January 14th, 2023, Downing Street. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced Britain was sending 30 self-propelled guns to Ukraine. They were the AS90s, the mainstay of Royal Artillery firepower for three decades, the British Army’s only modern 155-mm self-propelled howitzers. By November of 2025, the Ministry of Defense quietly confirmed Britain had given Ukraine all 99 AS90s declared in its arms register, every single one.
The British Army no longer operated a tracked self-propelled gun. What replaced them? 14 second-hand howitzers borrowed from Sweden, mounted on the chassis of a Volvo dump truck, designed for snow, not Salisbury Plain. A gun that had never fired a shot in British service until 2024. This is the story of the Archer, the Swedish truck cannon Britain leased in eight weeks to hide a strategic disaster.
And the story of what happened when those same guns reached Ukrainian hands, where they began destroying Russian artillery from over 40 km away. This is also the story of how Britain, the country that invented modern artillery, ended up with the smallest self-propelled gun fleet in its modern history.
The crisis began before Russia invaded Ukraine. The AS90 entered service in 1993. It was a 32-ton tracked howitzer firing a 39-caliber 155-mm gun. Range was roughly 25 km with conventional shells. The British Army originally received 179 of them. That number bled away through decades of defense reviews. By 2015, only 117 remained.
By 2016, roughly 89 were active. A funded upgrade to a 52-caliber barrel, which would have doubled the range, was proposed repeatedly. It was never financed. Then came February of 2022. Russia invaded Ukraine. The war became an artillery war. Ukrainian gunners burned through shells at rates not seen since the Korean conflict.
They needed Western guns to survive. Britain answered first. On January 14th, 2023, the initial 30 AS90s were promised. By April, that figure was 32. By April of 2024, 50. By the end of 2025, the entire declared fleet was gone. According to the Ministry of Defense Freedom of Information statement published in November 2025, all 99 remaining howitzers had been transferred to Ukraine, either as battle-ready platforms or as donor hulls for spare parts.
Two Larkhill regiments lost their guns. First Regiment Royal Horse Artillery and 19th Regiment Royal Artillery, the Scottish Gunners. The Mobile Fires platform program, the long-term replacement, was not due to deliver its first vehicle until 2028. That created a 5-year capability gap. Britain needed something. Something already in production.
Something that could be in service within 12 months. The answer was sitting in Swedish reserve storage. The Archer began as a Swedish problem. In the 1960s, Sweden replaced its French howitzers with a domestic design called the FH77. Built by Bofors at Karlskoga, it was a towed gun with a hydraulic loading crane and an auxiliary power unit that let it move short distances under its own power.
India bought the export version in the 1980s. That sale became the Bofors scandal, a kickback investigation that contributed to bringing down the Rajiv Gandhi government and canceled India’s option for 48 more guns. Those 48 canceled guns stayed in Sweden. Decades later, Bofors used them as the foundation for something new.
Engineers stripped the carriages, fitted longer 52-caliber barrels, and bolted the entire gun system onto the chassis of a Volvo A30D, a 6×6 articulated dump truck. The result was officially designated the FH-77BWL52. To everyone else, the Archer. The specification reads like a thought experiment in automation.
The crew sits in an armored cabin protected against small arms, fragments, mines, and chemical attack. They do not leave the cabin to fire. They do not load the gun. They do not aim it. A computer handles laying. A robotic magazine holds 21 rounds and feeds them automatically. Modular charges feed in parallel.
A muzzle velocity radar trims each shot in real time. The numbers that follow have caused British generals to use words like step change. From rolling stop to first round downrange, 20 seconds. From last round fired to back in motion, another 20 seconds. Maximum rate of fire, eight rounds per minute. A full magazine empty in roughly 3 minutes of sustained fire.
Multiple round simultaneous impact capability of four to six rounds, meaning a single gun can put six shells onto a single target at the same instant. Range with standard extended range ammunition reaches around 40 km. With the M982 Excalibur precision round, sources put it between 50 and 60 km with reported miss distances under 2 m.
The bonus sensor fused round handles armor from above. The crew compartment seats three to four soldiers, and the entire system can be operated by a single gunner in extremis. The Volvo chassis tops 70 km/h on road. The British system it replaced managed 53. The Archer can wade through a meter of snow. It fits inside a C-17 Globemaster or an A400M Atlas.
It can be loaded onto rail flat cars without disassembly. Sweden adopted 48 Archers. Norway co-developed the system, then withdrew in December of 2013 over delays, and chose the South Korean K9 instead. Sweden absorbed Norway’s share and formally inducted the system on February 1, 2016. On March 16, 2023, Sweden agreed to sell 14 of those guns to the United Kingdom.
The negotiation took eight weeks. Lieutenant General Sharon Nesmith, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, called Archer a step change in capability and credited the speed of procurement as previously unseen in defense. The acquisition price was never officially disclosed. Independent estimates place the per platform cost around 7 and 1/2 million pounds, but the figure remains unverified.
The first gun arrived in October of 2023. All 14 had landed by July of 2024. 19th Regiment Royal Artillery brought the system into service, deploying a battery to Estonia in 2025. First Regiment Royal Horse Artillery assumed the second tranche as their last tracked guns were withdrawn. Quick moment here. If you are finding this deep dive into British artillery interesting, hit subscribe.
It genuinely helps the channel grow, costs nothing, and tells us to keep digging into stories like this one. Now, back to combat. Eight Archers were the ones that mattered first. Sweden announced their donation to Ukraine on the same day in March of 2023 that Britain announced its own deal. The guns went to the 45th Separate Artillery Brigade named after General Myron Tarnavsky, based at Yavoriv in Western Ukraine.
