Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has announced plans to review the planned conversion of the British Army’s Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Challenger 3s.

The review will assess whether the experiences of Ukraine necessitate an expansion of the tank fleet. The original plan, announced in 2021, involved upgrading 148 Challenger 2 tanks to Challenger 3s and retiring the remaining 79 vehicles.

This decision comes as the United Kingdom is preparing to provide Ukraine with 14 Challenger 2 tanks as part of a significant package of military support aimed at enhancing Ukraine’s capabilities.

“Today’s package is an important increase to Ukraine’s capabilities. It means that it can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. President Putin cannot win, but he is equally certain that he can continue inflicting this wanton violence and human suffering until his forces are ejected from their defensive positions and expelled from the country. That requires a new level of support: the combat power only achieved by combinations of main battle tank squadrons, operating alongside divisional artillery groups, and further deep precision fires enabling the targeting of Russian logistics and command nodes at greater distance.

We will be the first country to donate western main battle tanks, and we will be bringing a further squadron of our own Challenger tanks to higher readiness in place of the squadron sent. Even as we gift Challenger 2 tanks, I shall at the same time be reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions, to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet.

We will also build apace on the Army’s modernisation programme. Specifically on artillery, I am accelerating the mobile fires programme so that, instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do so during the current decade. I have also directed that, subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability is to be delivered. After discussion with the United States and our European allies, it is hoped that the example set by the French and us will allow the countries holding Leopard tanks to donate as well, and I know that a number of countries want to do the same. As I have said, no one is going it alone.”

 

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

396 COMMENTS

  1. It seems obvious that we need to convert the entire active inventory of 227.

    I think in reality we will see a few more, possibly up to 180 conversions to provide some measure of a reserve fleet and to perhaps increase the size of the surviving Armoured regiments slightly.

    I don’t forsee any move to increase force structure size as set by the last review, the promised new money has evaporated after all.

  2. Its obvious that we need a bigger tank fleet and for once I would commend SoS Defence Ben Wallace for his most timely intervention in this regard.

    Tracked and armoured self-propelled guns such as our AS90 can provide excellent close support to a tank attack – which is why UkR wants them. BAE have an outstanding product in their Archer system and though not tracked, would provide a good interim solution. Coupled with Sky Sabre and our Apache fleet the British Army would regain a real punch.

    • Agree. Need Archer. More Apache Es. We also need a more fighty Boxer variant/ IFV variant . The Army urgently needs the ability to deploy 2 full armoured divisions to Europe plus a rapid reaction brigade sized group elsewhere. Time the manpower was increased and all the requisite kit and hardware got sorted out. The Army is in a mess. Less of a mess than the Ruskies but not great sitrep.

      • Two full armoured divisions isn’t likely though, not with small tweaks here and there. That would be wholesale re-armament, and expansion from two armoured regiments to 4-6. A massive expansion in personnel would be required too.

        More realistic to actually have confidence in the ability to deploy one, and maybe a BCT to support somebody else.

        • Agreed. I was in Germany for the first Gulf War, and we had to strip spares and serviceable vehicles from the 3 other divisions to put a fully equipped combat ready div in the field. To do that twice is a huge undertaking

    • I’m currently inclined to believe that Chancellor Schulze’s ‘insistence’ that the US provide Ukraine with Abrams before Germany allows other countries to supply Leopard 2s (yeh, right. Good luck with that *) is to get the US responsible for providing a derivative of the 120 smoothbore initially. Despite this being a far less suitable tank, complex & maintenance intensive, that the far more practical Leopard. Though I do anticipate that a cadre of Ukrainian tankies are already being schooled by USA, Britain C2, and Poland.
      Has amended my assumption that our supply of sovereign Challengers was mostly ‘pour encourager’. The Ukrainians desparately need our commendable commitment now. Get the impression we’ll be operating them alongside the Bradleys as the IFV – perhaps why Vlad is thinking of sending Armatas (*).
      To ask the right honourable minister:-
      ‘What provision the UK has to sell/supply the C3 to whomever we damn well feel deserving under the current RBSL terms of reference, and if there is a plan to design/manufacture another UK sovereign MBT if no such provision exists’.

      • I’m inclined to think that it is like dogs playing poker.

        USA is attempting to put a Roman Candle under Scholz’ backside to change the German outlook / positioning and get follow-through on the previous sppeechifying which has rather run into the dust.

        I wonder if the German’s don’t actually have much capacity to deliver working tanks in any number, the Bundeswehr having been on a starvation diet for a decade or more under Merkel and VDL.

        Dogs playing poker:

        • Would it not be easier for NATO to buy & refurbish 49 Leopard 2, then offer them to Thailand in a swap for their 49 T-84 Oplot?

        • I might be smiling somewhat if I were, hmm, I don’t know – Putin, say.
          If I was a Baltic State national, though, I may have a somewhat tight sphincter wondering, should I be attacked, whether Germany may require a period of angst prior to mobilising under NATO.
          Commendable as German discomfort & reluctance may well be under their historic precedent – we can all appreciate that – it would be more understandable for everyone else, I’d hazard, if it where accompanied by a similar discomfort from enriching themselves with the profits accruing as prime suppliers of advanced heavy-armoured land vehicles.
          As an aside, I’ve only played poker once, decades ago and from scratch, when I was asked to make up a twosome due to numbers issues. My knowledge base was roughly on a par with the dog far middle. We won.
          Rgs

  3. I’ll stick my neck out – a fleet of 250 CR3 should be more than enough for the British Army’s needs going into the future – a modest total I think.

    • 200 CH2s is a more realistic number considering there will be no more than 50 hulls available? What may happen due to the draw on the fleet due to Ukraine is a serious study into the CH3 replacement. One thought would be for the UK to either build its own tanks again, or purchase the next-generation MBTs from Europe or America. It may also be possible to buy the basic tank but equip them with engines of its choice and other technologies enabling some manufacturing opportunities in the UK. One issue, what if Ukraine calls for more CH2s due to battlefield losses, what then for additional CH3 hulls?

      • The 250 should provide enough for the operational Regiments, a number used for training, an allowance for maintenance plus a modest attritional reserve.

      • Reckon we’ll donate a 2nd company and retain around 198 C3s. I cannot see us making our own MBT again, but heavily customising another design takes us down the Ajax road again and we don’t want that. Off the shelf model selection with local assembly and winning components manufacture workshare in UK would give us best value plus industrial opportunity.

        • Agree 100%. Trying to change an existing system never works out as planned. Either buy as it is or design from scratch. The lesson has been taught but not learned far too many times now.

        • K2 Black Panther. Copy Poland. South Korea has already proven it’s willingness to sell the design and build rapidly several dozen tanks. Add to that support for home country manufacturing as well. Poland and Turkey are building/ about to build their own K2 variants.

          • K2 is a pimped up Leopard 2 and has weak side armour. They do not offer more then CH3. A new UK tank should be new and not an upgrade.

            Perhaps a joint UK/US project. I would not build anything with the French as they will always want to lead and have one eye on cheaper export sales.

          • Question: With the possible exception of RR developing an engine, plus of course BAE as a company being involved, can’t see the US wanting/needing a UK involvement on such a project – private company yes, government involvement no. But any private company involvement would still involve building in the US.

          • Hyundai Rotem has a 62 ton central European version of the K2 that has just as much armor as the Leo2A7+. True the side armor is lighter than the central European average nowadays, but about equal to the original LeClerc tank of the early 90’s. This is because the mountainous terrain of the Korean peninsula prioritizes mobility and lighter curb weight over all round armor protection.

          • The UK doesn’t make cars or heavy machinery anymore. It shouldn’t make tanks or IFVs as it is technically and economically inefficient. I should work with others who have a better technological and industrial base. If that’s South Korea, then so be it.

          • Well “ED” UK produced 860000 passenger cars in 2021 and many many other vehicles. I think we can still build a tank.

        • They always need to be customised or ensure they work with all the other systems they need to interact with. Unfortunately even an of the self needs modification.

        • We haven’t got any CR3s at the moment of course – not one has been built yet.
          Why can you not see us making another MBT again? I presume you mean ‘from scratch’ as we are making CR3s. Is it because the production run would be too small?

          • Exactly because of that and the poor export sales of our last few tanks – only Oman bought C2 & no-one bought C1. Can see us specialising in other land vehicles for export/licence export and building foreign (likely German) tanks under licence in return – else a collaborative programme like we do in aviation perhaps?

          • Many collaborative tank programmes have not come to full fruition but maybe they will now that production runs are small for all except USA. We are an official observer on the Franco-German next tank project.

          • Bad luck and bad timing didn’t do our Tank Industry many favours when it came to exports – CR1 performed badly in Trials and Gunnery Competitions but when it came to real Combat it Excelled in many respects.CR2 just happened to come on the market at the same time Germany was offloading most it’s Leopard 2 inventory at favourable prices to whoever was interested.

          • Thanks Paul. I had not heard that there was pessimism by politicians over the CR3 programme – it is the right tank for the army, the companies involved are at the top of their game, the facility is a good one and there is enough money to see the project through.
            However I have always been disappointed that CR2 did not get periodic upgrades and that this exceptionally major one will take such a long time and 148 is really not enough by a long way.

        • The thin pinstriped line interestingly pointed out that off the shelf options don’t really exist for any army like the British army as there is no off the shelf design that just slots in without modification.

      • I’m not a fan of that approach. We have a track record of taking an existing system and taking forever to balls it up by trying to customise it.

        Either but it as it is or build from scratch.

        • I think we greatly improved the US Apache AH-64D by customising it – the engines worked far better in hot and high Afghanistan.

      • Agree I’d be happy with 200 C3s. So a small uptick. Would be happier if we got some K2 Black Panthers ordered in or Merkava 4. Something with an APS on every tank is a good idea. Rather than 68 Trophy sets. Wtf? Whose stupid idea was that. If you have a tank. Equip it properly.

      • Ive been looking for more information this afternoon,a possible increase in the number of CR2 that could be converted to CR3 comes to a total of 227 ( 148 + 79 additional ) which is the current available fleet number..This would leave more left over for Ukraine should they want to expand on the 14 agreed.

        • Your numbers look encouraging for an uptick to 200 CH3. Looking to the future, we probably don’t need more than 200 CH3 as this is basically an upgraded machine based on an existing tank. A more advanced tank will be required to confront the battlefield technologies that are sure to come and a much more radical design will probably be necessary.

        • If you converted all 227 CR2s on the active list to CR3 for the BA, then you would have no CR2s to gift to UKR (not even the 14 mentioned in the last few days), unless you break into the stock of inactive/retired tanks, most of which will be in a shocking condition, probably.

      • We have 227 in-service CR2s today, all of which could be converted to CR3. An additional 23 tanks would have to be taken from the inactive/retired fleet to enable Paul to have his 250 CR3s.

        Ben Wallace is doing a serious study of the CR3 programme ie to determne if more tanks could or should be put through the programme – but it sounds as if you are advocating cancelling it and doing something else instead. You do realise the CR3 programme is well underway?

        If UKR call for additonal CR2s, that is not necessarily a problem, as currently UK is only putting 148 out of 227 tanks though the conversion, so has 79 spare, of which 14 are today earmarked for UKR.

        • I think you have misread what I’m saying. The CH3 should go ahead with an additional 50 hulls added. However, there are some on the Defence Committee who think it should be canned as it could face the same issues as the Warrior upgrade (A new head on an old body). No, my focus is beyond CH3 and how we proceed, either alone or with other nations. Japan could be one opportunity as they have a very strong home industry that could result in a very capable joint vehicle.

          • OK Maurice, thanks.

            Just as well that you agree that the CR3 project can go ahead as the Contract has been signed (on 7 May 21) and work is well underway.
            Happy to add 50 to the numbers, which would enable retention of the 3rd armoured regiment (KRH).
            I had not heard that some members of the Defence Committeee think CR3 should be canned – its well late to say that – army programmes are years behind as it stands – cannot afford any more delay.
            If we could not source a new (foreign) tank then an upgraded British one is next best, rather than more of ‘do nothing’.

            I don’t believe Warrior upgrade was cancelled for the reason you state – it was a well considered upgrade – problems were the frustration of politicians at the missing of milestones due to longer than expected time to sort out problems and the fact that the production run had not been funded. [Ironically we are probably spending more on buying additional Boxers]

        • I wasnt aware we had many in reserve or the inactive fleet? If so could they be refurbished and given to Ukraine rather than taking active tanks out of our fleet and supplying those to Ukraine?
          If BW completes his review and the bean counters in the treasury agree to fund conversion of all 227 C2s to C3 standard then great. Ideally just equip all of them with Trophy APS from the get go- this switching of APS kits on and off tanks is a nonsense. We have to get serious. Russia may still be a threat to NATO territorial integrity. The bigger threat into the 2030s is a Sino-Ruskie axis of evil, possibly with Iran, Pakistan and other Sino friendly countries joining in.
          The UK and its allies need to get match fit for the 2030s and those known and pending threats to the world order, freedom and right to self determination. So all C2s (or at least 200) converted to C3 and fit all C3 with Trophy APS, anything less is a fudge and nonsense.

          • ‘In reserve’ and ‘inactive fleet’ are two totally different things.
            We have a number of Attrition Reserve tanks on the active list but I don’t know for sure how many that is.

            Active List – 227 tanks of which 168 are earmarked Field Force which means that 59 are split between: Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. I expect RP to be a very low figure. In theory all these tanks should be in good condition and you should expect 70% to be immediately deployable rising to 90% after intensive maintenance activity.

            Non-active List (ie retired tanks) – theoretically 159 but I understand that about 3 have been written off. Some claim that 80 have been scrapped but I have not been able to confirm that.
            It is most likely that the majority could be in average to poor condition as maintenance is not required and that many will have had parts robbed to keep active vehicles on the road. It would be a big challenge to get a large number, say a regiment plus some Attirtion Reserve (say 63-65 tanks) to deployable standard.

            I could not say where the 14 tanks for UKR has been sourced from (Active or Non-Active List). It would be acceptable to have sourced them from the Active List as we only need (apparently) 148 tanks on the new Active List, going forward ie the 227 figure will be re-set to 148.

            Fully agree that all our tanks (and all AFVs) should have APS, regardless of cost.

        • Hi graham, did you say we have more CR2 hulls than the 227 active CR2s. I thought they had disposed of the rest, if we have inactive retired hulls that could be converted that makes the numbers discussion very interesting. For both CR3 and providing Ukraine with with more CR2s in the future.

          • Well, we bought 386 CR2s and I understand only about 3 were written off over the years. I have not heard definitively that any were ever sold or sent to the smelter, although some scuttlebutt says that 80 tanks were scrapped, however there has never been an MoD pronouncement to that effect.

            If we do indeed have an inactive/retired fleet of 156 tanks in storage, they will mostly or all be in poor condition and missing parts.

          • Still potentially hulls to be turned into CR3s if we ever do need them or potentially hulls that could be reactivated as CR2s for Ukraine if needed. You never know it may be that Ukraine ends up preferring challengers after a bit of experience with them, They are after all more designed for defensive warfare or infantry support as they grind forward than other western MBTs, which is probably what Ukraine is going to be for a long time.

