Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, had claimed that the United Kingdom has decided to increase its pledge of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

UPDATE – This article has been corrected and amended, we have been officially informed since publication that the UK does not, in fact, intend to double the number of Challenger 2 tanks being sent to Ukraine and that the Ambassador appears to have misspoke.

Ambassador Prystaiko had previously stated that the UK intended to double the number of tanks being gifted to Ukraine, from 14 to 28 but that has now been denied by the Ministry of Defence.

The following text is from a discussion on allies steadily working towards building a consensus on specific weapon systems through their policy decisions. The following information was provided during an interview with Radio Liberty.

“It was the same, by the way, with tanks – it was a breakthrough moment when it was necessary to move the reluctance of all other allies. And, if you remember, despite the fact that the announcement was made, the official confirmation by the Prime Minister took almost a week, for him to officially repeat it,” Prystaiko said.

“At this time, the British were trying to convince all the other allies that there were two options: either the UK proceeds with this announcement alone and makes this breach that everyone else has to go into, or let’s do this very important step all together as one front, as NATO. The UK was successful this time. I think the same process is happening now with fighter jets,” he added.

Tank crews are training now and the first is being delivered this month.

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

456 COMMENTS

    • Perhaps time to dust off designs for C2/C3 and start looking at C4 designs chucking in some of the latest tech. Place a decent size order with an agressive delivery schedule? I am surprised the Americans haven’t got quite a few tanks stored in some dry desert just waiting for an opportunity like this challenge in the Ukraine.

      • I think they have but they have depleted uranium armour which they don’t want to export hence the delay as they strip the armour out of their Abrams and switch it for something like tungsten.

        • Yet this country is giving Challenger2 tanks with Dorchester armour which is still classified we even refused to give it to the Americans because it was that classified. But we are willing to risk it falling into Russian hands. If that was to happen it will weaken the up coming Challenger3 if they design a something to defeat it. The Russian China Iran would love to get their hand on it.

          • The risk of losing technology to your enemy in combat cannot really be prevented – Dorchester Armour is well enough understood now ,it won’t hold many secrets that Russia is unaware of,although if they captured an example that could prove very advantageous to them.CR3 will use the next gen Armour tech anyway ( Epsom and Farnham ) so the MOD are ok with the situation.

          • I think you’ve got your facts wrong CH3 is just a upgraded CH2 the Dorchester armour is not removable and as for been well understood by Russia you’ve got your facts wrong. Dorchester is still classified and the MOD may not have any worries, whereas the actual military have worries. Its a political reason they are been sent politicians are only worried about their time in government and how they are perceived. There has been conditions to them been sent one they must be recovered either by Ukrainians or they most be recovered by separate specialist recovery crews and the UK is also suppling the recovery vehicles due to them having a greater weight than current MBTs so for them not to fall into Russian hands.

          • CR3 uses a refurbed CR2 Hull and Drivetrain with a brand new Turret added.Most of the new tech,especially upgraded Armour is going into the Turret,so where have i got my facts wrong ?.

          • You dismissed Dorchester armour as not been important because it is known to everyone. That is the main fact you got wrong, the only thing the enemy knows is it hard to get past and still plays a big part in protecting the tank crews compartment on CH3 and the Russians would love to get their hands on one. For the UK to give Russia the opportunity to obtain a CH2 could lead to the defeating of the CH3. That is the main point.

          • Ive not dismissed the importance of Dorchester Armour at all,all i said was it is not the mystery it once was,and if it was that secretive the MOD would not be sending some to Ukraine where there is a chance of an example falling into Russian hands.

          • Also there is the basic inbuilt Dorchester 1 what the tank came of the production line with …but then you have the various iterations of Dorchester 2 which is all armour additions over the years as threats have occurred..this includes….(present Dorchester 2) additions to the glacis plate, skirt armour and turret armour. A standard challenge 2 has a different level of protection to a British army challenger 2 with its in theatre party dress on. I’m assuming the Ukrainian tanks will probably not get the full set of Dorchester 2.

          • Very little has been said about the maint support for the sqn of CR2’s, just that 2 x CRARRVs are being provided. There is a lot more to 1st and 2nd line maint than just that.

          • We sold CR1s to Jordan with first gen Chobham armour and they weren’t even NATO, just allies we could trust to maintain secrecy (and who were unlikely to lose any to the Russians in combat!!).

            CR2 armour is very good but very old (but still of course highly classified). I’d be surprised if the Russians didn’t know an awful lot about it by now, by various devious means.

      • What latest tech does the CR3 design not include?…

        The USA has 2,590 Abrams, with a further 3,700 Abrams in storage, but these are intended as war reserves to replenish its own army.

