Oxley Group has secured the award of a contract for LED lighting for the British Army’s upgraded Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank (MBT).

The contract, awarded by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL), is worth approximately £1.39M.

Oxley Group will be providing internal cabin lighting, breach lighting and task lighting for the programme, with manufacturing commencing in 2025.

According to the firm:

“This contract follows Oxley’s recent success in securing the contract for the LED lighting on the UK MOD’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) programme, ensuring commonality for the internal lighting across both platforms.

Full design and manufacture of the lighting will be undertaken at Oxley Group’s Ulverston site in Cumbria. The SME employs a skilled team of 150 engineers, production technicians and support staff at the site. Securing this contract will support further growth and protect key manufacturing skills in the UK, including the 14 apprentices currently receiving training within the organisation.

A total of 148 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks will be upgraded by RBSL. The programme will make significant enhancements to the vehicle and provide the British Army with a world-class capability, made in the UK. The upgraded vehicle, to be called Challenger 3, will be a network-enabled, digital Main Battle Tank with state-of-the-art lethality, upgraded survivability, plus world-class surveillance and target acquisition capabilities.”

Darren Cavan, Oxley Group CEO said:

“We’re delighted to be awarded this contract, this builds on the success we have achieved on the MIV Boxer vehicle and further cements our world leading position in the provision of high-performance lighting for military vehicles. This contract gives us long term stability, protecting jobs and enabling us to further invest in technology and process improvements. We look forward to working in partnership with the RSBL team as this programme develops.”

Colin McClean, Managing Director of RBSL added:

“This contract is the latest in a series of UK supplier contracts awarded by RBSL for Challenger 3, ensuring the programme benefits from the best of British engineering and manufacturing whilst also sustaining valuable skills across the country. We are very pleased to welcome Oxley Group to the Challenger team and we look forward to working with them as the programme progresses.”

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

107 COMMENTS

  1. How the heck did we build so much stuff in the 6 years of WW2 … and why does everything take so long now…. The CH3’s seem to be taking years and years to upgrade ?

    • Quite a difference in technology compared to the 1940s. And if there was a genuine threat of invasion of the UK, the country would be put on a war footing, and you would be amazed what could be achieved. Not that anyone could invade the UK today.

        • Free speech and protest rights mean that the misinformed can share that more widely.
          Free speech means their errors can be documented and called out. Facts matter though operational security and commercial constraints have to be balanced..

    • It’s worth remembering that the pace of development and manufacturing in ww2 led to some truly awful and useless designs.

    • I agree. It seems we are taking about as long (if not longer) to upgrade a tank as it would have previously taken to design, develop and build a new model.

      But Defence Industry has changed – and not for the better.

      • Sir

        What is:

        Task lighting and;
        Breach lighting?

        Breech as in the gun OR breach as in NBC penetrative?

        Please reply to confused dot com.

        • I have not heard those terms before but I was last in Equipment Support Management for tank systems in 2002. Must be new terms. I think (gun) breech lighting is meant – illumination of the critical breech area to aid loading. Task light – light in a defined area to perform a certain task (rather than general lighting) – ie light near the radio, light near the BV etc etc
          Just my guess.

        • Task lighting – lighting inside the tank for each crew station to enable the guys to operate the tank. Its dark with the lid closed.

      • Hard to know where the bottle neck lies, but I would guess its the government not making the funds available for a faster build, no doubt at the expense of over all cost. Government spending is all about announcing big stuff but delaying the actual outlay for long enough that it’s someone else’s problem to work out the affordability

        • I agree its hard to know. You have to be closer to the project to understand the timeline rationale. There are disadvantages in a slow build rate – the previous equipment has to soldier on for longer, occasioning higher maintenance costs. The contractor will want to build slowly so there is less chance of missing targets, and to build in buffer time to deal with issues. Sometimes MoD finance wants to lengthen the build to smooth out and flatten the spend envelope.

      • Actually, somewhat loathe to broach this topic, but has any MP formally inquired re the status and plans for the remaining MBTs in the presumed delta between the 213 officially operational CR2s and the 148 CR2s scheduled to be updated? Presume HMG would be obligated to provide an honest and complete explanation? Do contract options exist to upgrade the remaining 65 MBTs, if required? Realize that there may be no reliable or official data, nonetheless remain curious. 🤔

          • Elsewhere on UKDJ it was said that not many were serviceable and some had been stripped for spares.