          • Yes, very true. I would not underestimate the time, work and spares required to reactivate them as active CR2s or to convert them to CR3s.

      • My view? We won’t buy enough of our own to justify developing a new tank, so export sales needed. The US and Germany (plus the likes of South Korea) would probably mean that UK export sales wouldn’t generate enough income to justify the UK developing a tank of their own unless… Perhaps develope a single engine then build a whole series of vehicles around that engine – mainly SP artillery and missiles. That might just work…

    • Maintaining one British armoured division was seen as the ‘sweet spot’ for 25 years – a credible heavy punch formation without busting the bank. That policy surely still makes sense, but it will be expensive and difficult to re-instate. I suppose its arguable that the real problem was the failure of British Army modernisation programmes, many £billions being spent with little to show for it.

      • Agree, in reality even if we did stump up for a second deployable armoured division, what would we do with it, as I’m not sure we have the infrastructure or support available to deploy two divisions.

        one very good armoured division, with a couple of separate battles groups deployed on the NATO frontline as well as an air mobile “stabilisation” brigade and an amphibious brigade is really the max we need.But they should all be very good indeed.

    • That would permit the army to retain its 3 armoured regiments, rather than losing one – and would enable a quite strong ‘armoured division’ to be fielded’. But it would mean that some 23 tanks that are not on the active list would have to be put through the CR2 to CR3 conversion process.

      • Fielded where? Seems to be a key, unpopular, question consigned to the shadows of this debate. “We have to defend Europe’ seems to be the standing justification but where is the consideration of Europe’s persistent failure to meet its NATO spending commitment across all arms. Are the taxpaying Public aware that Netherlands and Belgium stood down all their MBTs between 2012 and 2014. Therefore some 65 of the C2s being upgraded to C3 are logically offsets to the NL and BE lack of commitment to their own and their defence of their beloved Europe. Cue personal attacks as counter-argument.

        • Where might we field a quite strong ‘armoured division’? We deployed an ‘armour-heavy division’, including 221 tanks, on Op Granby to the Kuwait Theatre of Operations in 1990/91 and a division which included over 120 tanks on Op Telic to Iraq in 2003.
          If the Ukraine conflict broadens out to be a kinetic confrontation between NATO and Russia, then we would of course deploy 3rd (UK) Div.

          We are in NATO, which exists to protect all member nations in the Euro-Atlantic area. We therefore deploy forces to meet this remit, which includes defending the European NATO members – thought we had known this since 1949. Some European NATO members have not hit the 2% target – that is a seperate but related issue, but does not excuse us from our alliance commitment.

          We failed to maintain a MPA capability for many years – and asked NATO to provide cover. We have to live with and deal with situations where members fail to deliver the goods. If Germany continues to block (or to not facilitate) the supply of Leopards then perhaps we will be obligated to supply more than 14 Challengers.

    • Maybe theres a deal to be done by supplying a substantial number of CH2s to Ukraine in return for the US making up our shortfall with Abrams. Gets the US off the hook and gives us a far more capable weapon.

      • We don’t want Abrams, especially the older ones. We looked at that years ago and rejected it. It is a logistic and engineering headache to support – and many have been destroyed by enemy fire over the years, including by mere insurgents. It is only the latest versions that are (arguably) more capable than CR2 – and the US would not give us those.

        We want CR3s quickly, all with APS, and far more than 148, and to start planning for a more revolutionary tank after that.

        • The US trusts the UK with the trident missile system. They wouldn’t think twice about a deal involving the latest Abrams. Non-event.

          That being said, it’s nearly a 50 year old design. Most of the advantage is updated optics, sensors and fire control.

          • Chris, I repeated a comment that I saw that the US does not export its latest Abrams – however you are right that they would probably make an exception for the UK.
            However we don’t want any Abrams, even the newer ones (which obviously have a newer than 50 year old design in respect of compnents that have been changed) – we are getting CR3.

      • As Graham says the M1 Abrams is not likely to see service in the British Army – but in the future who knows,lots of Horse Trading going on today,i wouldn’t rule anything out.

  4. I think upping the number to 200 would be a realistic balance between affordability and need. It is also key however, to right size troop levels to support not only this and an increase in long fires, but to increase the number of bayonets. I am not an expert and therefore would be interested to know what others think. Also, what would be a sensible troop levels?

    • I’d improve the CS/CSS support to the Armoured Brigades before the Bayonets, I assume you mean infantry numbers or just overall manpower.

      Thus HET, REME, RLC, and railway capability to transport armour which has been deliberately allowed to wither to a handful of STRE reserves since 2010. RLC Tank Transport Sqns were I believe down to 2, will have to check.

      Force levels. IMO the 5 Brigades plus 16AA plus 3 Cdo of 2010 SDSR was fine for a country that is not and should not be a major land power. We are badly short of that now following the stunt they pulled in the 2015 SDSR and prioritising Boxer ( which was MCV for 2029 ) and the WCSP and Ajax issues which robbed yet more CS/CSS formations to support those deployable Brigades.

      The current 2 Armoured, 1 Light Mech, 1 Light, 1 DRS, 1 Air is also acceptable if only they would be properly furnished with supporting CS/CSS, and fully manned, which they are not.

          • According to the dreaded Wiki, there’s 8032 members of the Corps at the moment but, I’ve got to say, when I’m around they seem thin on the ground!

          • The trouble is, most are now located in REME Battalions, and the integral support that was provided by the Light Aid Detachments and Workshops (Engr and Arty), have been reduced, so REME have little day to day contact with the teeth arms, which was always so important when supporting them, in barracks, on Exercise and on operations.

          • Well some of those battalions are classed as “Force Support” that comprise parts of the rear echelons and others are “Close Support” that directly support a brigade much like the Engineer and Artillery regiments do, So I’m unsure if that minimal contact with the teeth arms is really true?
            The varied regiments and battalions still have their own LAD or Wkshp as far as I’m aware, how much of a reduction have they sustained do we know? Ian?

          • Thanks Ian.
            When I was serving, an LAD supporting medium or heavy armour was about 70 strong, a small Regt Wksp about 90 and a large Regt Wksp about 110 strong.
            Each Sqn or Coy of course had its own REME fitter section which worked in Sqn/Coy hangers, and the REME fitter section lads were made to feel part of the Sqn/Coy.

            I wonder what has changed.

          • I left the Corps (REME) in 2009. Why has LAD and Regt Wksp manpower fallen? That makes no sense.
            Not sure why you say REME has little contact with teeth arms – those LADs and Regt Wksps still exist, as they must do. They work in the barracks of the parent unit. Why has contact reduced. I don’t get this.

        • True. REME has invariably constituted 10% of the Reg Army’s strength. We were very busy in the 70s because the supported equipment was often not very reliable.

      • Great points Daniele.
        All units need organic 1st line REME and all formations (Bdes, divs) need 2nd line REME, no matter whether the equipment is light, medium or heavy – just that the size of the REME contingent will of course vary according to the numbers and nature of the equipment supported.

  5. Good news. We could do with keeping the current number of armoured divisions. Question is though, what will support them?

    Asking for an interim artillery solution recognises that the AS90 is outdated and out ranged. It also seems to suggest we are going for K9 Team Thunder. I believe South Korea are able to supply some current model K9s. Which other solution can do the same?

          • Look to the UK M270 MLRS. Boeing/Saab are offering to join existing stocks of small diameter bombs with surplus M26 rockets. Off the shelf, 93 mile precision strike. Quoted price is $40k each. We could buy 250 for around 10 million.

          • BAE is the only company capable of restarting the M270 line. If only they could marry a truck bed as per HIMARS with the 12-cell unit to give it a bigger bang. Then look to extend the range of the rockets as could now be done compared to the limitations the system had back in the day. 

            While BAE is it, could they not look at putting the M777 onto a truck bed as the French have with CAESAR? Range, mobility and hyper-accuracy have been the three most prominent aspects of the Ukraine war. The Russians have tried saturation artillery, we have seen the awful effects with Towns and Cities destroyed and farmers’ fields that look like the moon with as many craters. 

          • Hi Mr Ex,
            BAe would have a huge problem restarting the M270 line as it’s a Lockheed Martin system! As for mounting an M777 on a truck, have you seen the BAe Archer 155mm artillery system?

          • Hi Ian M, You are out of date mate. Several sources cite it:

            “Production of the M270 ended in 2003, when a last batch was delivered to the Egyptian Army.[citation needed] In 2003, the U.S. Army began low-rate production of the M142 HIMARS. The HIMARS fires all of the munitions of the MLRS, but is based on the chassis of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.[12] As of 2012, BAE Systems still had the capability to restart production of the MLRS.”

            I have tried posting a few of the links, but lucked out as the site settings on UKDJ will not let me post it. A simple Google brings up Wiki, LHM own website and an article in Janes.

            I believe from what is on these websites (and I accept I may be wrong), that BAE was given the rights as part of the attempt by Lockheed Martin to head off new customers after Turkey and Israel both reverse engineered their own version, part of the Alternative Warhead Programme at Red River.

            At the same time, BAE is also restarting the M777 production line after renewed interest from customers following its success in Ukraine.

          • Hi, I have to disagree with you about BAe’s involvement. They have recently been awarded a couple of large contracts for the logistical support of the Bradley IFV and the M993 carrier which forms the automotive part of the M270 launcher, but I can find no information on BAe manufacturing the platform from scratch.. LM still manufacture the M142 HIMARS in quantity.
            Also, why would BAe want to put M777 on a truck when they (BOFORS) make the Archer system already?

          • You should have tracked SPGs to keep up (a tactical bound behind, really) with tracked vehicles (tanks and Warriors), wheeled (truck-mounted) guns for wheeled mechanised forces and towed guns for light forces (Paras and commandos).

          • Thx, I understand; I see the roles for L118 and M109 / K9 etc.
            But does Archer / Caesar have significant advantage over a well towed M777, especially if you have wheeled HIMARS?

          • I am not so clued up on artillery, but the army always needs a mix of capabilities. Just because the Ukrainians love HIMARS doesn’t mean it should be used exclusively and instead of tube artillery, be those other options truck-mounted or towed.
            Here is my take:

            Towed gun. 105 Lt Gun in service with RA is very long in the tooth and I doubt many would not want to see it replaced by 155mm M777.
            Advantages are:
            1.transportability – can be underslung from suitable helo (also its towing vehicle) and can also be moved over terrain with fragile infrastructure (weak bridges and culverts etc) – and 2.resupply of ammo is often easier (possible use of allied ammo, greater stocks).
            3.Fire can be sustained for longer than rocket arty
            4.Fire can be corrected more effectively than rocket arty
            Disadvantages of towed gun –

            1. less lethality (especially for 105) compared to rocket
            2. time into/out of action can be longer than rocket arty
            3. longer fire mission can lead to counter-fires coming in

            Truck-mounted gun
            Advantages are:
            1.Fast into/out of action times compared to towed gun
            2.Some have a gun turret which provides crew protection
            Disadvantages are:
            1.possible higher cost than towed gun and tow vehicle
            2.less easy to undersling under helo

            Wheeled Rocket system (ie HIMARS)
            Advantages are:
            1.Fast into/out of action times.
            2.Short duration fire missions thus reducing counter-fires
            3.High lethality fire over a smallish area.
            Disadvantages:
            1.Voracious consumer of ammo
            2.Uniqueness and expense of ammo
            3.less easy to undersling under helo

            I am sure those more expert will help to correct and amend the above – as I say, not really my field.

    • Slip of the tongue I know mate, but “Armoured Divisions” !

      Solution. Cancel the conversion of KRH from CH2 to Ajax, keep levels at 3 MBT Regiments, and convert extra CH2 to cover this modest change.

      Artillery expansion, in the form of extra SHORAD and MLRS batteries is already in the pipeline but expanding the FMF buy to more than 2 regiments would also be welcome.

        • I refer to long time comments from the right honourable poster above mate!

          Beyond that and the ORBAT it will furnish I know little on Ajax either mate. It’s armour, weaponry and ISTAR fit must count for something, and the army plan to link it to UAV, the GMLRS, and other networks. It is not a CVRT!

        • Hi Robert. To answer your question; Yes, the Army desperately need a modern, well protected yet mobile ISTAR platform to provide the information that deep fires (I hate that Americanism), air power and higher echelons rely on. As Daniele says, it’s not a Scimitar with M-SPIRE and bino’s or Warrior with BGTI and an unstabilised cannon.
          Happy to discuss further.
          cheers

          • Thanks for the info Ian. ISTAR and networked operations is the name of the game in the modern battlespace. I guess with projects like Ajax, the bad news is only what we hear about and little about the capability it will provide. Similar to F35 in many ways. The Army clearly think its worth it despite the delays. Hopefully it will turn out to be a cracking bit of kit, and the negative headlines will soon be forgotten.

          • They can not sit still for days in a big bush?
            They can be retasked at once and not have their SATCOM link jammed?

            I think ISTAR is best met by a range of assets, from guys in an Hide/OP to armoured vehicles to aerial and space assets. All have a part to play to produce a picture so I’d not think one has decisive advantages over the other, but prioritise ISTAR as a whole.

          • You know they are all going to end up with electric motors and no fun at some point. No vroom vroom more sssssssmmmmm.

          • Sitting still in a bush for days at a time sounds more like a job opportunity for a scarecrow with a revolving head and a nanny-cam, even if the manned AFV can be retasked to go sit in a different bush and no matter how big the pee bucket in the corner is. I also can’t see how it’s easier to jam a HALE drone’s SATCOM than an AFVs.

            Why do we need the guy in the hide rather than just sensors that can also sit still for days possibly weeks at a time before the batteries run out, with a bit of AI to preliminarily identify enemy targets before calling home?

            I’m trying to understand why we need manned vehicles for recce at all, especially expensive ones, rather than attritable ground and air drones and disposable sensors. I accept that we do and, as is often the case, a mix is required. I suppose AFVs on recce can kill targets of opportunity directly rather than calling in fires, but there has to be more to it than that. More power, better sensor resolution, etc.

          • The obvious problem (to me anyway) with drines, whether high or low level is the weather. Low cloudbase, high winds and other obscurants. I know there are types of radar that can image through cloud but I would guess they are too heavy or power hungry to fit onto a drone (experts please chip in).
            Cheers
            VROOM VROOM!

          • The quadcopters the army is buying aren’t suitable for that, only carrying EO/IR. (I could ask why we are buying Lockheed and Elbit drones instead of developing UK ones such as Evolve drones, but that’s a digression.)

            The kind of radar you are talking about is a Synthetic Aperture Radar and the smallest UK COTS SAR I’m aware of is Leonardo’s PicoSAR. Weighing about 10kg with a power requirement of <300W, it can fit on something the size of a Schiebel S100 Camcopter and probably a bit smaller; I know the Canadians have them fitted to the similar sized V200 Skeldars. Maximum air target range is 20km, and I doubt the SAR works to that kind of angle. Of course the radar horizon from the top of an Ajax is a lot less than that anyway. However, we are only talking about 4 to 5 hours endurance and rotaries of the class (S100/AWHero/V200) are neither cheap nor stealthy. At £500K perhaps (hard to tell the exact price) they are borderline attritable.