        • CR3 design has been going for a few years. I would be amazed if the Ukraine has not suggested some potential improvement plus tech moves forward on an almost daily basis. Part of the problem with military kit is that historically the development progress has been glacial. Time to change that.

          • Yes CR3 has been going on for years, which is why I’d expect it to already include all the “latest tech”.

            The primary lessons from Ukraine have been tactical, basically summed up as don’t do everything the Russians did. As for technology, it’s the versatility of cheap commercial drones and man-portable weapons anti-tank/anti-air weapons that have shone.

          • I worked on CR2 LEP (now the CR3 project) in 2016 for Rheinmetall, and the seperate elements of the LEP had been kicked around for many years before that [CLIP and CSP dates back to 2005].

          • We used to keep tanks (and other AFVs) up to date with regular upgrades and numerous small modifications. When the upgrades were significant we allocated a new Mark number. Informative to look at the Wiki entry for Chieftain to see how many Marks there were over its 30 years in service.

      • C4 designs! Are you being serious, where would we produce them?
        The MOD ensured the British tank manufacturing factories were closed down and the skilled workforce disbanded. After almost 100 years of loyal service. The future euro army plan was for the germans to produce all the tanks.

        Had we kept the factories ticking over. We could have easily supplied Ukraine with as many world beating tanks as the workers could produce. Utilising excess wartime capacity by working three shifts, around the clock. But now we can’t!

        The so-called peace dividend after the Cold War was a product of a myopic delusional political mindset. As if the 1991 Gulf War was not enough to tell them the world had suddenly became a much more dangerous place. The former soviet block, turning into a powder keg awaiting a spark.

    • I’m taking this news as a positive in which the CH3 will be expanded to a possible 199 tanks as Ben Wallace hinted of expanding the proposed CH3 fleet from the pitiful 148.

          • assuming all of the 227 are in a state that they can be upgraded and the hulls are still in reasonable repair. No idea on the 75, guess long gone.

          • The 75 still exist in one form or another – but being in civvy street their condition is unknown to us.

          • I guess then it just depends on how much of the original parts are needed to build on to make the 3s. I remember seeing a photo of some of the helicopters in deep storage at one point and all that was left was the metal shell, everything else had been used for spares.

      • Unless they find a way of stopping the personnel numbers dropping year by year, there’s no point building 199.

        148 is enough for the intended two regiments, plus attraction reserves, training, maintenance etc.

        I can forsee the Army bottoming out at 65,000 by 2030, lunless they can find a way of retaining and recruiting….

          • My Fantasy Fleet wishes for the army have always included a Brigade of Gurkhas that is fully deployable, not just an admin formation!
            It could almost be done now if the varied incremental companies and Squadrons in the CSS were pooled into regiments, but would need artillery, AD, and REME.

          • I very much like that idea! Gurkha units of course have their own integral (first line) REME support but would of course need second line support at brigade level.

      • As I self confessed armchair general/ admiral and Air marshal . I doubt 199 is near enough? An operational fleet of 300 with a good number in storage would make more sense.

    • I hope it is false and only the latest propaganda myth spread by the Orcs. We should not be giving away such a valuable resource. Every hull will be required for upgrading to Chally 3 standard before long. It’s cheaper than buying new MBTs from the US or god forbid, the Germans! Our only other real alternatives thanks to HM Gov MOD incompetence.

      When it comes to land warfare, two aircraft carriers with partial airwings. Are no substitute for armoured divisions equipped with state of the art main battle tanks, like Challenger 3. Either/or should not have been the choice. GB needs both a strong navy and army to defend our global interests. Had things been handled correctly, we would be responding to the realisation that the so-called peace dividend was a delusion. By placing orders with BAE Systems Elswick Works, for a production run of Challenger 3 tanks or more likely it’s successor. An optionally manned MBT with all manner of gizmos. Just think, we could be utilising the skills of a workforces with more than 100 years of producing armour. I’m not sure the current forklift factory GDUK in Wales could do the same job.

  2. That’s all well and good but what about our own fleet? Are we still planning on only having a pitiful 148 tanks in the British army? What a joke.

    • I’d expect in the budget and the review that we will not be mothballing the rest of the current fleet , hopefully increasing the amount and also in a ideal world increase of everything from Apaches through to sky sabre systems, am I right in thinking that this year we will have a f35 fleet of about 38 , along with hundred or so Typhoons, and the navy bucking their ideas up I think we will be in a good place,

    • I believe the thinking in government is that when the upgrade of Challenger 2 t Challenger 3 takes place there will now be an increase to more Challenger 3’s than originally planned. This is due to the fact that those in government circles have realised due ti the situation in Ukraine how important it is to have large numbers of tanks and Artillary in order to hit an enemy hard enough to push them out of the way.