            UK tank force is in a parloua state, apparently.

            Not aware of Labour opening the can of worms as they’ll then get challenges on spending which they can’t answer at the moment.

          • Wow, a conspiracy of silence! Refurbished M1A2 SEPv3 may not bw viewed as askance in the future, if required. 🤔

          • NEVER going to happen; cost of their fuel.

            Task and Purpose did a nice piece on your M10 Booker (?)

            Then again, given the Septic predilection for re-naming Forts, Booker will probably be renamed Gay and Abrams renamed pride. They’ll work together.

            The British Army is no better on the other hand, we just name our Barracks ‘Shitholes.’

            It has a certain je ne sais pas to it and longevity.

            Happy Christmas!

          • If the UK tank force was in a parlous state (taken to mean low availability) then that would reflect very badly on the tank crews and their REME support. As an ex-REME officer that would be somewhat depressing.

            I would expect that about 70% of the 213 tanks on the active list would be available for use, say 149, as this was the figure we in REME worked to. (That number increased to 90% after concerted 24hrs maintenance work).
            In fact a report made earlier this year (Mar 2023) to the UK Parliamentary Defence Committee stated it was 157 tanks, so better than expected. I need not be depressed.
            https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/03/10/british-army-challenger-tanks/

            Really none of the 213 on the active list should be stripped for spares but I would expect that fate to have befallen a number of tanks in the inactive fleet. Cannibalisation is strictly controlled and used only as a last resort.

          • If the UK tank force was in a parlous state (taken to mean low availability) then that would reflect very badly on the tank crews and their REME support. As an ex-REME officer that would be somewhat depressing.

            I would expect that about 70% of the 213 tanks on the active list would be available for use, say 149, as this was the figure we in REME worked to. (That number increased to 90% after concerted 24hrs maintenance work).

            In fact a report made earlier this year (Mar 2023) to the UK Parliamentary Defence Committee stated it was 157 tanks, so better than expected. I need not be depressed.

            Really none of the 213 on the active list should be stripped for spares but I would expect that fate to have befallen a number of tanks in the inactive fleet. Cannibalisation is strictly controlled and used only as a last resort.

          • Sir

            Have you taken into account the tanks donated to the Ukraine?

            The numbers in Estonia?

            Then subtract the tanks that will go into Chally3 upgrade.

            Parlous was not an act of frivolity on my part, although perhaps paucity maybe more apt.

          • Hi David, the data presented to the Parliamentary defence committee was not mine so I don’t know the answers to your questions for sure. But as a past ESM in the Tank Systems Support IPT I provided similar information to Ministers in the past. The 14 tanks gifted to Ukraine should have been deleted from the (British Army’s) active list in Jan or Feb, so I have assumed that was done and that the stats related to the 213 tanks. Of course the tanks in Estonia were included – they are part of the 213 – they are in the active fleet.
            I have no details as regards how many CR2s were supplied to RBSL for CR3 conversion up to March or whether they are tanks on the active list or inactive list or a mix of both – or what state they are in – parked up at RBSL intact, stripped down, in BOH or whatever. So I did not take them out. If I knew those numbers and they were taken off, then the 157 fit tanks would be an even higher percentage. Even more praise to the REME and the tank crews.
            I made the point that 157 tanks fit is a good story as there has been a lot of ill-informed BS that suggest the tank fleet is in rag order. 157 tanks ready and available for use is not a paucity figure – it is one to be proud of.

          • Whole fleet management has alot to answer too, each unit holds a small training fleet of around 20 tanks, those vehicles pass from one sqn to another as required, so there is no ownership of vehicles ,there is a distinct lack of spares, so the poor condition of those tanks isn’t down to the crews or the Reme, it’s the system that has failed.
            There is talk that when the new platforms come on line we will revert back to units holding their full allocation of vehicles, which means ownership and in my opinion better maintained vehicles.

          • Without ownership of person responsible human nature will equal neglect. Example who wants pick the mud out the top roller inner allen screws and torque either lying on track ( thin bloke) from underneath reaching over dirty hydro-gas arms. who’s going to lift turret floor plates to clean out spent links, cases and mud . Leave it for the next crew !

          • Unfortunately thats the nature of the beast (whole fleet management), quite often the sqns only gets a very short period of time to carryout servicing before handing the wagons onto the next sqn. Finish in Castlemartin on a Friday, hand the vehicles over on the Tuesday, not ideal.