            A Phasa-5 HALE fixed wing drone from BAE is roughly the same weight as the Skeldar and Camcopter (150 kg), it could carry the weight of the PicoSAR and can stay in the stratosphere for months, but being solar powered I doubt it can pump out 300W. Nevertheless we are getting closer.

            At the other end is the RAF’s Protector aka Sky Guardian. It has already integrated Seaspray radar, range to detect air targets: 600 km, and it can stay up about 40 hours. I don’t know what angle the SAR works to, but again distance will far exceed anything the Ajax can give at ground level and it moves at speeds tracked vehicles can only dream of. However it’s twice the price of Ajax unit for unit. Not what I’d call attritable.

            The Navy’s Project Vampire, which extends the use of QinetiQ’s attritible Banshee drones, carrying something the size of a Thales I-Master radar (around 30kg) it has the right kind of weight/power/price balance, but the Navy needs them to work at high subsonic, pull 9 Gs, operate from anywhere from 50 ft to 35,000 ft, take off from the back of a frigate, and they are willing to sacrifice endurance – about an hour.

            IMO, somewhere in the middle of all these is a sweet spot that needs developing.

            Project Aether is probably where we will actually end up going. It’s for stratospheric comms and ISR drones with massive range. The best publicised drone in the project is a balloon system currently being trialled in California by Sierra Nevada. Again (in my opinon) too expensive at £100m for the trials, but hopefully these things will get cheaper once developed. Not a VROOM to be heard on stratospheric balloons, but maybe if we add lightweight speakers and an MP4 player.

          • When I talked about the sweet spot, I’d have thought something like the Austars HP-6000 and PicoSAR would be a perfect base to develop from.

            VTOL/fixed-wing MTOW 100kg, max payload 25-30kg, drone cost is about £30K with milspec engine, 7 hours endurance, up to 600W engine will just about have sufficient power for the SAR 300W, plus maybe 30W needed for the Satcom to avoid LOS restrictions.

            I don’t know why this kind of combo isn’t being talked about.

          • Starlink uses satellite to satellite laser coms. I could imagine doing a similar think with forward deployed drones communicating back via a string or Zephyr.

        • Lieutenant General Sharon Nesmith has taken up the role of Deputy Chief of the General Staff in charge of procurement told Parliament yesterday it was nearly all sorted and the production lines for Ajax were now “hot”

          Whether it is or isn’t, I assume we will find out

          • Hi Ian, just quoting what she said. To be honest, I thought they let her off the hook by the MP’s and given a significant chance to gloss over the issues it had. They were more concerned with the lack of tank platforms. It suddenly struck Tory MP, Mark Francois, that if Russia’s lost 2000 tanks, the UK’s pitiful 225 will last “how long”? When she said that the actual number would be less than 100, he went white. Tobias Ellwood, ragged on about Ajax not being fit for purpose and that after nearly £3bn, he thought the MOD had bought Trigger’s Broom. Laughing at how witty he was, he then changed the subject and let General Nesmith off.

          • Our 225 or 227 tanks are not all with armd regts – assuming 3 x T56, then we could put an absolute maximum of 168 into the field – but expect at least 10% of those to be undergoing maintenance at the very least.

            Why is Tobias still banging on about Ajax not being fit for purpose – it was redesigned, went through its User Validation Trials and is now on Reliability Growth Trials.

          • Ajax is just about to embark on Reliability Growth Trials (RGT) which will take a fair old time. Is GDUK really going to run the production line flat out before any evidence from RGT starts to come in, which might change the build standard in some way(s)?

      • Totally agree, bare minimum of 200 MBTs across 3 regiments, viz:- 1RTR, KRH, and QRH.
        Forget the obviously flawed Ajax debacle and order off the shelf CV 90 variants instead, incl. APCs, 30/40mm cannon armed IFVs, 155mm howitzers, Mjolner twin 120mm mortar carriers…
        #throwinggoodmoneyafterbad

    • Instead of “well we’ll” I would put “oh dear” obviously said ‘defence’ journo has done NO research at all into this and just picked up on the Fact that Jordan is retiring tanks!

      • Well, I suppose there is always the possibility that the DT is barking up the wrong tree…..😂
        Serious question….how would CR1 fair on the Ukraine battlefield?

        • HI Paul,

          Compared to T72… CR1 would have the upper hand I would suggest, it certainly did in Gulf War 1.

          I was going to say that those T72’s were crewed by Iraqi Republican Guard but to be honest I don’t think it would make any difference who crewed them – they have serious flaws in their design and would most like go bang anyway. Mind you the Russian Army doesn’t look too clever either…

          Cheers CR

      • A journo doing no research? There’s a novelty, NOT.

        I wish news sources would stick to reporting news and stop these half-baked biased opinion pieces… 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

        • It’s now plastered all over the DE🙄 and to think the bloke from civitas who started this is an ex squadie! Unbelievable!!

      • It is something I have commented upon. Could we not purchase some old C1s from Jordan? upgrade them a bit in the UK- courtesy of foreign aid budget and then gift these to Ukraine- they would still be superior to all Ruskie tanks up to T90 and as T14 Aramata hasn’t been deployed a C1 properly handled and in a combined arms formation would have little to worry about facing the Russian army.

  7. IM staggered now that in view of the Tank s vulnerbility to Missile attack as proved in Ukraine that we now consider enlarging our fleet , Ive long maintained that tanks will go the way of the Dreadnought battleship and be replaced by a faster lighter more mobile fighting vehicle and i thouht we had bought into that premiss obviousy i was wrong

    • The rest of the world do not seem to hold with this view. I get your point though,
      Soviet era amour certainly is not upto todays war fighting and neither is the Soviet era battle field doctrine.
      However if a decision is ever made at the spring review planning has to be made one way or the other.
      My view is, if the MBT has had its day, why are we sending Challenger to Ukraine?

      • It is poor tactics that have resulted in the huge loss of tanks. Russia has failed to move on from the Cold War and embrace “Combined Arms”. Yes in the early 80’s when the Infantry just had 7.62 GPMG’s as their main support weapon, they were in a secondary role to tanks in the British Army Orbat. That all changed with the introduction of the Warrior for the Brits, and the Bradley for the USA. Tactics etc have all moved on for NATO countries.

      • We are sending Chally to UKR because the UKR President has asked for 300 western MBTs and 500 IFVs. I think he knows what he wants to win this war.
        If the MBT has had its day, why isn’t the world scrapping its tanks?

    • Tanks haven’t had their day, crappy soviet era tanks and tactics have had their day. Combined arms is how the West does it rather than just kamikazeing a tank with no infantry or air support and hoping for the best. Active protection systems are also a game changer as shown in Israel. At the end of the day armour is needed to hold ground and make pushes and Ukraine wouldn’t be asking/begging for them if they weren’t useful when used correctly.

      • Jonny you are absolutely right but of course Ukraine doesn’t have the combat experience of the posters above and don’t know what their talking about like the esteemed contributors of these posts and that’s why their begging for tanks ?

    • Ruskie tanks vulnerability to ATGW doesn’t equate to a modern Western orientated MBT with an active protection system. There really is no comparison

    • Poop! I’ve been light role all my career and even I know, and appreciate the weird blokes (and gals now) in tanks, who are still battlefield winners! The tank will adapt, in regard to defence and offensive kit, both active and passive! Just because a new bit of kit comes in which changes the dynamics of a platform, we adapt and counter such threats! Did they get rid of the bow and arrow because some clever bugger invented the shield……👍

  9. Why do we need the tanks. Honest question from a matelot.

    I see things below saying “tank attack” but why would you be attacking anything with tanks? Would not a shed load of Brimstone launched from box launchers on the back of trucks( Simple, cheap, lots of them and no gold plating required!) behind the FEoB not achieve the same end…killing enemy armour at range.
    When the enemy armour is gone (Tanks, IFVs ) its then down to Infantry and IFVs to take and hold the ground is it not? OK you would need a lot of Brimstone but they are a lot cheaper than tanks to acquire and maintain over a time period. You could have 10s of thousands of the things.

    I am not saying the tank is 100% dead. It may still have a place ( Not sure what though…Armour types please explain but don’t say cap badges I beg of you!) but there are other ways of hitting stuff at range and killing it.

    • As ex REME, therefore not a “tankie” I would offer that tanks provide mutual support to troops in contact, can dominate an enemy and their armour and as a last resort, frighten the shit out of the enemy!

    • A fair point: the machine gun plus massed artillery reduced WW1 to trench warfare. The tank was developed to break that deadlock. Now, PGMs in Ukraine seem to have neutralized the tanks effectiveness, and trench type warfare has returned. But partly this is because of very poor tactics by Russia: columns of tanks on a narrow front, even a single road, without infantry support have always been vulnerable. PGMs make them much more so. But any other vehicle will be even less survivable:even if knocked out, modern Western MBTs generally keep their crews alive.
      If heavily armoured tanks are so easily defeated by PGMs, what chance do largely unarmoured surface warships have against saturation missile attacks?
      It is interesting that both Canada and the Netherlands decided to dispense with MBTs. Both have reversed that decision.

    • It already exists.

      “Rheinmetall BAE Systems Ltd (RBSL) has unveiled its Brimstone missile-equipped Boxer vehicle concept demonstrator for the British Army.

      The Boxer Overwatch has been developed in collaboration with MBDA for the British Army’s Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) capability requirement.”

        • All positive news it seems.

          Likewise “(dare i mention it)” Boxer has the option for a 120mm version and is also tracked, so a potential varient somewhere down the line? We might just have the monies to pay for some of this new and much needed equipment too!

          “The British Army will receive significant investment to become more agile, integrated, lethal and expeditionary. The service will receive an additional £3-billion on new vehicles, long-range rocket systems, air defences, drones, electronic warfare and cyber capabilities.”

          • That word again….”Agile”

            How can it be more expeditionary ( I’m looking at you too Herc and future medium heli numbers no doubt well below the minimum of 44 wanted ) when the CSS is lacking for the existing force and the numbers are so wafer thin an enduring deployment can barely be sustained, such as Cabrit and the trouble the army is having maintaining even that.

            Some good stuff coming and more funds yes but these grand announcements have so much waffle too and try not to look too closely at the reality.

          • The monies will most probably go towards backfilling the equipment sent to Ukraine.

            Everything seems to be wafer thin as you quite rightly say as well as being delayed into service, but until we have the funds available we will have to make the best of it sadly.

            “The British Army will receive 100 extra armoured Boxer vehicles, ensuring more vehicles reach the frontline faster and bolstering the programme to a total of 623, as the UK maintains defence ties with Germany, the Prime Minister has announced today.

            The first Boxer vehicles will arrive in units from 2023, with the overall programme protecting up to 1,000 jobs nationally, enhancing skill sets and creating an ambitious UK apprenticeship scheme.

            The UK played a central role in the original design, development and testing of the Boxer, beginning in 1998. In re-joining the programme in 2019, the UK reassumed the rights it had as a project partner.”

            A more in-depth article on the different variants can be found here.

            Challenger 3

            “The initial operating capability for the upgraded tanks is expected by 2027, with full operational capability expected to be declared by 2030.”

    • Mate I’ve been light role all my career, but in regard to tanks aside from firepower, mobility and armour, they provide flexibility, can be utilised for offence and defence, can take serious punishment, and as Ian said good for own troops morale and bad for the enemy! However I am also a firm believer in the use of light role platforms carrying Brimstone (or equivalent) to supplement the armoured fist! Remember Striker, CVRT chassis with x 5 AT missiles on top! A modem version with Brimstone and boom every angle covered! In fact ATGW and active defence systems should be standard fit for anything in the RAC/Inf with tracks! Cheers 👍

      • With the “Tilt to the Pacific” I cannot see the UK sending anything heavy that way unless China invades Oz so Heavy Tracks wont be needed in that direction. Its one of the reasons the USMC ditched their M1s…who where they going to use them against doing island hopping.

        In Europe we would be part of a far bigger NATO group and lets be honest we are not going to be contributing much numbers wise to a tank fest slug-a -thon. Light, very mobile forces with long range recce, PGM and deep strike may become the raison d’être for the army.

        Forget about holding and taking ground.
        Go in, mallet everything that moves with PGM, Deep strike, Arty, helo, fast air and then get out leaving the freshly malleted forces to sort out the mess. If they regroup mallet them again.

        I may be simplifying it but hey, I used to do wet crinkly stuff!

        • Agree to a degree mate for sure. On board with the minimal contribution of armoured assets, and have always said we should concentrate on our strengths which we contribute to NATO, such as SF, light role, flanks, RN, RFA, STA, ISTAR, AAR, heavy lift both rotary and fixed wing!

          But, a big but, while we shouldn’t be doing the “heavy armoured slug fest” on the continent of Europe, we will always need a modern, reasonable sized Combined Arms trained Armoured Div, to ensure the head sheds have all options open to them for future ops. Two reasons, one it gives the prospective enemy cause for concern of what we can do with them, but also as I said gives the planners ALL available options nationally! As reducing your options and therefore reducing your available considerations means you get the best plan but from a reduced set of options!! If that makes sense after a number of Rumbullion spiced rums mate….👍

        • Do you not worry about the survivability of light forces? The crew and parents of crew of Snatch LRs did.

          If our troops in the Falklands Conflict had forgotten about holding and taking ground, they would never have got to Stanley to take the surrender!

          • As I said we dont want to hold anything now.
            Go in and mallet everything then get out.
            COIN in Iraq and Afgan has screwed the Army for decades. The use of Snatch was because there wasn’t anything else. That changed with UOR buys. If you go for UOR it means you havent got the tools to do the job you are being given. What then happened is the Army went 100% COIN focused at the expense of everything else.
            The Falklands are actually a good example. We went in as a combined arms “purple” force. Flattened anything that got in the way and moved on to the next objective because there was nothing left behind the attacking forces, the enemy was eliminated in that area. They took ground but didnt hold it…they didnt need to.

          • Hi mate. Very interesting post. What is your background, if I may ask?
            Very true about the UOR focus at the expense of core programmes – it affected a project I was working on.

          • You’re asking good questions and making good points that tend to either never get raised, or get glossed over by MBT advocates who don’t seem to consider what war will look like in the next 10-20-30+ years in terms of surveillance/recon assets and new weapons.

            Combined arms infantry can’t support our MBT if its targeted by indirect fire weapons systems beyond the infantry screen, e.g. someone using a weapon like Brimstone against our MBT, targeting it with smart artillery, or with drone weapons if we haven’t achieved air dominance to eliminate that and other airborne threats. Even long range dismounted ATGM are a threat. Likewise rotary air support like Apache can’t help defend the tank in close support because its likely to become manpad fodder. We should assume an MBT on future battlefields is going to be located, identified, tracked and killed relatively quickly by a peer adversary unless we are either very lucky or have the option to be smart about how and when we use it.