Their crews had previously operated Soviet D-20 howitzers. They began learning a fully automated Western system in the middle of a war. The first publicly documented strike came in March of 2024 near Kreminna in Luhansk Oblast. Cued by drone reconnaissance from the 63rd Mechanized Brigade, an Archer crew destroyed three Russian D-20 howitzers in a single counter-battery engagement.
The 45th Brigade released grid coordinates and aerial verification footage. The Russian guns had been positioned to harass Ukrainian forces along the Svatove axis. They were gone within minutes of opening fire. In May of 2024 near Chervonopopivka, a 45th Brigade Archer destroyed a Russian 2S19 Msta-S, a tracked self-propelled howitzer roughly equivalent in concept to the British system that had been given away.
Drone footage confirmed the kill. The brigade’s caption read, “The Archer hits the target accurately.” A Ukrainian gunner interviewed in January of 2024 by a United 24 documentary crew gave the system its battlefield nickname. He had operated the Soviet D-20 for years. The Archer, he said, was sniper artillery. One shot, one kill.
The pattern was always the same. Drone spots the target. Coordinates uploaded over secure radio. Archer rolls into firing position. Four or five rounds in under a minute. Vehicle moving again within 30 seconds. Russian counter-battery radars usually got a return. By the time their guns fired back, the Archer was kilometers away.
That survivability is the real proof point, according to a French National Assembly Defense Committee report published in 2025, drawing on testimony from KNDS engineers. The German PzH 2000 and the Swedish Archer suffered availability drops to 32% and 38% respectively after 5 months of intensive Ukrainian operations. The French Caesar, by comparison, maintained over 60% availability with less than 10% of the fleet out of service at any time.
The reason is simple. A Ukrainian 155 mm gun in active service fires 60 to 90 rounds per day, peaking at 150, mostly at maximum range. Barrels wear out. Sweden responded in mid-2025 by shipping more than 10 spare barrels. By January of 2026, Sweden had delivered 26 of a pledged 44 guns to Ukraine. The combat record is not flawless.
In February of 2024 near Kupiansk, an Archer was struck by a Russian loitering munition. Russian sources claimed it was destroyed. Ukrainian sources said the damage was likely repairable. Later reporting described it as partially disabled. The dispute remains unresolved and is a clean example of how information warfare attaches itself to every battlefield event.
What is not disputed is the comparative picture. The Archer outranges the older British tracked system by roughly double. It deploys faster, displaces faster, and requires a smaller crew. It outranges the Russian 2S19 and the American M109 Paladin. It cannot match the heavy armor of the German PzH 2000 or the cross-country mobility of a tracked chassis under direct fire.
But it survives because it is rarely there long enough to be hit. According to Army Recognition, Russian artillery crews interviewed on Telegram channels have called the French Caesar the closest conceptual peer to the Archer, their most feared weapon. The Archer occupies the same tactical category. Strike fast, move faster, survive the counter-battery duel that kills slower guns.
The long-term British answer is not the Archer. It is the RCH155, a remote-controlled 155-mm gun module mounted on a Boxer 8×8 armored vehicle. The Ministry of Defense selected the system in April of 2024 under the Mobile Fires Platform program. On May 13th, 2026, the Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation awarded the contract for 72 RCH155s valued by Breaking Defense at close to 1 billion pounds.
According to the government statement first deliveries are in 2028 with a minimum deployable capability within the decade. The program supports at least 500 British jobs with steel forgings from Sheffield Forgemasters and assembly work at Rheinmetall Telford and KNDS Stockport. The RCH155 can fire eight rounds per minute out to 70 km, redeploys at speeds up to 100 km/h, and can be operated by just two soldiers from inside the vehicle.
Until those guns arrive, Britain depends on 14 Swedish trucks. The strategic picture is uglier still. The Royal Artillery’s two main self-propelled regiments share a single aging fleet borrowed from a country whose own army keeps only a handful of operational examples. The Commons Defense Committee, in its ready for war report, acknowledged the force could not sustain high-intensity war fighting.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, the former Chief of the General Staff, called the moment Britain’s 1937 moment, warning of gaps in inventory and ammunition stocks. He was effectively stood down early after raising the alarm too loudly. Lord Dannatt, another former Chief, argued that Britain must not only replenish what it gave away, but make a major new investment in land forces.
According to the Ministry of Defense, donations of artillery ammunition to Ukraine had reached 500,000 rounds by January of 2025. BAE Systems is building new plants at Glascoed and Washington to lift 155 mm production capability by up to 16-fold. Defense analyst Francis Tusa called artillery shells the bedrock of all armies, making adequate stockpiles essential. The bedrock has thinned.
The British Army that fielded 179 self-propelled guns at the end of the Cold War now operates 14. The Archer was not designed to save Britain. It was designed to defend Swedish forests in a Russian invasion that Sweden, until 2022, considered unlikely. The Volvo chassis came from a civilian dump truck. The gun came from a canceled Indian order tainted by scandal.
The whole system was built by a small Nordic neutral that, like Britain, had spent decades quietly underinvesting in heavy firepower. That gun is now in three armies. The Swedish one that built it, the British one that borrowed it, and the Ukrainian one that has used it to kill Russian artillery from over 40 km away with one round and a drone.
Britain gave away its last big guns to plug the gap, at least 14 trucks from Stockholm the truck cannon worked better than anyone expected.
QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.
Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.
Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.
The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.
Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.
Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.
Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.
that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music
industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.
The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.
Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.
Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.
The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.
Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.
Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.
Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.
Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.
The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.
Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.
The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.
Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.
Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.
The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.
Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.
The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.
Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.
They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.
She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.
She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.
She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.
She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it
well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.
Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.
What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.
The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.
They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.
Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.
Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and
Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