          • Thanks Jim for reminding us of WFM, an initative that started on 31 Jan 2001 and was due to end (or be reviewed/renewed) in June 2025.

            I have not heard anything about WFM for at least 7 or 8 years – there have been no posts on arrse.com since 2005. I had the impression that the army had rowed back from it somewhat a few years ago. So armoured regiments today hold 20 tanks as per the original WFM edict?

            I was never a fan of WFM for the reasons you describe but of course approved of the CHE facilities that came with the programme.

          • Tonight (24.12.23) Grant Shapps has gone on the record (Sunday Times) saying the state of the British military and the various concerns about war breaking out in the next few years need the Defence budget to go up by at least 50% to over 3% GDP. The paper says this will mean internal strife between him, the Prime Minister and Chancellor (who, I suspect may have been told by his wife to reduce the MOD budget further)).

            Has he had a Scrouge moment and been visited by the ghosts of Defence Ministers past, present and future?

        • Not sure there is a need for a MP to ask such a question.

          We have been long used to equipment fleet sizes reducing. We bought 900 Chieftains in the mid 60s, then 435 CR1s in the 80s, then 386 CR2s in the late 90s/early 2000s – and now 148 CR3s.

          When an equipment is declared Obsolete because it is being replaced then the old equipment is disposed of ASAP – it is not kept or upgraded.

          Whether we like it or not the army is getting only 148 CR3s to be built from donor CR2s. CR2s left over and above that number will be disposed of. This is SOP.
          The Orbat for Future Soldier 2020 has only two armoured regiments (tank bns in US-speak) – that’s 112 tanks – and just 36 to be split between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.

          The MP might however ask how the delta of 65 MBTs on the active fleet (and those in the inactive fleet) are to be disposed of – again this is SOP. The favoured method is sale, then gifting, then scrapping by stripping and smelting.
          We don’t keep Obsolete kit – and we don’t upgrade kit if there is no place in the Orbat for it.

          • Understand, thanks for the explanation. Curiously, SOP does not offer a real recovery path if there is greater than planned attrition, for whatever reason, nor a method of equipping an expanding force on an expedited basis. 🤔

          • Very true. In the current CR2 era, the Attrition Reserve is likely to be more than suffficient. Not so, going forward into the CR3 era. These politicians need a good talking to.

          • Jim, which ones are they? Those on the inactive list or the active list. If the latter are they in the Field Force, Repair Pool, Trg Org, Attrition Reserve? How many have cracked hulls?

    • Meanwhile and currently on active duty protecting their borders with lighting.

      “A total of 1,000 tanks will be delivered to Polish Land Forces. On 26 August 2022 the executive agreement was signed to procure K2. A total of 180 K2s will be delivered to the 16th Mechanised Division from 2022 to 2025. 16th Mechanised Division – A total of 180 K2s.”

      Poland’s New K2 and New Abram tanks deployed near the border with Belarus and the Russian Federation

      LINK

    • Society objective is now to distribute not to create.

      So you have giant taxes, large administration, millions of rules and laws, a large part of economy dependent on politics: certification, consulting, legal firms etc…

      We are basically headed to a Soviet style entropy.

  2. Go Ulverston! Where a child of 8, born on a dirt floor at Dragley Beck, can go on to become the Second Sea Lord of the Admiralty and a lad from Ulverston Vic became a leading Royal Navy nuclear engineering submarine officer.

    Ulverston just keeps giving.

  3. So a few strip lights, to light up the inside of a tank, will cost £1.4 million???? FF sake is there anyone else out there, who finds these fee’s ridiculous?

    Oh hold on… maybe its the same people who were involved in the PPE procurement? No wonder the MOD is skint!

    • Entrepreneurship my son, Entrepreneurship.

      Ulverston is a goldmine of innovation and when it comes to LEDs etc, this former Lancashire Town has spouted several companies including Forge Europa.

      However, the site used to make the humble plug, diversified into electronics and made a killing fitting LEDs into… are you there Daniele… trains.

      The original Oxleys, near to Bardsea has been into defence electronics for eons: early 1970s saw them produce first gen NVGs for both UK and US Mil.

      Which might explain why the old police station on Tank Square had an inobtrusive early NPR camera pointed at traffic coming into Ulverston and was home to a large number of Branch…

  4. Is me but surly it would be easier to build a completely new main battle tank then simply upgrade old Challenger two tanks ??