            So if a MBT isn’t a solution for us what then? Since we do need to provide fire support for infantry then indirect fire using smart munitions, targeted using a range of surveillance and recon assets becomes the primary heavy firepower solution. Which is perhaps another reason why NATO strategy is to counter IADS and win air dominance as quickly as possible to protect those more lightly armoured assets from air attack and mitigate surveillance of them. Brimstone as you point out is a compelling option. Also 120mm mortar weapons like AMOS/NEMO, highly mobile tube and rocket artillery (no towed assets), NLOS rotary and fixed wing platforms; all armed with smart munitions. We can obtain significantly greater numbers of the lower cost indirect fire solutions versus those of MBTs.

            Since infantry need transport then IFVs with CTA40 will provide direct fire overmatch against opposing 30mm systems, without compromising loadout. They will also clearly be vulnerable to the same targeting efforts that apply against MBTs but will be far more numerous as part of an IFV/APC force which has to be there anyway, unless we plan to make the infantry walk everywhere. The way to mitigate the threat is continuous maneuver, fire on the run, non-fixed positions operations, i.e. operate inside the adversary’s OODA loop. Perhaps one reason why the Army is keen on Ajax as a platform contributing to this.

            Given all that then why are we doing CH3? Well because we don’t have other solutions like Boxer or Ajax in service yet, let alone armed with Brimstone, AMOS/NEMO or CTA40 in the case of Boxer, we’re short of tube and rocket artillery and what we have is old. We also only have Rarden armed Warrior since the CTA40 turret upgrade didn’t work out, plus Bulldog 81mm mortar. So CH2/CH3 is the only practical upgrade-able infantry support platform for now.

            Finally, your malleting approach seems to be future UK military strategy. It was described as presenting multiple contemporaneous dilemmas to the enemy, outstripping the enemy’s ability to comprehend and respond (back to the OODA loop), while operating in a dispersed battlefield, i.e. no defined front line.

  10. What concerns me even more than the lack of current UK tanks or the CH3 upgrade, is the loss of UK design and production capability for the next generation MBT. Surely now is the time to rekindle the UK’s expertise in that area and not depend on unreliable partners or “dogs-of-war” companies? I hope uncle Ben is thinking strategically and not just short-term.

    In the future a large force of good MBTs integrated with IFV, artillery and air, will be able to take large amounts of ground quickly when needed. Ukraine has shown good use and bad use of MBTs.

    • There is supposed to be a Land (Defence) Industrial Strategy. An article on the RUSI site observed that the detail of which companies might deliver it is lacking. But if we are to avoid becoming entirely dependent on foreign manufacturers, we really have to regenerate UK design and build capabilities. Long term planning with industry has worked well for missile development.
      If there is no obvious solution in the private sector, then maybe a new state owned operation is needed. Reliance on multinational private sector companies, eg General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin, has been fraught with problems- delays, cost overruns and even ultimate failure. So a UK equivalent of Nexter might be a better long term solution.

      • I expect there will be several smaller British companies screaming, me, me! Unfortunately the moment they get a good sized contract, they’ll be bought up by one of the multinationals, probably foreign owned. Of course the government could block that on national security grounds, requiring the UK to build a greater level of self-sufficiency, but the current government won’t.

        • Yep, the hollowing out of the UK defence industry – particularly smaller companies – has been systematic post-WWII.

      • All good points. As we know, the problem buying foreign is that their Government restricts who we can sell or gift equipment on to – and release paperwork takes ages (in Germany at least). Also US purchases can be compromised by ITAR.

        We are still a major manufacturing nation, despite what the nay-sayers say. The problems have been that:
        a. Govt allowed BAE to swallow up all other UK AFV manufacturers, so there is now no competition between truly British manufacturers. Why did the Monopolies & Mergers Commisssion not intervene?
        b. Govt (MoD) placed no orders for tanks or any heavy/medium armour in the core programme since the late 90s….and has placed no orders for Industry to do factory-level upgrades to a whole host of AFVs, leaving CR2 (ISD 1998), AS90 (ISD 1992) and Warrior (ISD 1987) essentially unmodernised for 25-35 years respectively. Can you imagine that happening for RN and RAF platforms?

        We have companies with varying levels and competency in AFV work, so all is not lost – BAE/RBSL, WFEL, GDUK, LM(UK). But the loss of the BAE tank factories at Leeds and Newcastle (both with test tracks) and the loss of the MoD R&D facility at Chertsey (with road and x-country test tracks, climate chamber etc) – has left UK worse off.

        I think your proposal has great merit.

        • Given that we in the past have produced world-beating MBTs for example, it is also about being confronted on the battlefield with kit on the opposing side that potentially is the same as the UKs. Therefore the UK not having a technical advantage in a conflict. “Dogs-of-War” companies sell to both sides.

      • I just hope that there is, given the fiasco of stuff like MBTs and the over-reliance on other the countries, that the UK finally wakes up.

      • I’m being slightly hypocritical as I drive a very good S.Korean car, but if we use that approach for MBTs then:
        1) The UK is then left with no MBT design capability and IP.
        2) £profits go overseas.

    • All is not lost. Although the 2 massive tank factories at Leeds and Newcastle closed and the MoD vehicle research site at Chertsey did too, there are some areas of AFV capability that could be expanded to design and build future British tanks.
      RBSL at Telford has designed and will conduct the conversion of CR2 to CR3. LM designed the Ajax and WCSP turret, and has series built the former. GDUK has designed Ajax and will series build them and variants. WFEL is building hundreds of Boxers.

      • Yes there is hope. World events have at least highlighted the UK’s issue with MBTs.

        I am just arguing for setting up an agency tasked with nurturing and co-ordinating the UK’s capability for key strategic things such as MBTs. The South Korean K2 may well be a short-term win, but that approach and 60-years of ‘outsourcing’ has left the UK an impovrished nation of burger-flippers. The MBT issue is a bit of a litmus test to see if the Government is serious about growing the economy and peoples standard of living.

        • I think the issue is about security of supply and independent action. Many focus on this point as regards energy coming from Russia etc – but it is a valid point for defence hardware.
          If we had bought Leo2 instead of CR2 in 1998, then we would be waiting with all the other members of the Leo2 club for Herr Scholz to sign his damn piece of paper to allow us to gift sid tanks on to Ukraine. [Similar story if we had bought M1 Abrams]. Hence, best to buy British defence kit.

          • Absolutely. I think once the UK Gov changes its mind-set to grasp the nettle of the UK having some level of design and production capability for certain strategic stuff and to stop foreign acquisition of strategic UK companies, then we will know that they are finally committed to growing the economy as well as defending the Nation. After the 2008 crash the Government promised to “re-profile” the economy to not be so reliant and financial services and consumer spending. I’m holding my breath and crossing my fingers in 2023 for that process to start!

        • Assembly of armored vehicles can still be in the UK, but relying on Brit engines, transmissions, suspensions, etc. is a loser’s strategy because Brit industrial technology is very much far behind countries like Germany, America and even South Korea.

          • We are assembling armoured vehicles in the UK – Ajax family, CR3, and Boxer family.
            But no-one is insisting on all parts being British – CR3 will have a German cannon.

          • …so Ed, I am arguing for a re-kindling of our design and production capabilities for certain, critical, strategic items like MBTs, as we are (were) capable of producing world-beating MBTs. and we can’t always rely on others as well as the wider economic benefits to the Nation.

            Or are you saying that the UK must now just accept that it is only ever going to be a Nation of burger-flippers?

  11. Challenger3 could be weakened because this government is supplying 2s to Ukraine, if Russia captured a 2 and had time to find a weakness or possibly a method of getting past the armour plating. This idea to send them is a political over national security. I wonder how many top military personnel are happy about it.

      • It’s better to keep the armour classified just incase Challenger3s ever get used on the battlefield and save UK military personnel. Let’s think trouble areas Iran, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan possible down the line with China. So why not give them a F35, the plans to the dreadnought submarines. Just in case we don’t use them in the battlefield. The armour will take a direct hit from any Russian tank and survive then when the Challenger3 get the upgraded turret and engine and the Israeli defensive system it will be a very advanced MBT, but you would like the possibility that the Russian can get passed the armour, which they will share with,Iran,China,North Korea and any other they like.

        • It’s still a silly idea:

          1. There is no guarantee that they will be used (by us) in a future war, and is pretty unlikely albeit not impossible

          2. These are over twenty years old now, you can’t compare it to a Dreadnought or F35

          3. Challenger 3 will receive armour upgrades so knowing the weaknesses of chally 2s armour is of less importance.

          4. The more time that passes, the worse Russia’s industrial capacity gets. Even if they knew every single detail about the armour, they wouldn’t be able to reproduce it. I take your point about other countries though.

          5. Don’t you think the m.o.d would have considered the consequences of this and judged that the benefits outweigh the risks?

          Rather than thinking about “what ifs” there are innocent people dying *right now* as well as many people (including us) suffering as a result of the energy war. We aren’t just giving them away to be nice as much as it feels good to think that. We are giving them away because they will have a direct impact on the end of the war and therefore a positive impact *on us*.

          • The current armour on the Challenger2 is still the best and the Challenger3 will continue to use it the upgrades are to the powerhouse, the turret, the commanders input technology, the barrel and the Israeli defence system. It is better to have something and not use it, than need something and don’t have. The UK has had a unclear deterrent for over 60 years and never used it, so your argument about its better than having it in storage there are over a hundred warheads in storage plus the ones on subs. There is loads of equipment in storage so we should give it away even though its classified and just hope it doesn’t fall into someone’s hands that will not use it against us. I think you are being nieve.

          • That’s a false comparison, Challenger tanks are weapons and designed to be used.
            Nukes are a deterrent, if they’re ever used then they’ve failed as a deterrent.

          • That is the most stupid comment, all military weapons are primarily a deterrent if someone has more advanced and more powerful weapons you have a second thought to go up against them. The goal of a powerful military is as a deterrent.

          • I thing that adjective is more applicable to your thinking, you sound like one of those nutters who think a nuclear war can be fought.

            Conventional weapons can be a deterrent but equally can actually be used as a weapon of war to further your national aims/agenda.

            Strategic nuclear weapons function only as a deterrent, because they’re a mutual suicide option if ever used.

          • No, I’ve learned from experience just because the UK won’t use nuclear weapons, but that doesn’t mean that someone won’t use battlefield tactical nuclear weapons! Russia in Ukraine, North Korea, in South Korea, China, in Singapore since none of them are in Nato legally Nato couldn’t use article 5. Chemical and biological weapons have been used recently even though we won’t. So just because I see the possibility you call me a nutter you’re definitely naive. I’ve seen the worse side of people you think everyone plays by rules.

          • Oh dear, you don’t see to know the difference between strategic nuclear weapons (aka the nuclear deterrent or MAD) and tactical nuclear weapons (battlefield nukes) 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

          • You read your little books pretending to know what you’re talking about. Whereas I actually live in the real world dealing and working in the actually subject matter. You go and continue playing on cod when you actually play the real game then I’ll actually might listen to your.

          • Yeah that’s right your head through the door! This is bone, I’ve got better things to do. You take care.

          • Sorry to be a pedant, you have not learnt from experience that someone would use a battlefield tactical nuclear, because no one ever has,no tactical battlefield nuclear weapons have ever been used, so no one has experienced their use.

            now chemical weapons yes they have been used,

            biological warfare has always been a lot more of a bust in the 20th century that most people think. In WW1 Germany did some heath Robertson anthrax attacks on some random allied cows in the hope of disrupting agricultural and also infected some Russian horses ( the Russians loved those horses).

            to be honest no one has really been able to effectively weaponise biological agents…the problem is dispersal and infection rates and case mortality rates.The US tried to make anthrax bombs but gave up as the infection rates were not great..they moved onto rabbit fever, and managed to get a bomb that had a reasonable infection rate…but rabbit fever makes you feel horrible and you get occasional deaths..but it ain’t no weapon of mass destruction.

            There had been that U.S. terror attack in 2001 I think, but again your not really able to use the postal services as a weapon of mass destruction…

            effectively biological weapons are limited by your vector and the fact that diseases that have a high case mortality rate ( 50% +) are either really difficult to find a vector you can use ( Pion type disease have a 100% mortality rate and no cure..but you have to force feed someone infected brains for a few years)..or have an easy cure or vaccine, small pox would be a brilliant weapon very high RO and 95% case mortality without treatment, but there is a reason it’s dead and we are not, it’s piss easy to vaccinate against ( just rubbing yourself against a few cows would have done it) and case mortality rate drops to 10% with treatment…it’s far easier and more effective to blow people up than try and kill them with a disease….finally there is little or no control in regards to which way a biological weapon and its vector will end up pointing….

          • I think we’ve gotten of the subject, you would prefer the chance that the Dorchester armour could fall into Russias hands instead of keeping them in storage. I say the risk is to great to let them go since if one does get captured we can’t go all out to destroy it or recover it since its not our battle and we are not there officially.

          • You realise if Ukraine kicks Russia out of its country, we’re not just looking at Putin being toppled. There’s a good chance the entire Russian Federation will splinter given Putin has mainly mobilised people from non-ethnically Russian regions? Worth the risk to see that happen.

          • Completely agree, one is to be used the other is by it nature not to be used and fulfils its purpose by not being used. In fact the very nature of the nuclear deterrent means that if we use it, it’s failed in its purpose and we are all dead anyway.

          • Jonny,

            Your Point 1 – I think you were talking about CR3. You doubt that CR3 will be used in a future conflict? Why? We have deployed tanks so many times on kinetic operations (unlike many other Defence platforms), the last time being the deployment of 120 CR2s on Op TELIC.
            Why would things be different in the 20-30 year lifespan of CR3?

          • I was talking about Challenger 2, because challenger 3s initial operating capability is 2027. I don’t think it is worth worrying about having to use challenger 2 in the next 4 years in a major conflict. I did however say “unlikely”, because of this timeframe, not impossible.

            Who knows what the geopolitical situation will be like after this time? But for the next few years until ch3 arrives, I don’t see a security risk if one fell into Russian hands.

            The most recent wars against terrorism like operation Shader were successful using only our airforce. I would guess any future war against terrorism would be the same after the Afghanistan shit show.

            That just leaves state v state war. Who are our potential credible enemies if Russia is sent back to the dark ages? Pretty much just China. So first it depends on how likely it is that China would invade Taiwan, and how likely *if* we were to get involved that tanks would be remotely useful in that specific conflict in anything other than a full-scale invasion of China (which isn’t very likely). Argentina would be kept at bay with the token amount of Typhoons stationed on the islands.

            So in my opinion this is the last hurrah for the Challenger 2, hence why I’m all for it doing what it was designed to do.

          • You doubt we will use CR2 in its last 4-7 years service. Well we have used it a lot in the past.
            The US considers its enemies (or threats) to be China, Iran, North Korea – if one disregards Russia for being ‘washed up’.
            As we are strong allies with the US, perhaps we should consider their enemies to be our enemies.

            Its not just the Typhoons on the FI that deter Argentina but I take your point.

