The Ministry of Defence has announced a £150 million contract with the Stockport-based firm KNDS UK for the provision of general support bridges, an initiative expected to secure approximately 300 jobs in the North West.

KNDS UK, a joint venture between Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Nexter, specialises in the production of military bridge systems and is tasked with delivering these new structures based on their Dry Support Bridge design.

Designed to extend up to 46 metres and capable of bearing the weight of the British Army’s future tank, the Challenger 3, these bridges are intended for crossing both wet and dry gaps. The aim is to enhance the operational mobility of the Army, facilitating the safe movement of personnel, equipment, and vital supplies, including humanitarian aid, in various terrains.

The contract marks the transition from the BR90 ABLE system to a new setup that promises interoperability with the bridge systems of NATO allies.

The Minister for Defence Procurement, James Cartlidge, spoke about the contract, noting, “This is a fantastic example of this government delivering on our Land Industrial Strategy – investing in UK industry and delivering world-class bridging capabilities to our Armed Forces.”

Part of Project TYRO, the contract seeks to bolster the mobility of the British Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams across diverse landscapes. Mark Bunyan, who leads the Defence Equipment & Support Fires, Infrastructure & Manoeuvre Support portfolio, underscored the crucial role of military bridging in operational success, stating, “Military Equipment Bridging is the bedrock of successful operations and is vital to ensuring that our personnel can move around a battlefield in the safest and quickest way.”

The TYRO general support bridge system, set to be one of the most advanced and rapidly deployable military bridges globally, will be installed on Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicle (RMMV) HX2 tactical trucks.

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

49 COMMENTS

  1. They are saying the base model of Ch3 is gaining a ton in weight, but when it get its applique armour fitted. Its weight is now over 80t. Hope they’ve taken this into account?

    • Hope the engine can cope, it’s not a new power pack, but the same one with a new direct rail injection system. Obviously it works but does make you wonder at what losses it will have with the extra weight?

      • Look at how much more power has been squeezed out of an average family diesel between then and now…..

        Updating the engine management and injection as well as the head can have dramatic effects on power and efficiency….

      • CR3 is just 1 tonne heavier than CR2. TES kit for CR3 will add weight but so it did with CR2.
        I never heard that CR2 with TES kit was slow – it had commendable cross-country speed, especially as the suspension was excellent.

      • ? No-one is transporting 80,000kg on a truck.

        The bridge is carried on a truck, is then offloaded at the gap, an arm or boom is nosed out, bridge sections being progressively attached to the boom by a small team of Sappers and once built, then the 80,000kg tanks drive over it.

        [That’s if CR2 at TES really is 80t – I would have thought it was a few tonnes less than that.]

          • Aaah, OK. A HET. RBSL’s infographic states that CR3 is 66t against CR2’s 65t. That is clearly without TES kit. In-service Oshkosh/King HET can take a 66t CR3 and a 72t CR2 (TES).

            If CR3 really does go up to 80t with TES kit, then I am not sure if the King GTS100 tlr could take that without strengthening. Not sure. Can’t find max payload figure for the GTS100.

    • And only carrying 31 rounds? What do the Leopards and Abram’s carry by comparison? The resupply vehicles, trucks or tracked(?) will be kept busy.

        • So the CH3 will be 80tn and only carries 31 rounds? Sounds like a very retrograde step. Is this another stuff up? Why couldn’t they make the turret a tad larger as in wider to fit more 8-9 more rounds? Or, keep Ch3 as is and buy another tank to bolster the numbers or as a complete replacement as some have suggested on other posts!?

          • Is the Army happy about this lesser shot capacity on the CH3? I can imagine some would be quite concerned. Okay, it’s a newer gun, NATO compatibility etc, but one shot is one shot. Is it “less is more” here or, “more with less” ?

          • If tanks were only defending against HEAT rounds. Life would be a lot easier, as you’d only need spaced armour. Which would make the tank significantly lighter.

            Unfortunately, Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) requires a different method of armour protection. Where the shear velocity of the dart can turn metals to a fluid line state on impact.

            These darts are made out of either a tungsten alloy or depleted uranium. Where their density overmatches basic steel armour. To defeat them you need to at a minimum match the dart’s material density and hardness. But also to cause the dart to pitch and yaw as it penetrates. Which increases the surface area making contact with the armour.

            This means you need a combination of spaced armour, whose outer armour is very hard. Which is designed to shatter the dart, but also to slow it down. It is sufficiently spaced from the main armour to match the dart’s length. Thereby causing it to turn slightly and hit it at a more oblique angle.

            The main armour needs to be pretty thick. As it needs to absorb and slow down the dart. Which is done by eroding it away. Through a combination of different layers of material, such as ceramic, rubber, steels etc.

            Sadly this armour protection comes at cost, which is weight.

          • Thanks for the great reply DB. Yes, it’s not just offensive ability but also the equally very necessary protection especially these days. I just think the 31 capacity is quite a drop from the ch2 (49?) and with so few tanks is there a actual loss of offensive ability here? I imagine that tanks won’t operate in isolation and that other systems need to be taken into account.

          • Not a stuff up but an inevitable situation given that the hull was sized and designed for the 3-piece 120mm rifled round, not the very long (1m long) 1-piece smoothbore round, and seemingly can’t be adapted to fit a large number of the longer smoothbore rounds.
            No idea about the number of ready rounds in the turret bustle. Wider turret of course would increase visual and radar signature, and its extra weight might make traverse speed slower.
            Keep Ch3 as is? Do you mean keep Chally 2 as is?