    • We nolonger have the heavy tank manufacturing base in the North East the factory that built the ch1 ch2 closed because the government stopped investing in a MBT program that is why they are just upgrading CH2. For a country that used to innovate, we are a country that doesn’t innovate we just paper over the cracks. Do things on the cheap just look at QE aircraft carriers they’re starting to realise it might have been a mistake not fitting Cats and Traps and limiting their fixed wing fighters just to the F35s. Another of example is the UK built the world’s first domestic nuclear power station now we get the Chinese and French to build.

      • F-35s are fifth gen fighters. Not many countries have this level of technology. What is wrong with them? Why would we want something different?

        • Yes they are, the problem with them is that they are a long distance fire and forget so the Aircraft carriers have to keep their distance from the front for the f35s to be any true benefit but then its too far to use attack helicopters. They don’t carry enough armament for a sustained contact if they are flown in beast mode they loose their stealth. The Aircraft carriers if had been had fitted with cats and traps we could have flown a Aircraft to compliment the f35 ideal the Typhoon if they could have been upgraded for carrier use or even the French Rafael. So the F35 could be used for information gathering and distance kills. Because no one knows how a F35 would cope been involved in a close contact swarm attack with fighters with its limited armament. Just compare f35 with the Typhoons armament the amount they carry are minute in comparison. This is just my thoughts.

          • Both Typhoons/Rafaels and F-35s embarked on a cats-and-traps equipped QE ship as the ideal – I did not see that one coming!

            I can’t see the stand-off from shore dilemma – carrier goes in close-ish to shore if AHs are required to do a land attack and can stand off further if the F-35Bs are required to do a land attack. Its one option or the other, not both.

            If the F-35Bs expend their munitions load, they go back to the ship for a replen. How big a problem is that?

        • F35B have very limited range and without cats and traps can not accept allied a/c other than F35B.

          You can happily lay that at the door of Labour.

          • Actually it was Cameron that removed the cat spec from the build when he became prime minister to save money. They were in the original plans for the ships

          • But was it not Labour who revisited the in-build QEC and asked to put them in? Cameron just saved money.

          • I’m quite sure under Labour the QE’s were to be built as they are today – when the Coalition government took over questions were asked about the extra costs and complexity of the ‘B’ variant over the ‘C’, and a study was then carried out regarding changing the design to CATOBAR, which as we all now know proved way too expensive and risky to contemplate.

          • F-35C combat range is 670nm;
            F-35B is 505nm; is that such a limited range – it is more than twice that of the old Sea Harrier.

            Is it really an issue that QE carriers cannot take allied aircraft (other than other F-35Bs)? – that was the situation for the period of the Invincible class.

      • You have of course followed multiple threads on CR 2/3 and the carriers haven’t you? If you had then you would have been well informed as to why these decisions were made!

        • I can understand the CH2/CH3 CH2 is still a very good MBT even with its age upgrading to CH3 makes it one impressive MBT again. But you’ve got to think if CH2 was upgraded throughout its life we could have had a larger fleet than then the 100+ we’ll end up with. As for the carriers I can give 1.5 billion reasons they didn’t fit cats and traps when they were built. But that was a short sighted decision at the time limiting their ability to fly one specific fixed wing Aircraft not including drones.

          • Is there any indication that the unexplainable decision to reduce our MBT fleet to 148 would have changed if the Challys were kept up to date?

          • No but the the rest of the fleet that is in storage would have been more upto date and would be easier to take out of storage if needed, having minor upgrades through out its life instead of waiting and having to do a mayor upgrade plus CH3 will take years to upgrade the quantities quoted. If the UK invested smaller amounts of money each year to upgrade so many a year we’d have more quantities of advanced MBTs. You’re got to think it must be +20 years the CH2 were just left most other countries would have updated alot over that time period. The CH2 was a superior MBT of the time but the UK never built on its capabilites. The Ukraine war has proved you need larger quantities of MBTs Russia has thousands ok most are not as advanced as the CH2. But they are loosing them at a increasing rate. The only reason the only CH2 ever destroyed in anger was due to outdated logic of carring extra fuel capabilites on the external of the tank if the engines had been upgraded to a more economic and energy efficient during its life time, more than likely it would not have carried the extra fuel, leading to the tank been repairable and been returned to action.