            I am increasingly persuaded by those who advocate sending as many CR2s to UKR as are fit to go.

        • We don’t really know what armour the tanks will deploy with! How many TES sets are there? If push comes to shove the Ukr can use their heads and make up a ERA package I’m sure.

    • If the Russians discover a design flaw from a captured Challie then they’ll try and exploit it against other Ukranian Challies… Which means the U.K. will learn about the flaw long before British crewed Challies ever face the Russians, hopefully providing the time to fix the flaw 🤷🏻‍♂️

      While we’re supporting the Ukranians with lots of kit, they could also be described as effectively being guinea pigs testing our kit for us in a situation where flaws could kill them.

  12. I’ll be interested to know what the interim mobile fires solution will be!
    It has to be something almost immediately available, so I’m guessing wheels rather than tracks- maybe Archer or CAESAR? Unless the Koreans can get something over to us from stock. I don’t see Poland or Germany parting with their SPGs. I don’t think they’ll be towed- stretching the definition of “mobile” a bit much- even for the British Army.
    It could be GMLRS I suppose, but I can’t think of anywhere that could get us any in short timescales- they’ll be going to Ukraine. Maybe a sneaky excuse to get 120 mm mortars into inventory?

    • MLRS is separate from FMF and already happening, the force is expanding from 44 planned in FS to nearer 60 or 70 I think I read.

      Towed! Well the army brass in 2015 was happy for our Strike Brigades to have interim towed 105mm Light Guns in the 2 artillery regiments assigned to support them so I hope not! Keep them for the Paras and Marines, I’d like something SP, either wheeled or tracked, and in number 3 regiments plus.

      • Good news on the MLRS, I understand we’re getting longer ranged munitions for them too? Glad that Army has been “encouraged” to review the importance of artillery in general due to Ukraine.
        “Well the army brass in 2015 was happy for our Strike Brigades to have interim towed 105mm Light Guns” I have no words. That may have been OK in WW2, but not 80 years later…! As you say, I can understand something particularly light for the speacialist light infantry (might 120 mm mortars be a better option? Don’t knwo what the range and firepower difference is), but not for Mechanised force- medium or heavy.

        • Me neither on the 120mm Mortar, I know Airborne will get excited if we get those, he should know after all and has sung their praises before.

          The LGs in Strike Brigades were the result of defence cuts, because they cut 2 regiments worth of AS90s, that once supported 2 Armoured or Mechanized Brigades post 2010, and with literally nothing else to use in the two regiments involved, save dispensing with their guns altogether, used the LG.
          The regiments had as many TAC groups as actual gun batteries I believe, so very light indeed.
          Long planned to be replaced by a wheeled FMF platform but with Strike rightly going to the wall I’m reading the tracked K9 option is now looking possible, as it has plenty of UK industrial involvement.

        • Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining  do some really good studies on explosives weapons and case study different types of explosive munitions.

          120mm mortars are very nasty beasties, in one case a single 120 mm high explosive mortar projectile detonated in the crowded Markale marketplace in Sarajevo. 68 people were killed and approximately 144 people were injured.

          if your looking at a rifles 120mm mortar with a rocket assisted munition range is around 13km…7-9km for non rocket assisted.

          bang wise, varies depending on munition type but you get anywhere between 1270grams to 4200grams of explosive

          HE 105mm projectiles vary a bit in but most have around 2000grams of explosive. With the UK L50 having 2.9kgs of ROWANEX. With a range up to 20,000meters

          so the L118 has greater range, by around 7km greater even on rocket assessed rifled 120mm mortars. But the 120mm mortars can have a greater amount of explosive. But the big difference is that a L118 comes in at 1800kgs vs around 300-400kgs. So completely different beasts really.

          • Horses for courses mate! All three have a role to play, 81mm Airborne/Cdo dismounted and Airborne insertions. 120mm for Armoured Infantry (OT the Boxer Bns, Armoured Inf? Or mechanised Inf?). The 105mm close Support Regiments, RA and RHA. The mortar is an integral part of the Battalion’s fire support and therefore “owned” by the unit, which is preferable to most Inf lads. However while the Mortar has a shorter range, it does have a higher trajectory and can hit targets which the 105mm would struggle with (even at high angle of elevation) however the 105 has more fuze options with the ability of DF with charge super, and of course a greater range/less collateral.

            But as Daniele did mention I love Mortars and think the 120mm should be a no brainer for the Boxer mounted Battalions at the very least mate. The Boxer variant numbers and types needs to be looked at, as there are not enough “pointy, dangerous” variants ordered. I would like to talk about Armoured Inf but wtf will we be using in the future…..that’s another thread to this in itself. Cheers.

          • I have never understood why we moved away from 4.2″ mortars as they seems a cost effective way to boost firepower. a bit of a weight to move around, but surely a light utility vehicle could help

          • Liking the120mm mortar idea Airborne .There is also a case for deployment to support the TA infantry battalions. Currently, there appears to a lack of artillery support for the reserve units .

          • Agree, the 120 mortar is a very dangerous beast Indeed and is totally different to small mortars ( 81mm). It would be a very useful tool indeed for battalions. Fires of all type seems to be something the army needs to get a real grip on. It’s still after all what kills the enemy better than anything else.

          • I’m guessing you’re a fan of the 81 mm for infantry as it’s about as big as one can lug around? I know we had 60 mm (?) ones previosuly too, do you reckon they’re worth it at all?
            I think there is a mortar carrier version of the Ajax/Ares, which hasn’t had the same problems as the turreted version- but that’ll likely have 81 mm rather than 120 mm, which is a bit of a missed opportunity…

          • The napkin effects conversion formula is a 120mm mortar round = 155mm gun round
            81mm mortar round= 105mm gun round.

            Since mortar round hits almost vertically it has a more efficient explosive effect against the usual targets.

          • Thanks for the pointer, Jonathan!
            It’s an interesting comparison- there seems to be a growth in more advanced 120 mm offerings in terms of the unit itself; perhaps more advanced aummunition will be developed too. 105 mm artillery has been around for ages, so already has quite a wide range of options.

  13. The uk should upgrade at least 200 challenger 2 to challenger 3 then look at purchasing 100 k2 black panther tanks from south Korea or purchasing 100 of Americas abraham x tanks that means we would have at least 300 main battle tanks enough for the British army

    • Why operate more than 1 type? It would bring logistical and training costs.

      Agree on the 200 Ch2 to Ch3, that would cover, just, retaining a 3rd Regiment.

    • Agree with Daniele, operating a mixed fleet of MBT’s is a non – starter, if the means to operate 300 Tanks is there ( it isn’t currently) then they should all be Challengers.

    • Double fleet is not a great idea, the costs in managing two fleets would be expensive, double logistics, double maintenance contracts, double training pipelines.

    • The Abram X is just a prototype nowhere near scale manufacturing. It’s just a concept for the U.S. Army to tinker with to see what features they like and don’t like. It hasn’t even gone through trials yet.

  14. Pleased to hear this news but the Defense Budget is a fixed 2% of GDP, right? ….. so …. what gives? To me the Ukraine crisis should have triggered an increase in budget to cover specifics like this.

    • It depends who is covering the costs, the MoD or the Treasury. I would hope that funding for equipment sent to Ukraine would be funded by the treasury directly and not via the defence budget.

      • Hi Bob, thanks for your reply, I meant we should be increasing our own Defence budget to strengthen our own defenses. The time taken to design (if necessary) construct, train and build experience means our response to any emerging or developing threat can take years. I agree with you that the Treasury need to be the ones funding our overall response to Ukraine and this needs to be from a Contingency.

        • Oh I totally agree regarding our defence budget, we need 3% in the short term. At the very least additional funding for more ammunition and service accommodation improvements should be forthcoming.

        • I cannot agree with that, sorry.
          When taken in a world context we are a rich nation and we should try to help poorer nations where we can.

    • Agreed, we’re seeing lots of news about new purchases for all branches of the services being accelerated or new ones out of the blue, but no announcement about an increase in the defence budget from 2%…
      Either
      • GDP has to increase dramatically so that 2% is a lot more £s
      • items are moved from defence to other budgets; eg military pensions or nuclear deterrent
      • something gets cut

  15. My shopping list.

    250 CH3 tanks, Wheeled HIMARS in addition to more MLRS, Supacat mounted 105mm for Para’s etc, Archer or something similar for AS90 addition/replacement. New light tank similar to the new US one may be a good addition or instead various mount options for Boxer, some tracked versions of Boxer also, when available.

      • To be honest Daniele, LIMAWS was a cluster. Only 4×6, 4 cylinder engine, “flimsy” chassis, all to get weight down to swing around under a Chinook. If there’s a better, more powerful but lightweight chassis around, then crack on. In my view, if we want more mobility (not the same as X country ability), it has to be HIMARS so we join the queue.

  16. On a previous thread, I ranted on that should the Challenger 3 upgrade be a success, then we should up the numbers from 148 to 200. I also think the UK needs a companion lighter tank that is easier to deploy. Both the Ascod & the Boxer have versions built around the world with 105mm gun turrets.

    • Ajax had just such a version for fire support, it was cancelled.
      The idiots upstairs then thought using the standard Ajax Scout as “Medium Armour” would suffice.
      That was planned for 2 of the 4 Ajax Regiments, and thank God it seems to have been binned, along with Strike Brigades.

  18. What’s really needed is tank production. If we convert more C2’s into C3’s then where are the spare parts for maintenance and repair going to come from years in the future?

    Use the foreign aid budget to get mass production of war material going. It’s all going to Ukraine or replacing lost stock so a perfectly legitimate use of the aid budget. But also it gets production lines going again and a chance for the MoD to place a few orders of their own

  19. I think a genuine study as to whether the tank is becoming obsolete should be undertaken. It might be more prudent to look at the future of armour that perhaps favours infantry fighting vehicles such as Ajax or cv90 or even lighter vehicles that emphasise speed and manuverability. Modern antitank systems like nlaw mean even the hardiest are vulnerable so why not change our approach?

    • A lot of what has been seen in Ukraine in terms of Russian tank losses is down to piss poor tactics on the Russian side. Sending tanks in with no support from infantry is a sure way to have a bad day.

      • I agree completely with the Russian tactics being obsolete but still the technological edge is with anti tank weapons and will I suspect remain there for quite some time. It would be remiss to just keep having tanks for the sake of having them especially if we can pioneer the next generation of tactics for the battlefield. Perhaps rapid troop mobility supported by drone guided artillery and air support

      • Heavy Tanks losses (and any other material ) exists in any peer to peer conflict.
        Why you think Ukraine is also asking for tanks, they were one of major tank powers in Europe too.

        • To be fair they have also captured more Russian tanks than they started the war with if the numbers I’ve seen are correct.

          Western kit be it IFVs or MBTs are an upgrade to their current Soviet kit and may well tip the tide in some areas. Using the correct combined arms tactics of course.

    • What would replace the tank which is currently the best protected, best armed highly mobile fire platform that the Army has?

      If you bin the tank for being ‘vulnerable’ you would have to bin everything else that has lower levels of protection ie everything the army has that moves. You end up with no army.

      • Spot on. A number of comments have argued that PGMs have made tanks too vulnerable so we should move to faster lighter platforms. Just the kind of platforms that Javelin, Brimstone and even NLAW can destroy with ease. You end up with an army of infantry relying on camouflage and other concealment to survive and fight. The only use for military vehicles would be to move troops and supplies to the fight not to take part in it.

      • I do not think the tank is dead, there is still a need Mobile fire support. I do think the 70 ton monster should die. It’s to heavy and modern anti tank weapons avoid the armor by striking the top. A less armored but more mobile tank with active defense system, a high angle auto cannon for drone defense and a larger cannon for fires. The UK already has the Ajax production line going and the new US light tank is based on chassis, would do.

        this would allow all the ch2 to be given to Ukraine in the numbers they really need.

        • I am sure that we will not continue forever with 70 ton tanks.
          You do know that Ajax is a recce vehicle (replacing Scimitar). It has just a 40mm cannon. It is not a tank. They could not replace CR2s in our Orbat – different vehicles, different roles.

          Are you someone who thinks we should send all our CR2s to UKR? We have an ‘armoured’ div assigned to NATO – it cannot lose its tanks or its Attrition Reserve. We cannot take tanks from the eFP BG in Estonia. I think we might be able to spare another 14 tanks, so as to equip the other UA AB unit.

          • I know about Ajax and its varieties, what I am proposing is building the USs  Mobile Protected Firepower Griffin, though with the 120mm gun as its based on the ASCOD 2/Ajax products.

            As according to the report given to parliament the problems have been fixed; so lets utilise the large amount of investment into it.

            The CR2 was built to fight the Russians, so let it. Both the CR2 and Warrior’s are old and need replacing so give both to Ukraine and replace them. I know this would involve gapping capability but both the RAF and Navy have gapped capabilities and come out stronger; it should be the armies turn now.  

          • Martin, there are several versions of Griffin, the one with 120mm gun was shown on the TD (Technology Demonstrator) aka Griffin 1 (28 tonnes). Griffin II (38 tonnes) has the 105mm gun, Griffin III (38-50 tonnes) is an IFV with a 50mm cannon.
            You propose buying Griffin I with its 120mm – is that as a future MBT instead of CR3? Not sure the armour protection would be up to much – light weight and has just an aluminium armoured turret.

            We are in NATO and as such cannot do just what we like – we have commitments – we have assigned 3 (UK) Div to NATO – this is essentially an armoured div – we cannot undertake to assign an armd div to the NATO ORBAT and then take all the tanks and Warriors out of it – it would really screw up a future NATO operation. It seems that many on this site cannot understand that.
            Then even if we did do what you suggest we do not have enough/and CR2 tanks to feed the CR3 line, so would have to cancel the contract and incur a hefty cancellation charge. Then some poor sap (ie. Big Ben) would have to grovel to the Treasury for more money to buy a replacement tank fleet, ie your Griffin 120mms. Can you also be sure that these wheeled vehicles will have the tactical mobility of the tracked tanks, let alone have the right armour protection?

  20. This is good news and over due.

    However, I hope this is not at the expense of T32. Given that there appears to be a question mark over the T32 frigate program I wouldn’t put it past the MoD / Treasury to be horse trading…

    Cheers CR

    • I doubt it in this case, that program is barely at concept stage and expenditure at very low levels compared to big ticket programs. Where would the immediate savings to redirect be? T32 is at least a parliament away with no serious money even close to being committed yet.

      You’re right though, robbing Peter to pay Paul is an old, old HMT, MoD trick.

      • Hi Daniele,

        As I say to Graham below my comment was not that well written, didn’t feel like writing my usual tome…

        So to clarify. The CR3 uplift, if it goes ahead, would part of a wide much needed recapitalisation of the British Army. There is a great article on Breaking Defence that gives a lot more detail. Suffice it to say that the Ukraine War has rattled cages in MoD and the army – about time too if you ask me. Although, there is no guarantee that the army will get the money as yet, horse trading the T32 for extra kit for the army and then pulling the army’s programs once the Ukraine War fades from memory would save the Treasure a lot.

