that there is an approved and funded disposal plan for the interim capability. Whilst there will always be a risk that MFP will not be implemented, that risk will be seen as more of a likely to arise if there is not a clear disposal path for the interim capability. If the interim capability is to be retained alongside MFP then given the particular features of Archer it would be important for such a plan to be credible and funded.
Questions around the Demonstration and Disposal phases are perhaps more relevant to the ammunition suite that has been transferred from Sweden to UK as part of the project. The Archer ordnance has a non-standard chamber which means that it has a specific propelling charge. Whilst it remains to be seen if the projectiles provided with Archer are compatible with the selected MFP weapon, it is unlikely that the charges will be. It would be refreshing if some of the historical taboos about accepting as safe and suitable for service ammunition that has been qualifies by another nation have been broken. Perhaps the urgent supply of artillery ammunition to Ukraine has seen the UK and other nations adopt a more pragmatic view on the risk of using ammunition that has not been specifically qualified for particular weapons. Once again no doubt those working on these projects will be fully aware of the actions that are being taken, whilst some of these issues may be sensitive it would be a positive message to others to show that the MoD is being more agile in responding to events. The acquisition of Archer is good news, however there are valid questions as to how the project complies with traditional procurement governance and how the interim capability fits with MFP.
The supply of 155mm ammunition to Ukraine and the urgent need to replenish stockpiles highlights the logistic and industrial barriers created by European nations maintaining different weapon systems and particularly a variety of ammunition families after the end of the Cold War. To date the UK has been the sole user of the AS90 charge system. The Challenger 3 project is addressing the UK’s sole use of rifled tank ammunition, however the 40mm Cased Telescope Weapon System (CTWS), although it has also been adopted by France, remains a further interoperability and supply chain risk.
There is now a wave of investment in new artillery systems and industrial capacity. However there is a sense that an opportunity is being missed. Key nations across Europe have plans to increase and enhance their artillery. There is an opportunity to drive towards a common ammunition suite. This would remove or significantly mitigate risks around interoperability and resilience of the supply chain, as well as providing the foundations for technology enhancements such as guided projectiles. There is a risk that new and substantial investment in national ammunition suites using the same industrial structures will not improve matters and will result in a landscape that is pretty much the same as the one that existed before February 2022, only larger and in some dimensions worse. Which nation or which organisation considers this to be a meaningful risk and is thinking about how to manage it?
[1] CADMID stands for the phases in the lifecycle of a project – Concept, Assessment, Demonstration, Manufacture, In Service, Disposal.