            Buy another tank? – a bit late to contemplate that now.

          • I’ll never be in a tank anytime soon but if I was I’d like to have as many rounds as possible particularly if your adversary is likely to have more tanks you. 49 to 31 is like a 25% difference. This must create more stress on the frequency of the resupply vehicles.

          • Classically resupply of tanks is done every night under cover of darkness when they are leaguered up (in a leaguer) but if required resupply could be done at other times.

            Whether this is a real issue all depends how many rounds a tank gets through in a day – it will vary. I have no stats on this.

          • Thanks Graham. Another silly question. Why can’t they make the smoothbore round shorter or even two piece? To help squeeze more in. There’s more handling, but a 1 metre 1 piece shell is pretty huge. And I imagine with the next 130mm tank guns, even longer?

          • Two piece is of course somewhat slower to load. All 120mm smoothbore ammunition is I believe 1-piece. We Brits would not create our own 2-piece ammunition having finally arrived at the situation where we are now compatible with the rest of NATO. We had 2-piece rifled rounds before (eg, CH, CR1, CR2).

            As for shorter – ammunition is not my speciality but I am sure the only way that could be done is with a case telescoped design – not sure if that has been looked at for such a large calibre. The snag is that the short round would not then fit the breech of the Rheinmetall cannon, so you would need a new cannon.

            It remains to be seen if everyone goes to 130mm – KF51 Panther has a 130. They have an autoloader, presumably because such a round is beyond that for easy handling by a human loader. KF51s manufacturer, Rheinmetall, hope that all Leo 2 operators will move on to Panther – who knows? NATO needs to declare 130mm as a ‘standard’ first.

            [Plenty of countries have looked at 140mm including the UK, which ‘led the charge’ in the late ’80s]

        • There must have been other tank choices to go with and UK upgrades but if this is an interim solution you hope the actual next tank decision is a good one too!
          Just thinking that if the UK bought the Leopard or K2 or semi-manufacturered under license you could call it a “Lion” to make it more British 🇬🇧… perhaps. 😆

          • CR2 should have been subject to frequent upgrades over the years – and then replaced after 25-30 years service, by perhaps a revolutionary rather than evolutionary design.

            But…..

        • I’ve never thought that that rate of fire is essential in an MBT, but happy to be advised by any tankies or tankers on this site.

      • Probably in due course. But when the technical specifications were put together for upgrading Challenger. Drones weren’t seen as much of a threat. The Ukrainian war has changed that. I would expect at the very least the tank to carry radio jammers tailored towards the standard frequencies used to control drones.

        Israel will be the main driver for developing kinetic drone countermeasures. As they are very good at rapidly developing and fielding a solution. So yes in time I fully expect to see Ch3 with a kinetic means of taking out drones from distance.

    • Are you sure the applique armour for CR3 is 14 tonnes ie to take the tank from 66t to 80t? I have not seen that stated anywhere.

      Of course this is taken into account with military bridging, HETs etc. The ILS process covers this.

      • I have now seen it written in two publications. Not saying that they are correct. But isn’t Chally 2 with the full TES fitted about 80t? If RBSL have said that the Chally 3 base vehicle is now 1t heavier than a Chally 2. Adding the TES kit would likely be about the same weight. The reports are that the new applique is even more effective than the Chally 2’s version.

        • My knowledge is somewhat dated but I recall that Chally 2 with TES kit was 72t. If thats still the case then CR3 (TES) would be about 73t. But I doubt that is in Open Source literature. I would hope that modern armour was more effective than old armour.

          • Haven’t spoken to my cousin for a while, as he was also REME on Chally’s supporting the Royal Scots Dragoons, before they went to the light recce role.

            Yeah I’ve seen it stated Chally 2 with TES at 72t before. But I’ve also seen it at 79 and 81t. I am hoping that the Chally 3 isn’t over 80t. As that will severely restrict where it can operate, along with which bridges it can use.

            In one of the publications they do mention the increased effectiveness of the new appliqué armour over the previous. So hopefully it is also lighter where it’s using better materials. As the images of it shows that it’s about a similar thickness to the previous version.

            I guess hurry and wait, until there’s more official information!

          • Hi Davey, I only ever saw the CR2 TES weight at 72t.
            UKR are saying that CR2 is heavy for the ground that it is operating on – no kidding! They are used to much lighter T-series tanks.

            Maybe we won’t ever see a figure for CR3 TES weight if it is classified info. I too hope it is not over 80t. Be interesting to see if HET King trailer gets upgraded – maybe not if CR3 with TES is no heavier than CR2 TES.

  2. Hands up I know very little about Army engineering equipment. But if this is designed to go on a Truck is it anything to do with the photo of a tracked armoured Bridge layer ?
    I’m no expert but isn’t that an old German Leopard 1 Chassis ?

    • WFEL (formerly William Fairey Engineering Ltd), have been part of the KMW (Kraus Maffe Weghman) group for a number of years. It was the formation of KNDS (KMS, Nextur Defence Systems) a couple of years ago that resulted in the updated branding as a KNDS company.

  4. Over the years I have often thought that the Sappers have always done quite well with equipment procurement, eg Titan & Trojan, BR90, M3 rig, bar mine layer, CET and its successor, Terrier etc

    Much was state-of-the-art at inception, the procurement went well, they got enough kit and it has aged well – and new kit is introduced when required.

    As a REME guy, I was envious – CRARRV is over 35 years old, with only modest protection levels, with no sign of replacement, and much (not all) of it is CR1-era technology.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here