        I agree with your point about spend rates at the moment, but as we both know go no-go decisions look at the cost profile over many years in which case the T32 program might be traded as part of a recapitalisation of the army because the long term cost profiles will overlap. The T32 is not helped by the fact that, by reading between the lines, the T32 has had some gold plate added…

        I had hoped that the RN at least had finally taken on the lessons that are laid out by pretty much every, and I mean every, procurement program. The good ones and the bad.

        I hope the RN hasn’t forgotten the leassons of the T26 and Astute programs, just as the army appears to be learning the lessons of the last 20 odd years.

        Cheers CR

      • Hi Graham,

        Favour question as I didn’t write that comment very well.

        As I am sure you are aware there is more going on with regards to Army procurement and it needs to. I have along said the Army is too small and its armoured vehicles too old and its artillery too few and… well you get the picture.

        Given the war in Ukrainian a ‘rebalancing’ of priorities might be expected.

        Cheers CR

        • Thanks CR. Anything is possible in the weird and not very wonderful world of Defence procurement.
          I remember that 2017 was ‘The Year of the Navy’, but it seems that the Navy has had many good years of procurement success and is doing very well at recapitalising its fleet (not to say that absolutely everything is rosy).
          The army in contrast has had a series of equipment disasters (procurements and upgrades) for which many are to blame.
          That rebalancing may well happen.

  21. It is pretty pathetic that we are now cutting to just 2 tank regiments, one per arm inf bde. That is a peanut in military terms and means that our contribution to NATO in a crisis could only be a token gesture.

    We have basically cut to the bone and then just about through it. Even then, we are talking about equipping just 60 of them with the Trophy active protection system, which is essential for the whole fleet to counter missiles and artillery.

    We should increase to 3 regiments minimum, each with an additional sqn deployed forward to Estonia, Poland Suwalki and eventually Scandinavia. The trouble is, with the army cut down to 72 000, there are no longer the infantry, artillery or CSS troops to support a third arm inf brigade.

    The current Challenger plan is:
    Regt 1 – 56
    Regt 2 – 56
    Field training sqn (Suffield/Sennelager) – 20
    Driver training sqn -16
    Total operational: 148

    In storage, some of them usable, 79 -14 to Ukraine = 65.

    One could make some small incremental increases in numbers, such as restore tank sqns to 18 mbts , add an HQ troop of 4, give each regt an additional sqn for NATO forward protection, that would increase the numbers from 148 to 194, but with only 19 left in reserve.

    Basically, we should aim to convert all remaining 213 Challys to Chally 3 and equip them all with Trophy.

    Reverse the latest Government cut in army numbers, increasing the 72,500 by 15% to 83,600 – we had 105,000 when the Tories took office in 2010 – and we would be able to field a third arm inf bde and one arm inf division, which is still pretty feeble but better than the current hollowed-out token force.

      • I was just listing the current Challenger ORBAT, which totals the same 148 figure. I would assume this is the proposed layout for the future.

        You ask a good question, where do the additional tanks for the repair pool and war reserve come from?

        Ideally, we’d upgrade all remaining 213 to Challenger 3, that would give 60+ for the repair pool and attrition reserve.

        If we only get 148, I reckon the MOD plan is to effectively cut to 3-squadron regts of 44 tanks, with the remaining 28 being shared between the Estonia deployment and reserve pool.

        Hopefully Ben Wallace will halt this cut-back and get all 213 upgraded to Chally 3 and fitted with Trophy APS

        • Thanks. Surprised there are as many as 16 tanks in that driver training squadron. Why are full spec gun tanks being wasted in that role? – up to now RAC has used CTT or DTT, augmented by simulators.
          Where are the tanks for the REME Trg Org? They are vital.
          20 tanks split between Suffield and Sennelager is not enough – thats just half a sqn at each loc plus a handful spare. There was talk of Suffield being scaled back or abandoned too.
          No Repair Pool – implication is that there is none, meaning that there are no replacement tanks when UE tanks are in Base Overhaul, and unit has to stand a shortfall.
          No Attrition Reserve – looks like they must use Trg Org tanks as war reserve – big mistake.
          This deployment plan is severely flawed/unworkable.
          BTW, where do you get the 213 figure from? Not 227?

  22. Perhaps to avoid another inevitable Army debacle, we should upgrade the earmarked 148 to Challenger 3s, then buy off the shelf to make up the shortfall? K2 Black Panther or Leopard 2s anyone?

    • So many on this site advocate K2 Black Panther – interesting. Is it the spec or are they really good VfM?
      We really don’t want a 2-type fleet – training, logistic and engineering penalties – just want more CR3s.

      • K2 is a much newer system than the abrams or leo2. More room for improvement as the other two are at the end of their life cycle. More or less the same capabilities between the three while K2 is significantly cheaper. There is considerable misinformation saying that the K2 is the most expensive tank but those sources use older version leos and abrams to compare so it’s false.
        Maintenance is less of a problem than you’d think. Poland alone will buy a thousand and will have factories to go along with it. Norway seems to be leaning towards it and many sources are pointing to Romania as the next customer. Especially with Germany … being Germany, it seems to be very possible that countries might dump their leos for K2s. If so, the UK could essentially “invest” into the K2 sort of like what it plans for the K9 by becoming the manufacturing/maintenance hub for Korean gear in Europe.

        • Still a bit of life in Abrams and Leo 2 – Germans are not replacing the latter until about 2035.

          Not sure why you think the UK might invest into the K2 – we are not buying new MBTs for a long time – we don’t get all our CR3s until 2030 and they will have a 20+year life – by 2050 the K2 will be out of date.

          UK has observor status on the Franco-German ‘Next Tank’ project – if we fully joined that programme the tank after CR3 might be a ‘Euro’ tank not a Korean tank.

          Is the UK seting up a K9 hub – are we definitely ordering K9?

  24. It’s as plain as day; we need a much larger tank fleet. We are at a juncture where the tank is not long before a revolution in its design. Soon, it will be an automated system controlled by a team in a container somewhere. That means a much smaller platform that will need to be more heavily armoured. If you are no longer risking your troops’ lives, you will be more inclined to put it in places you never would with humans inside. So, convert the entire inventory we have, plus buy some from Oman to fill out numbers back to 350+. 

    The same goes for IFV. One of the stars of the Ukraine war is the HIMARS for their mobility and the M270’s for reach. The M777 (I wonder where that’s designed and built) has been such a success. I think Wallace really should consider buying one or two, especially if we can get favourable terms from the manufacturer. Everyone else has them, just not the British! 

    • If you advocate unmanned tanks controlled from a container in the interest of eliminating risk to a conventional tank crew, then do you suggest the accompanying armoured infantry to be similarly established, so that they are protected? Trouble is you then have no dismounted infantry forward to use.

      • We will always have dismounted infantry. I have been in the position of having a tank support one action and it was very different to when we either never had one or had an IFV in support.

        As for an tank with no crew, it will come. When it does, you reduce the size and cost. You will not be able to have uncrewed artillery. Not unless it’s the size of several containers.

        • I think my wording was clumsy. I was not advocating eliminating dismounted infantry – I was wondering if, after you have created unmanned tanks, you were concerned that infantry are still riding in a ‘vulnerable’ vehicle, when in support of tanks?

  25. These donations though politically significant only represent the total combined firepower of maybe an armoured battalion sized battlegroup. 14, C2. Upto 26 Leopard 2s from Poland and Finland= combined total.
    120 Bradley. Upto 56 Marder (think that’s the right number?) And 20-30 (TBC) french Amx10-rcs.
    That is NOT going to expel Russia out of Ukraine.
    NATO is dilly dallying which could conceivably lead to losing in Ukraine.

    • The Forces News YouTube channel has just posted a scathing piece about Ajax, where the new minister for defence procurement Alex Chalk MP bustered and claimed the program has ‘turned a corner’

      However the Army top brass being questioned could not give an in-service date, though one of them admitted mistakes had been made

      • Due to track noise won’t the enemy hear the ajax recon version coming a mile off. The mark 4 CV90 with rubber tracks is very quiet for a armoured vehicle, check it out on youtube lol !

        • I suspect you stand at the carpark at the edge of the All Weather track at Bovvy and make your sweeping judgements from there. How many Recce vehicles do you think, in a tactical situation, go bowling along at 40mph on a metalled road to “sneak” up on a target? Answer; NONE!

          • Well some may have (after all look at the performance of the Russian armed forces) but I bet they did not live very long.

          • The noise was heard when it was being marshalled out at walking speed. Clearly you are delusional which can seen from your posts some years ago. You said their was nothing wrong with the AJAX and it was all blown out of proportion by the press. Not till the defence select committee published its findings did you begrudging admit it had some problems. I draw you attention to their particular concern of the noise generated by the track sprocket interface ! Clearly you are a windbag !

          • The latest videos on YouTube of it tearing around the track at Bovington show it is no louder than any other tracked vehicle!

          • From the Sect Committee report:

            “As of 9 December, 17 individuals remain under specialist outpatient care for their hearing, some of whom are again expected to return to duty with no health impact.11 individuals have had long term restrictions on noise exposure recommended, potentially requiring a limitation in their military duties. 7 of these had pre-existing hearing issues prior to working on Ajax. 4 did not. In addition, 4 individuals who worked on Ajax have been discharged on health grounds, in some cases for reasons wholly unrelated to hearing loss.
            While we cannot yet establish a definitive causal link, it is possible that Ajax may have contributed to the current hearing loss in a small number of individuals. It remains the case that no individuals have had long term restrictions or been discharged as a result of vibration.”

            I may be a “windbag” Mr Wait but I know what I’m talking about, both from experience in the British Army on all manner of AFV’s, including but not limited to CR1, CR2, M270/B1, AS90, Warrior, CVRT, 432 and my subsequent work as a civilian in the UK defence industry which is ongoing. I have contacts within the AJAX programme, who, when they are able to, give me insights into the workings of the platform and the project. On this site, I only deal in facts. I do not speculate or postulate unless I state that I am deliberately doing so.
            I’m bored of you now.

          • Ian ( Lord HAW HAW HAY) . I said some years ago that the CTA40 recoil at 20,000 lbs through short springs was excessive you said not ! The American Air Force Lab evaluation report 1992 said it was excessive. Muzzle breaks can reduce recoil by up to around 50 %. Funny how a lot of time and money was spent developing one for the AJAX cannon. You said the vibration was not a big issue . It caused system shut downs and magazine jams , poor little giro’s . I assume you think the earth is flat despite all the evidence !

      • I didn’t notice any bluster. Chalk announced before Christmas that noise and vibration issues had been resolved and that full trials would resume in 2023. They have and all reports indicate these are going well. The general agreed. It would be unusual for him to give an in service date when these broader user validation trials have only just resumed.
        More worrying is the problem with Boxer of which no details were given but which mean the planned FOC date of 2030 won’t be met. So Warrior, unmodernized, will remain in service rather longer than planned.

      • An IOC or FOC date is not forthcoming at the moment because the MOD are insisting on a full RGT. That could take a year or two. In the meantime, deliveries are due to start AGAIN to units. The “corner” Mr Chalk was referring to was the successful completion of the User Validation Trials, enabling the green machine to get back on the platforms.

        • RGT takes a year or two? You say delivery is due to start again, but does the long RGT mean deliveries won’t start even though they are due to, or will they start in parallel with RGT?

          • RGT for CR2 took 3 years, only after which was the tank accepted and fielded. I am very surprised that Ajax is being delivered before conclusion of RGT.

            Wiki: “The Challenger 2 failed its acceptance trials in 1994, and it was forced into the Progressive Reliability Growth Trial in 1995. Three vehicles were tested for 285 simulated battlefield days.
            The tank was then accepted into service in 1998. An equally important milestone was the In-Service Reliability Demonstration (ISRD) in 1998. The CR2 In-Service Reliability Demonstration (ISRD) milestone was successfully achieved in January 1999. The ISRD took place from September to December 1998. 12 fully crewed tanks were tested at the Bovington test tracks and the Lulworth Bindon ranges. The tank exceeded all staff requirements”.

        • Chalk actually stated that Ajax was only 80% complete – a “software upgrade” was neccesary and that the armour was being replaced! He also stated that 450+ variants had been completed. I do hope they have all had the necessary mods included.

          It looks like the incoming Labour government will have to take the decision on Ajax in two years time. Doubtless after another £billion or so has been thrown at it

          • Hi David, it’s a fixed price contract, any payments are inly made if milestones are met. The armour solution on AJAX is flexible according to role and as far as software is concerned, it’s constantly evolving, reaching build standards similar to F35 incrementally.

        • Ian,
          It must be unprecedented to issue new equipment to units before it has gone through a RGT (if one has been mandated) and any resulting rectifications or improvements made.
          Why is this happening?…and are there any usage restrictions being imposed on those units.
          Which units are they – in the Trg Org or Field Force?

      • What was more worrying was the Labour MP saying that CR3 was like updating a 78 Ford escort! He doesn’t realise that it is a complete rebuild! Worrying indeed🙄

        • He had a point though. Look what happened to the Warrior upgrade. After spending £2billion+ the MoD decided to cancel it – lets hope the same thing doesn’t happen to the CH3 upgrade

          • Not really mate the rebuild is up and running and actually looking to do more hopefully than the 148🤞
            This is not an upgrade as such it is a complete rebuild so in effect they will be brand new tanks!

          • Such a bad decision…and then MoD decides to replace those Warriors with Boxer (debatable whether they will be as capable as upgraded Warrior) and to spend even more money – about £5m a pop on them.

    • That is NOT going to expel Russia out of Ukraine.

      NATO is dilly dallying which could conceivably lead to losing in Ukraine

      .
      Precisely, it seems NATO countries did not realised that Putin will bunker down and will make like Assad in Syria. I am sure he can drum at least a 100 tank/ year output.
      Where is the equivalent -not talking even about overmatch necessary to expel him- will in our side?

    • Germany is dilly-dallying by not swiflty signing paperwork to allow Leo2s from a number of nations to go to Ukraine. Plus it is hard to believe that nearly all of Germany’s ‘spare’ Leo2s are in a 1-year refurbishment programme.

  26. At last….200 hopefully.But some kind of light tank to supplement it would be useful.Based on Boxer or Ajax ( if it ever arrives ). Or at least add anti tank capacity to some versions.

  28. A while back I saw plans posted over a few different forums and news sights to have some of our 105mm light guns converted into a light mobile fire support weapon by placing them on a modified coyote, has anyone seen anything about those going forward.

    • Wow, A 1990s artillery piece mounted on a 1990s Canadian recce vehicle. Designed by Mr Heath-Robinson? How would the gun’s 6-man crew serve the gun?
      I think someone must have been having a joke.

      • Not the Canadian Cayote, the 6 wheeled Jackal derivative. I mean it would be light and extremely fast, similar to the US Hawkeye, perfect for operating just behind friendly lines with quick shoot and scoot tactics and would be filling the gap between 120mm mortars and 155mm heavy guns.