          • If you are referring to the CR2 loss in Ukraine your information is wrong – the Tank was immobilized due to Hitting a Mine then finished off with a Kornet ATGM,the fact it had Fuel Drums on the back was neither here nor there.

          • The tank was immobilised by a land mine but the spare fuel tanks ignited which alone would have destroyed the power train the tank was finally finished off by a Kornet the tanks were supplied without explosive reactive armour (ERA) or active protection system which could have possibly defeated the missile. My point was carrying external fuel tanks is a extra risk that tank crews do not need. If the CH2 had been upgrade throughout its lifetime with a more efficient power train.

          • (A) Tanks that have fitment of Fuel Drums at their rear carry an obvious Fire risk, so they are made to be Jettisonable if needed and the Engine Compartment is equipped with a capable Fire Suppression System,(B) the fitment of extra ERA had been carried out by the Ukrainians to some examples of CR2,it may or may not have been applied to this one, but in this case the Turret was hit from the rear so it would not have had any extra protection in that area anyway.

          • The fire suppression system is designed for engine compartment fire in the enclosed area tiping gallons and gallons of burning fuel into it. I don’t think even the system could cope with the amount of fuel if both drums were full. As for been jettisoned that only works if the tank is moving a stationary tank even if the tanks were jettisoned it would still engulf the rear of the tank

          • Be a brave man removing the lorry type ratchet straps if drums on fire. Quality of straps has declined along top with pin rings . Polyurethane webbing protective sleeve bad choice compared to synthetic rubber as not UV stable . The bolt on mounting plate at strap ends used to be hardened steel now mild steel so bends when strap tightened against frame when barrel not in position!

          • Unexplainable? HMG decided to cut the army yet again and within that decision was that one of the three armoured regiments would go.

      • To be fair, the electromagnetic catapult technology was still in testing, which has had its share of issues. Don’t get me wrong, they could have had the carrier with the ‘design but not with’ and waited for viability, but they changed for budgetary reasons. Also, check out Project Ark Royal. It’s a project to look into Cat and Traps on one of the carriers. But, yes, they are seeing the limitations of having carriers that can only handle the F-35B. Even if the Mojave UAV can take off from the QE, it comes across a solution smaller than it can plug. It comes across as a duct tape solution. Our motto should be “It’ll do”.

        • This country used to have the motto we can do attitude. I remember the Falklands we used to be in aur of our pilots in Harriers up against the Argentina faster jets the pilots developed a method of stopping the Harriers in mid flight watching them it looked like they hit a break wall the way they slowed them down and the Argentina jets fly past and the Harriers take them out. You’re probably right about It’ll do now attitude. If they planned to fit cats and traps to them in the planning stage and we had our old attitude we can do it I reckon we could have had electromagnetic cats up and working properly before they were needed to be fitted. Just look at how long the steam cats have been in service another great UK invention.

          • Electromagnetic cats would have been purchased from America/General Atomic. I have a theory that the ‘It’ll do’ attitude comes from the 70s/80s British car industry. Granted, I get that general attitude from reviews about cars from that era by Top Gear. haha.

          • Ahhh that myth again. The Sea Harrier did not use viff during the Falklands. In reality nobody would use it in real combat, lose that much airspeed and you are stone cold dead, somebody will accept the free kill with glee.

          • You’ll actually find that the Harrier pilots actually did use viff to it’s full advantage during dog fights with the Argentinian airforce. I may have over estimated what I actually saw, but you could actually see them slow the Harriers considerably more than just using air brakes especially when the Argentinian aircraft was close and on a different flight path height given them the advantage over the superior fighters. You’re probably not old enough or you are one of these Jane’s so called experts just because you read something you actually think it’s true that the manoeuvre would not be used in real life. But you’ll find our pilots used their skills and the planes unique capabilites to their full advantage. I suppose you also don’t believe that the worlds longest bombing run was during the Falklands using the Vulcans and the Victor’s. You probably agree with other so called experts that we shouldn’t have sunk the ARA General Belgrano because it was no threat to the UK forces.

          • What a 🤡. Par for the course on here

            Of course I know about the Black Buck raids. And of course I agree the Belgrano was a legitimate target.

            And of course viff was never used! You will not find a single verified report of it because it did not happen.

          • Let’s see how accurate my description of you, late 20s to late 30s probably own a xbox, PlayStation or PC you probably have a range of war games, flight simulators you’ve got a range of journals in order on your shelf and you believe everything you read.