        • Ahh, thanks. Is it a heavy enough platform to take the weight of the gun and absorb recoil forces. Still not sure how you serve the gun with a 6-man crew.

  29. This might be a stupid question, but is it not true to say that the challenger 3 upgrade replaces most of the parts that changed between the challenger 1 and challenger 2 designs? And if so, would it be theoretically not much more work to bring some of the 400 or so Challenger 1 chassis recently retired by Jordan up to challenger 3 standard? I also assume that Oman will be looking to divest their challenger 2s in the not so distant future, so potentially another source of hulls?

    • The fate of the Jordanian CR1’s have cropped up a few times in these discussions – little is know of their status at the moment,what is their materiel condition,how are they stored etc.Age is against them ( 40 + years ),they could be nothing more than a big pile of scrap,but if they are still functional in any great number they offer a few interesting options.

      • But then I suppose I’d the CR3 is a complete rebuild all you need is the stripped down hull and they are going to be pretty resistant to degradation, especially in a climate like the Middle East…. Unless they have left them outside exposed to the sea spray.

        • The Turret Ring diameter is key, if there is compatability between all Challenger marks then it opens up possibilities,but again depends on their condition to be viable.

          • i suppose that if the hulls are in a reasonable condition they could be stripped and stored incase there was ever a market for more CR3s.

          • Indeed – the optimist in me hopes they could be a potential Goldmine,a decent fleet size,no end user red tape,pretty capable against the Enemy they will face,and if a few get knocked out and Russia inherits a few it’s no big deal as they were headed to the scrapper anyway.Reality probably means they are too far gone to even think about,time will tell.

          • Yes Indeed, but unfortunately we know that even if they were usable the treasury would never stump up the small amount of cash as an invested, insurance against future need. But you never know sense may prevail and they may decide to ensure against future need. After all there is now pretty good evidence that a divisions worth of MBTs can be attritted away in a bad afternoon. so being able to regenerate your MBT stock after a bad war would be needed.

          • Id like to think HMG have already sent army personnel over to Oman and Jordan to spec out their C1/ C2 fleets respectively. It would be good if we could potentially obtain a few dozen from these sources to supply Ukraine with a refurbished C1/C2 level tanks in reasonably large numbers.
            An updated/ refurbished C1 would still be qualitatively superior to most Ruskie tanks up to and including T90.
            A c1/ c2 probably could survive a direct conflict with a T90. Due to its armour and design whereas any T90 hit by a Chally will cook up.

        • Not much sea near Jordan!
          Converting the Al-Hussein (a modified CR1) to CR3 at RBSL Telford is a non-starter for many reasons, not least because it may not be possible, would be very expensive and very time consuming – and would take resource away from the BA CR3 programme.

      • The Jordanians have an excellent resource – the King Abdullah Design & Development Bureau – I used to know one of their British directors.

        Perhaps we could pay for them to refurbish 200 or so CR1s but keep to Al-Hussein build standard and no more – and gift them (directly or through UK) to UKR?

        • Correct Graham – i was aware of the King Abdullah Design & Developement Bureau – they were the authority in the re-manufacture of the Al-Hussein with the Falcon Turret which ultimately wasn’t progressed but you would think that they had provided some competancy in the operation and maintenance of their CR1 fleet.maybe even established some in house provision of locally produced spares.

          • KADDB capability is massive – they could refurbish their Al-Hussein CR1s for Ukraine (if funded by ‘the West’ to do so).

        • There is some confusion as to what the Jordanian CR1 fleet could provide – here are my thoughts.Baring in mind time is of the essence for Ukraine,and we don’t know the materiel condition of these CR1’s id consider these options (1) assessment of all CR1 in Jordan (this might have already been carried out # Mr Bell ),work out what they need to get them functioning,a basic makeover might be needed,then deliver them to Ukraine as is,or (2) looking more long term do a complete refurbishment,replacing any systems that are life expired etc,so not at a Factory fresh level but enough for sustained operations on the Battlefield.

          • Yes, it is worth doing this but UK would have to give Jordan a nudge and some money. They should do the work in Jordan.

        • Hi Graham,

          I like that idea. The King Abdullah Design & Development Bureau have produced some very interesting designs in the past. We did something like similar with the M109’s from Belgium.

          I kinda wish we had a similar design bureau here in the UK, but the Treasury would never fund such a speculative process.

          Cheers CR

          • Essentially we had a design and development and testing bureau at Chertsey, near Chobham – I worked there in 1989-90 in the Unmanned Vehicles Div.
            Many famous and ground-breaking projects came out of Chertsey, variously called FVRDE, MVEE, RARDE, DRA, DERA etc etc over the years…including Chobham Armour.
            Our unmanned vehicles work was 15 years ahead of that done by civvy car companies.
            It was crazy to get rid of it.

        • I don’t think anyone is suggesting converting CR1 into CR3 for the British Army or Ukraine,as i said above the Turret Diameter size is key,id guess it is compatible but the work involved would be huge but not impossible.But saying that as the BA’s CR2 get new CR3 Turrets you could mate the now spare CR2 Turrets on the CR1 Hulls and end up with a CR1.5 if you like – either for extra BA capability ( not needed at present ) or for export to Ukraine,just a thought 😃

          • Hi Paul, I thought someone had suggested converting CR1 to CR3 for the Ukranians (not for the BA of course). Correct that the turret ring diameter on the tank would have to conform to the turret – and no doubt a lot more other factors to consider. Its a rather bizarre idea and anyway there are no ‘spare’ CR3 turrets.

            Interesting to create CR1.5s – for Ukraine. It’s not for the BA as it would be old head on very old body – obsolescence issues with parts etc – two types of tank to support – much better to badger Treasury to build more than 148 CR3s, which Ben is possibly up for.

    • Bringing an old (40 year old) tank up to scratch is not a trivial matter – eg. the Germans have said that they cannot supply any Leo2s until 2024 as they are currently all (!) being refurbished/upgraded.

      It was always said by the OEM and MoD that there was only about 35% commonality between CR1 and CR2, despite the superficial external similarity.

      Without doing a ton of research I could not comment on your premise in your first sentence. Essentially you ask – could you convert CR1s (which themselves were modified by the Jordanians) into CR3? Not sure – but it would certainly take a lot of time and money and would prejudice the BA’s CR3 programme as RBSL only has so much labour and floorspace resource.

      Better to supply UKR with more than 14 CR2s and to apply massive political pressure on Germany to sign a ‘piece of paper’ to enable Leo2-owning nations to send their surplus to UKR. Leo2 in massive quantity (300 or more) is what the UKR army wants – and fast – if they are to repel Russia’s spring offensive and to regain territory already lost to the Orcs.

      • The Turkish Leopard 2 performed very badly in Syria. 14 were totally destroyed, 18 were seriously damaged, two were captured in perfect working condition and the entire armoured force was withdrawn. And this by the D’aesh terrorist group using ATGM obtained from the arms market to attack the sides and rear

        • Again an example of what happens to tanks through bad tactics! As far as I’m aware they were left hanging without ant infantry support which could have stopped said attack’s happening.

        • They were the older version , later versions had better armour however side, top and rear are good targets .Anyone who puts a tank on top of a hill fully exposed deserves to get it destroyed !

  30. Now we are sending tanks, as well as other material plus training their troops. This from a country that is on a downward spiral to no where. Over 12 years of Tory mismanagement has ruined our country. We are in a worse plight than at any time in fifty years. Are politicians burying their heads in the sand? I am thankful for some government help, but it is fruitless. It is like a drop of water in the desert. I went shopping last Friday. Are you ready for this , I went to buy a tin of chicken soup for 45p wow 59p. We are like the Titanic , disaster is round the corner unless something is done about these clowns at the helm.

    • My estimated electricity bill ( not gas as well) is £4500 pounds, add in gas and I’m looking at well over £6000 a year….that’s a lot. It’s not like I can do anything about it I live in a 400 year old house…tried to turn the heating off and the whole place went mouldy and damp…stone and rubble walls need to be kept warm unless you want to get Aspergillosis…just the heating in one room is costing me £1.00 an hour.

      • That’s why so many people have wood burners. I know burning wood is bad in terms of 2.5pmi, peoples health and the environment, but what choice do you have? I purchased in 6 tons of firewood the minute Russia invaded Ukraine from the local forestry commission, spent days chopping it up and then stored it all away to season in my log stores.
        Result. for £300 I have heated the majority of my house and used the gas central heating very little over the winter.
        Jonathon- more needs to be done about the woeful state of energy efficiency within UK housing stock. We live in some of the poorest standards of housing in the developed world. How many houses have cavity wall insulation, double or triple glazing of a high standard, adequate roof insulation, adequate underfloor insulation?
        Answer- very few- and those that do are new builds and of weak structural design. single brick thick walls with wooden internal frames and plasterboard. Those modern houses are unlikely to be still standing in 100 years time but also have the distinct disadvantage of being too hot in the summer months. A friend of mine lauded it over us about last years winter heating bills in her new house, then during the summer months her house was between 34 and 40 degrees Celsius internally and hot as almighty hell for weeks on end and she couldn’t cool the house down.
        I bet your house was lovely and cool in the heatwaves Jonathon? just like mine.

        • indeed, my living room has a nice cave like temp even in the middle of a heatwave. Just takes all the energy ever to hear in winter.

          When I have the money I am planning to move my heating and hot water over to wood. As is the 2 wood burners have been on all winter…but never reach the back room ( that’s the £1.00 an hour electric underfloor heating nightmare) or upstairs in the bedrooms.

          I agree on the whole triple glased windows etc..my problem is as it’s a conservation area they insist on mullion windows ( of the late medieval style) all made of wood…so it’s like three times the price as a normal window………we are just not good at letting people upgrade houses for 21c reality.

        • Hi Peter, yes on the dehumidifiers. Probably will go with a bit of plaster board lining, but it’s beyond my skills ( wavy walls).

    • John wrote:
      “”Over 12 years of Tory mismanagement has ruined our country””
      We hear the above trope 24/7 now. But lets take a step back and look at what has really transpired:
      1)    The Torys took over in 2010 at a time of world recession.
      2)    They took over from a Labour Gov, which had laden the UK with PFIs in which to hide the debt involved with them , these entailed:
      a.     NHS
      b.     Schools
      c.     Military
            Those PFIs which saved the Labour Gov around £3 billion for the NHS alone, will cost the country over £30 Billion
      Then we had COVID, oh how we all berate the Government for its so called failed Track and Trace, but again that is another trope. Everybody claims it is a the cost of an app, it isn’t it includes all the testing carried out across the country, you know those test centres where you could tip up and get tested for free. Then there’s the PPE debarkle , whilst the current theme is for screaming the gov got it wrong (including nepotism and criminal activities) lets not forgot the gov was under immense pressure from everybody regards purchasing PPE, they weren’t given any time to allow the existing purchasing teams to continuing doing what they did, nope, all we heard was people are dying and we have run out (Actually the Uk never went below a months stocks at its lowest) and that the Government should be doing more, (Including sending C17s to China to pick up stocks) lets not forget the vaccine , which the Uk funded and lets not forget how the do gooders demanded we hand over our stocks to the third world . Lets not forget, the extra £20 families received, the working from home, the free meals all the children received. Which in turn has infused a sense of entitlement amongst the  populace who now subscribe to the POV that the country owns them a living . lets not forget the Afghasntan air lift where the doggoders demanded we fly over each any Mohammed who even looked at a British squaddie. These are put up in hotels and of late they are taking the Uk to court, because they want a home of their own, and I haven’t even touched the tens of thousands of poor people fleeing war torn France, who didn’t like been put up in army camps (Camps I f-ing paid to stay in)
      Anything the gov does, it is fought in the courts by the left. For no reason other than to score political brownie points Such as the Gov clamping down on the SNP be it yet another referendum, denying rapists to self ID as woman.
      Currently we have strikes, I am told Nurses are having to use food banks really? Stating pay at £27K, blue light card which offers 10% off their shopping , cheap deals on insurance, holidays, Mobile deals etc.. Don’t even get me started on the f-ing train drivers on £60K a year demanding more. Instead of blaming the gov, how about we all look in the mirror and realise that society is at fault , who are never wrong, Just look at the how taking the knee to Black lies matter, has resulted in turning a blind eye towards knife crime across the smoke. Any attempt to try and stamp it down results in the usual suspects playing the race card.
      As for the price of hydrocarbons and food, well look no further than Moscow, as Putin is the reason why. Currently there is a growth industry that NATO is in the wrong, that Moscow is the victim and its our own fault that prices are so high for backing the wrong country. Really?
      I’m not saying the Tory government can be absolved of everything, but the run up to today involves a lot more than just them and a lot of that can be attributed to the left of the political centre who throw mud every chance they get in which to remove the gov and replace it with one they can control. If that id what you want, fine, but then don’t f-ing complain when you as a white bloke become a second-class citizen in the Uk, because lets be honest that is where we are heading and the moaning minnies at the moment won’t know what has hit them

      • I don’t accept excuses for Tories. The Labour government spent billions on Tory voting bankers to save the financial market. They spent billions on ordinary people and pensioners, minimum wage rate, free bus passes, free TV licence. They left a National Debt of £870 billion and could not balance the monthly deficit. Now what do we have, a National Debt of £2.5 trillion, and the monthly deficit is still not balanced, and the free TV licence is gone. Bus companies can now make a small charge for free bus pass rides. I do not need to bring in global affairs affecting most countries. Take Ukraine, we are spending billions we do not have . I take nothing back.The sooner these clowns are gone, the better.

      • PFI’s merely passed expensive debt on to children, privatisation lowered the tax take with tax avoidance and profits going offshore.

    • Save the political claptrap for the daily mail comments page! All Governments have been pretty shite, selfish and self obsessed for as long as we can remember! But I suppose being in opposition is the easiest option! In fact we wouldn’t have a Tory Government if the dumb ass Labour Party had not been so crap, full of second and third rate hangers on, on the front bench, and who decided to rip itself apart with Marxist left, fighting the normal voter, having no policies, no idea and no bollocks. The Labour Party are as much to blame as the Tories, for not being a viable opposition party. Cheeks of the same arse!

  31. As I enter my 50s, I am trying to develop my critical thinking skills. Can someone explain to me if there really is a need for MBTs on a near peer battlefield? I understand it’s role in supporting troops.

  32. It looks like the penny may have dropped that in a major conflict MBTs are going to suffer significant attrition by the nature of their purpose and that we will end up with crews and formations without tanks if we don’t have a reserve.

    • That have been the history of all battles. The dominating weapon gets severe losses and expenditure if it exists in both sides.
      Regarding tanks we have the huges losses in WW2. For example the war in the Desert was dominated by tank to tank battle(well with AT gun playing as ATGM of sorts). Then the Israeli -Arabs wars another classic example also huge tank losses in over thousands.

      The fact no one talk about is that W. Europe except Germany have no tank industry (no more tank production in UK,France, Italy), and i doubt they can build 100 a year with all entropy to creation in our post modernist societies.
      Just shows even more W.Europe dependency from USA.

      If the will to fight this war against Putin continues i expect M1 in Ukraine in 1-2 years. They are the only ones with industry and reserves.

      • Indeed but for some reason the west seems to have completely forgotten this. I do wonder if it was a mix of the “end of history” thinking and the outcome of gulf war 1, which gave the false impression that western MBTs were somehow invulnerable from the latter and not needed from the former.

      • Yes but the attritional reserve is not very big and we need to be very honest in a high intensity fight with a peer or near peer, we will not be getting most of our tanks back and would potentially need to rebuild. After all it’s harsh thought but essentially the whole BAOR was essentially an attritional asset that we assumed we would not get back in case of war, we had around 1200 MBTs for that very reason.

        Now I know we are in a different age from the BAOR and there is no soviet Union with massed armies ready to cross the IGB. But we are still in the world power game and make a commitment to provide an armoured division to our friends. Three type 56 armoured regiments requires 170+ challengers and after gifting 14 to Ukraine we have about 200 left, it gets worse with challenger 3 at only 148…how on earth do we rebuild the armoured formations if we have an attritional conflict somewhere…we don’t even need enemy action….one point class foundering at the wrong time could gut our ability to maintain 3 armoured regiments.

        Im not a great believer the UK needing massed armoured regiments anymore we are an island and who are we going to fight a major lane war against. But we do have a states ambition about being a division level reference army…so we really need to have at least plan around what we do if we deploy an armoured division and have significant losses. It’s not like we can build or order more challengers to regenerate. But I’m of the mind you always have a plan for the worst potential outcome, where as modern thinking is more around the least you can get always with and managing the most likely outcome.

        • You think that most of our tanks would be destroyed in conflict with a peer or near peer enemy. So far we have lost no CR2s (or CR1s) to enemy fire, as their armour is still excellent and we handle them superbly well with other arms. Given the Russian’s poor performance at tank warfare I suspect we would lose fewer of our tanks than the enemy would. We always repair battle-damaged tanks except if they are severely structurally damaged, but you still need to draw on the Attrition Reserve.
          In the heyday of BAOR we had 900 Chieftain tanks, not all of which were in units in Germany. They were very well armoured for their time and many would have survived combat.
          Is it a problem having 200 left?
          I agree that 148 is a ridiculously small figure and does not permit an adequate number for the RAC and REME Trg Org, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve and remote sites such as BATUS/Suffield and Senelager/Paderborn, once you have issued the majority of the fleet to the 2 (remaining) regts in the Field Force. We need many more than 148 tanks.

          Good job you don’t believe in massed armoured regiments as we will only have 2 before too long – when I joined the army we had 8.

          Your point about being an island doesn’t stack up – do you think we have an army purely to defend this island, and so don’t need tanks (or any AFV). That is true of Malta, but we are in NATO and together with allies defend the Euro-Atlantic region – all must play their part. We have always had an expeditionary army capable of warfighting on the continent. We invented the tank in 1916 to deploy it overseas and not to sit in barracks in the UK waiting for enemy invasion.

          Who are we going to fight a major land war against? Since WW2, our army has fought against North Korea and their Chinese backers, the Egyptian army, the Iraqi army (twice), the Argentine army. Who knows who our next opponent will be, but we generally fight alongside the US and they consider Russia, China, North Korea and Iran to be the major threat nations.

          • Hi graham, I agree one of the strengths of the the British army and its allies is its competence in combined arms. That is not something you see a lot of and makes a difference. That’s a key point, and yes our tanks our better that say a soviet family T number, and the fact we lost so few tanks in any of our engagement is a mix of and related to far superior combined arms.

            what we can should never do is assume that advantage will be maintained indefinitely ( we have it a present and it’s unlikely to change for a while, but who knows, the world changes)

            With the assumption around repair of hulls, yes but that assumes you maintain control of the battlefield again we have achieved this in all recent conflicts. But again it’s an assumption this will be achieved in a future conflict.

            The key here is if you win your going to have dominated the airs and all other elements of the battlefield and your losses will be managed, you will be able to recover damaged vehicles…the issue comes if you did not win and you loose control of the of the air and other elements your losses will be uncontrolled and catastrophic. I suppose for me it’s plan how you win, but have options if you don’t ( a battle or campaign is not whole war or the whole of a geopolitical conflict , and you should not be betting everything on it)

            I was a bit imprecise in saying that by being an island we will not be fighting a major ground war ( sorry I did not make that clear at all) so unlike nations who are at risk of ground invasion we don’t need massed armoured formations to defend our own dirt, so we don’t need very large numbers of active armoured formations, compared to say a county like Poland would need. Clearly we have participated in a large number of land actions through the years and luckily we have a very competent army that has always managed to win…(but the nature of geography means we are bless that none of the land we own is open to a massed incursion by another army, and let’s be honest it is a blessing, as we have always been able to retreat back and regroup when Europe went to crap).

            Our armoured forces are essentially a promise and commitment to allies and threat to those who would challenge our allies as well as a geopolitical tool. So we need an armoured force equal to that promise. That needs to be balanced against our ability to deploy them, no point having armoured formations we cannot deploy as it’s always a technical challenge for our army to deploy en mass ( that’s the flip side of being an island).

            so for me it’s important we have the people, infrastructure and equipment to deploy our commitment and have a realist offer/threat ( which is essentially being able to deploy a very good armoured division if our allies need it),, as well as maintain our NATO commitments around business as usual, ( deploying battle groups as part of NATO).so 2 or 3 active regiments is probably adequate for our commitments.

            But and this is the bit for me. What happens if it all goes to shit, what happens if we deploy that division to help a friend and instead of that friend winning they loss and loss big, it’s a possibility that we cannot pretend will never happen. the west and its allies are very strong very professional, but we cannot always assume our enemies will not be..and then we end up having to leave a large amount of heavy equipment behind…or we may just get unluck one day and something happens, as I said a point class foundering when it’s packed up with a large formations worth of tanks would be one of these events. This would all be fine if we had a good reserve of hulls or an open production line we can purchase from, but in the case of challenger we have what we have, and that’s very small margins that have no significant scope for some bad luck over the years or a worst case…As a risk manager for complex system it sends a shiver down the spine when leaders pick the just adequate options, with no planning for reasonable what ifs…and sort of write off the catastrophic option as “ it’s not going to happen”. as my experience has been the worst will happen at some point…and how many decades of challenger as our only option and 148 tanks do we have for that thing to go wrong and cripple our armoured formations…would you want say 100 tanks left in a decade after a few issues.

          • Hi Jonathan, my research indicates that we last lost tanks to enemy fire in the Korean War, but I stand to be corrected. I fully agree that we should not be complacent – things change in war and there are enemy weapons and sensors that exist today that didn’t previously.

            My career was in REME and we had a very high success rate at recovering and repairing all manner of equipment on the battlefield.

            In response to threats by state actors, we only do expeditionary operations and have never failed to deploy armoured units and formations from the UK or Germany in time to meet the enemy.

            War is unpredictable and it is possible that we could lose a substantial amount of equipment – we did at Dunkirk. Having purchased 386 CR2s of which 227 are in the active fleet, we have a fair size Attrition Reserve, but we would not if we only had 148 CR3 tanks.

          • Agree, I think we had enough challenger 2s for the risks and jobs the army was asked to do over the last few decades. As you say 386 CR2s was a reasonable order for ensuring we could alway deploy a division. But 148 CR3 is just to little and is effectively making an assumption we are not going to loss a formations worth of equipment. That would be OK if the CR3 production line was going to remain active and could replace losses..but as CR3 is a one off deal, It’s a bit bonkers just getting 148 and disposing of the other CR2 hulls. At worst I think they should strip and store the remaining challenge hulls in a way they can be preserved properly, as way to potentially reopen the CR3 production line in need…..but in reality each of those CR3 conversions is actual pocket change to the Uk and it may be best to just get on and and convert then, considering it as an industrial stimulus package and risk management insurance.

          • You shock me somewhat by talking about losing a formations worth of equipment – our opponents surely wont be that good!
            148 is nowhere near enough for two regiments plus sufficient tanks for the Trg Org (RAC and REME), Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
            If we did have horrendous losses of tanks in combat, then I doubt we could quickly get more replacement tanks from a production line (even if it were still open) – it takes ages to make extra tanks, and no-one would have ordered the long-lead items.
            When CR2 is declared Obsolete, then any remaining will be sold or scrapped – we do not keep Obsolete equipment.

          • Hi graham, in truth we have lost whole formation’s before and we must assume that the possibility exists that it could happen again. You never can predicted if that friend you are supporting suddenly collapses and leaves you in the shit having to leave your heavy equipment behind.

            Also as pointed out there are those random events, we cart our heavy equipment around by sea and ships just sometimes founder ( around 50-60 major vessels, large cargo type vessels of all types founder each year…if you tot up the losses it’s around 610 in a decade). So every time you load a battle group of equipment onto a point class there is a small but possible chance you will never get it back again.

            clearly it’s would take time to rebuild if we did lose a lot of armour, say a worst case we left a regiments worth behind…we then have a problem…we don’t have the CR3s to maintain our commitments in the future, so we would either.

            1) walk away from the ability to deploy an armoured division in the future(bad choice).
            2) have two fleets with the CR3s topped up with another MBT type (bad choice).
            3) scrap or sell off the inadequately sized remainder CR3 fleet and buy a whole new fleet of a different MBT, gapping the capability to deploy and armoured division until you complete the change over( not a bad choice but a very expensive one ).

            so for me it’s all about risk management and never assuming everything will going swingingly in the future. Let’s be honest 220 challenger 2s gave us that “ it went all wrong” reserve as well as normal operational reserves and fleet management. 148 is a joke waiting to backfire..not saying we keep the challenger 2s in a working state in storage, but maybe they should be stripped and the bits we need to make more CR3s properly stored, just incase at some future point we need them.. so we have a future option:

            4) build another batch of CR3s

            personally I think we should just convert all the CR2s we have to CR3s and have done with it…after all it’s small beer money in reality and HMG would get a fair bit back in tax take. Then at least if we loss some CR3s for whatever reason we don’t loss our ability to deploy a division for very long…or be forced to do something silly like options 1-3. If we never really need those extra CR3s, it will have been a industrial stimulus as well as just paying what we needed on the nation’s insurance policy ( after all a fair bit of military capability is insurance or prevention if you think of war like a pathology).

          • I can only think of Dunkirk as to when we lost a massive amount of equipment – and that was very unique.
            Anyway, best solution is to increase the CR3 order to 200-227.

          • Although Korea did also show some examples of how you can loss heavy equipment in a war that does not go all your way.

            Korea was interesting, with the 8th kings royal Irish hussars literally arriving at Pyongyang and before they could even offloading their centurions from the trains they were being transported on they were ordered to leg it and immediately being turned around and sent back to Japan..even so they had to abandon one tank that was lost to the enemy…a day either way or a bad move, could have seen that whole formation of cutting edge Centurions abandoned and lost.

            What is even more ironic is when they were redeployed back into theatre, the first tank they killed (by centurion and the first British army tank kill post WW2) was against another British tank that has been lost in a previous engagement and had been recovered by the enemy ( an 8th Hussars Cromwell). This was one of 14 Cromwells captured by the communists during retreats at the battle of Happy valley.

            But agree, a simple solution is just build as many CR3s as we can from the CR2s we have left and don’t penny pinch…..148 MBTs is just a bit to close to the bone.

  33. Surprised we don’t suppliment CR3 with a variety drone tanks anti air missiles, barrage rockets, anti tank missile, uavs etc networked with Ai and using the CR3 as command and control.

    • CR3 (and CR2 etc) exists to deliver shock action, to destroy enemy heavy/medium armour and to provide heavy direct fire support to accompanying armoured infantry – not to just do command and control.

      • It’s really interesting that you say that graham, with your experience. I think that “ provides direct fire support to the infantry” statement really clearly iterates why challenger has always been just a bit different to other western MBTs. Abrahams and leopard 2 were alway very focused tank killers…fast with a gun focused on maximising the effectiveness of APFSDS, with the challenger being very focused on balancing that combined arms role.

  34. I would seriously question the need for increasing any UK tank fleet. What exactly would this island require such a fleet for? The sense would be to give Ukraine a hundred more Ch.2’s immediately before it becomes too late to have any effect. It appears some (not all) allies are not so assured in preventing Russian inroads to western Europe and the US is doing its usual knee trembling indecisive do we/don’t we. As for Germany enough said.

    • Jason, do you not know why we have tanks? We invented the tank and not for defence of these islands – they were for an expeditionary operation called ‘The First World War’.
      We have only ever deployed tanks on expeditionary operations – we spend very little time, money and effort on Military Home Defence – in fact I don’t think the army has done a MHD exercise since the 1980s.

    • It’s about making sure we can contribute to our allies and have meaningful skin in the game. You have a division on the ground and a carrier group in the ocean, you provide meaningful support to your friends and make your enemies or opponents pause…if it does all go wrong you have a strong voice around the table of allies about what happens next.

  35. Better to spend it on Challenger than Ajax. Then build some Challenger 4’s. The idea of buying German Tanks is obscene.

    • We need both tanks and recce vehicles.

      I have lived through an era where we could but now no longer manufacture: cruise ships (the last one was QE2 launched in 1967); televisions (except for the tiny Cello Electronic Co.); fast combat jets (all-British designed and built, the last being Harriers manufactured up to 2003); small arms (last factory closed in 2001). Also, all volume car companies in the UK are foreign now. I am sure there are many other examples.
      We last built heavy AFVs in 2002-2004 (33 Titan, 33 Trojan).

      All very sad. Perhaps we will have to buy German tanks in future.

      • It is sad and so potentially preventable. Bit of a national tragedy really…but on the bright side at least we’ve not screwed our county up as badly as the Japanese…..I looked at their GDP per head and GDP against dept the other day…I’d we think the UK slipped…Japan did the whole industrial boom to collapse in half a generation.

  36. Upgrading the 148 C2’s to a C3 variant at a cost of £800 Millon seems a waste of money when we can just buy a number of loepard 2s instead and give Ukraine at least a division of C2s. Personally I would hold the MOD to task and demand they design a new model of tank, taking the experience on the Ukrainian battle field and consolidating US Israeli South Korean German and yes some Russian and British attributes, best of the best into a new main battle tank.. one for export market too .. I mean why the hell did Germany manage to out flank us with 3009 leopards on the world MBT market. We should have a minimum of four divisions…of these new tanks.
    800 million to convert rifle to smoothbore is a scandal… Waste of my taxes

    • Thanks Paul, Very interesting. So the stories about 80 (surely 84) tanks scrapped were true. I missed the written answer in 2018, and so did the media as it did not come up on a google search. Total 302 according to our favourite Italian journalist.

    • Ukraine needs hundreds of good western tanks asap.
      The Jordanian CR1s would just need a quick refurb and can do this at KADDB, given western funding; no time for a significant upgrade.
      I wonder if anyone in the MoD/FCO is talking to Amman?

    • Who are those M1s for? Not us, I hope. Gas guzzler – its why we rejected them years ago. They are very high maintenence tanks.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here