          • By coincidence I just watched a vid where the sea harrier pilot discusses how they used to slow the harrier down to silly slow speed 10s of knots or something. He said they could beat most fighter jets at close quarters 🙂

      • The Can We/Can’t We conundrum about being able to manufacture brand new MBT’s has been discussed at length this year – we still have all the basic ingredients ( just ) to do it – what is lacking is the need,will,funding and enthusiasm to do it.

        • I don’t think we really need to build a new MBT from scratch we just need the funding to upgrade more of the CH2. The CH2 is still a very good base it’s just lacking some of the more modern ingredients to take it to the next level a new modern power train and the improvement to the turret which are planned. The main issue is quantities and time frame the UK seems to be always playing catch up. All I say is the mobile Coffins or the official name the Land Rover Snatch.

          • The Army 2020 Orbat has only got two armoured regiments in it, one per Armoured bde. Hence 148 CR3s. That’s it!
            With that Orbat you don’t have any rationale to upgrade any more CR2s.

          • One simple reason most teams have substitutes. You always have backups to keep the team at full strength. The military is equally the same. Have only the basic amount you are subject to failure it’s better to have replacements and not need them than to have no replacements and need them. we were taught that in my day but this government has cut the service to the bare minimum. They and by the look of it you see something sitting around doing nothing you think it’s a waste of money, it’s called being prepared we have the lowest number of MBTs of most western countries and way less than most Eastern countries have. But the UK is more likely go to fight at the drop of a hat. You loose a MBTs or any large complicated piece of equipment you can’t just make one quickly you need to have them prepared already. Look at how much equipment Russia is loosing they have lost +2000 MBTs in the last two years and that is against a country that was not equipped to fight them. So our piddly +148 would last 6 to 8 weeks if we went up against a determined enemy. I’ve heard from some friends who are still serving with the amount of equipment from ammunition to other armaments we have given to Ukraine we would probably have enough to last about a week without some serious restocking. France has +400 MBTs German has +350 MBTs Spain had +350 modern MBTs the UK will have 148 CH3 and 70 CH2 that have not been touched since 2010. The UK government has always underfunded the military I remember the land rover snatch (we called them mobile coffins) it took guys dying before they decided to give us the equipment we needed. Having equipment sitting around in storage might be a waste of money to some people, not having enough equipment in storage is a waste of lives. So you choose £ or people. But that stored equipment has to be upto a suitable standard if they have CH3 remember you can’t replace one with a CH2 on the battle field because your armaments for the CH3 won’t fire work in the CH2 from a logistics point of view Having two types of shells is a waste of manpower and a waste of equipment.

          • Hi mate, having done 34 years in the army, I was well aware of (equipment) Attrition Reserves (formerly called WMR – War Maintenance Reserve), especially when I was an Equipment Support Manager in Tank Systems IPT at DLO Andover in 2001/2002. We had Attrition Reserves for all principal equipments. We still do have, but they are not as many as they were. With 148 CR3s, 112 will be in the Field Force and 36 spread between the Trg Org (RAC and REME), Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve – I do not have the figures for the split as I am not in MoD now.
            But you can imagine that the Attrition Reserve figure is a number that might amount to about 10%+ of fleet size. It’s not good enough. A unit is usually deemed non-combat effective with 30% losses in manpower and/or materiel. We will have barely enough reserve tanks to reconstitute one armoured regiment that suffers 30% tank losses (and needs 17 replacement tanks) just one time.

            On a different tack, we ordered 386 CR2s for the post-Cold War army. The armoured threat since the early 90s has not diminished, if anything it has increased. Thus the logic for 386 tanks to meet the threat has not gone away. It is only bean-counters and defence-cutting politicians that have firstly driven the number of CR2s down and then set the CR3 order at such a pitifully low level. I am not advocating 386 CR3s – I do live in the real world – but 148 is clearly insufficient by a large margin. But we need an Orbat of at least 3 armoured regiments to make a case for more and/or to prove that our Attrition Reserve is insufficient even for supporting 2 armoured regiments in contact.

          • My apologies for implying you are no better than the bean counters. I’m glad you’ve corrected me. Our lads and lasses past and present are the best trained and most professional in the world but when it comes to equipment we are classed as second class, this and past governments have always not supplied the tools we need to do the job. But as usual we do our best. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

          • I would have been offended if I thought I was being equated to a bean counter – they and politicians were my worst enemy, when I was serving and then when I worked at Abbey Wood for 2 years as a civvy contractor on 3 projects.

            I just let the UKDJ community know how the official/bureacratic side works, not saying I agree with having a small army, small tank fleets, poor Orbats, unmodernised equipment or inadequate Attrition Reserves.

            Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well.

          • I’ll be waiting for someone on here to point out that had something to do with the Beatles 😄 🤣 Abbey Road 😕 Abbey Wood.

    • Did you mean ‘than’ rather than ‘then’?
      Upgrading CR2 to CR3 is the cheaper project than building new vehs. It also fits better with the Industry that we have today ie assembly halls rather than fully comprehensive tank factories.

      • Have just read the brochure on K2 or do you have first hand knowledge about the tank? Just of the top of my head I can give you two reasons it wouldn’t suit the Army, we don’t do automatic loaders,British doctrine dictates we have a four man crew to maintain sustained ability to operate in a 24 hr combat scenario. All this and many more reasons have been discussed over and over in other threads on this very subject 🙄

        • Why does a 4 man crew with the additional requirement for a loader provide an icreased capability for 24 hours operations over a 3 man crew without a requirement for a loader.
          Genuine question as I can’t see their being much difference in overall resource availability between the 2 scenarios?

  5. 10 grand a tank for led interior lights. Absolute bargain. That’s got to be so many lumens that the crew will need to wear welding goggles…

  7. Why bother to upgrade them? I know some on here will say the British Army doesn’t need large numbers of tanks, but I disagree. I can tell you I believe we need at least 500 C3 tanks. Why? Well, from personal experience and as Ukraine has shown, you need armour if you are going to ever get past static, prepared defences.

    In 2003 on our march from Al Faw to Basra, my Troop came under heavy fire from three emplaced positions and five dug-in T55s. We couldn’t go left or right as they had the dead ground peppered with mortars. We couldn’t get any fast air in either for whatever reason, then two lovely Chally 2s popped up coming back from their thunder run and saved many members of my troop. Over the radio in a matter of fact voice came the broadest Scottish accent asking if we wanted him to have a word with the opposition.

    Two days later, we were scouting ahead of a column of Challys and Warriers. We crossed the Shatt Al Arab just after nightfall, clearing the marshes that lay across the river. In the distance on the MSR I could see over 28 Iraqi tanks. They were along the line of oil wells that had been set on fire which meant getting fast air in to deal with the tanks was impossible. Our tankers performed miracles and worked all night to cross the river. The outlaying Iraqi infantry engaged our leading troop just after 4am, it was then they called in their armour. I honestly didn’t understand just how good the Challenger II was until you see Iraqi tank rounds and RPG’s pinging off them. The Challys saved our bacon, they hit everything that moved that came down that road. If I remember rightly, they killed 12 tanks and 4 BMPs before the Iraqis could turn tail and bugger off back up the MSR.

    It proved to me at that point just how useful our tanker force is, even when its two operating as a pair helping to put out any opposition that would cost lives of non-armoured friendlies and when deployed in force. We helped them when they were trying to take junctions at Basra University, covering them from top down attacks. They were able to support UKF when we couldn’t get any air assets in a war that saw nearly 2000s fast Jets and 700 helicopters. Without them, we would have taken heavy casualties from Iraqi armour and been forced to withdraw hold up the pace of the advance.

    Ukraine is really the final piece in why I feel that the British Army must have a tank force of at least 500 Challenger III. The war there shows that without armour, you cannot really move. Although they are not able to use combined arms as the British Forces and NATO do, we CANNOT rely on any other nation to support our forces on the ground.

    • Its great to have your combat experience to learn from.

      Why bother to upgrade our CR2s? Because they haven’t (shamefully) been majorly upgraded since they were first fielded from 1998.

      The 500 figure had my jaw dropping.

      We had 900 Chieftains in the Cold War era, but later bought 435 CR1s (Cold War era), then replaced them with 386 CR2s. 386 being considered to be what we needed for a post-Cold War army. Reductions since then have been ordered by politicians and not because the threat has diminished since 1991.

      A figure of 500 tanks is a figure for the Cold War era, rather than today.

      If we do face a major peer opponent in armoured warfare, I would hope the whole of NATO would be soldiering with us.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here