    • No, that’s gotta be it. Leaves around 51 extra tanks to upgrade to C3 in a follow on deal for the army. Bare minimum it needs given the revised security picture.

      • No chance. There’s more chance of us giving the Ukraine the rest of the C2’s. While we’re at it we could give them the AS90’s and the Warrior’s. More use in the Ukraine.

        • No way should the UK Government denude the British Army of its main armour to fight a proxy war in Ukraine. The latter with the help of a majority of European countries and the US should be supplied with enough armour to keep the Russians behind their lines. A policy of emptying the UK’s arsenal for Ukraine would be a dangerous move and destabilise NATO’s core, it can’t be a strong organisation if it allows its respective cupboards to become bare. The answer is to place the European defence industry on a war-like footing and all countries signing up to increase weapon stocks in support of the Ukrainian front. Putin will keep poking and prodding Eastern Ukraine for as long as it takes to consolidate his current gains, so the conflict will continue, thus the need to establish a long-term war stock organisation under NATO control.

          • I would agree but the fact is the only major threat to the UK in which British armoured forces would be needed is from Russia. I would much prefer all these armoured vehicle destroying Russian vehicles and soldiers than sitting in some storage facility doing nowt.

          • What you propose is eliminating the army’s ability to fight peer or near peer opponents – our warfighting div would be ‘dead in the water’, you would have to pay huge cancellation charges to RBSL for abandonment of the CR3 programme – and SofS would have to ask the Treasury for tens of £bn to buy replacement equipment – guaranteed they would say ‘No’.
            The equivalent would be the Navy disposing of its 2 carriers and most of its escorts without replacement.

          • It’s more like our only naval adversary losing lots of its equipment fighting a friendly country and the U.K. gifting its 2 carriers as that could end the war and destroy almost all of the adversary’s naval power.
            Most of our allies have lots of carriers and can provide cover until the U.K. can rebuild a carrier fleet.
            It’s a not tricky comparing ships to tanks.

          • We have used our tanks a lot in the last 30 years – the army actually does warfighting, not just deterrence posture.

            I would be very nervous about losing all our tanks and renderig our one and only warfighting division inoperable.

            We would also have no tanks to feed into the CR3 programme.

          • The problem is that we have already denuded the army of it’s armour and what we have left is all up for replacement In eight years time we will have two brigades of C3’s so at the moment we have no armour to put into an armoured brigade. AS90 and Warrior are both due to be replaced so are of little use to us but would be a real boost in the arm for Ukraine.
            Putting the Europeans on to a co ordinated war production programme will take years if it happens at all and by then Putin might have won.

          • ‘Russian troops being sent into battle with shovels’
            Latest briefing MoD.
            There’s more chance of me winning Miss World than Russia winning the war.

          • You get my vote David, we’ve had quite enough of this sort of outmoded discrimination, it’s high time men were represented in Miss World too…😂😂

          • You could be very sexy to a certain audience? And with a plan to prevent world hunger……..

          • I get the feeling you’re sceptical of my chances. You haven’t seen me in a thong bikini.😯😳

          • That’s why we believe them, because they have been so accurate so far.

            Unlike yourself with your bigotry and daft political agenda.

          • We have sent just 6% of our in-service CR2s to Ukraine. We retain the rest for the three armoured regiments, trg org, repair pool and attrition reserve, but 148 of these feed into the CR3 programme. If UK went to war today we have all but 14 tanks that could be deployed (plus those few that have already gone to RBSL for the CR3 work). Don’t agree that at the moment we have no armour to put into the 2 armoured brigades.

            If we we sent all the Warriors to Ukraine this month, their Boxer replacements would not have arrived – we would be screwed. Same story for sending more AS90.

            Would ‘a Navy man’ advocate gifting both our carriers and most of the escorts if another nation needed them for warfighting now?

          • So we are going to “soldier on” for another eight years on top of the fifteen we have already wasted with a tank being refurbished, Warriors that were due for replacement ten years ago, obsolete AS90’s, Ajax that won’t finish trials until after the next election (handy) and not a Boxer in site.
            My main argument though Graham is that we should help stop the war in Europe with all we can sensibly supply and then pick a timescale in which we can pick and fund what we want and then get on with it.
            As for my naval connections the answer to your question is of course no, I wouldn’t because the navy is building up with new equipment, although my thoughts on the F35 and other shortages are well enough known I think. Having said that if decommissioning T23’s were of use to the Ukraine I would supply them.

          • Thanks Geoff. We are soldiering on as you say, in a most unsatisfactory way. CR2 is now 25 years on from its ISD – it should have been upgraded 10-15 years ago. So many army fails in both procurement and upgrades.
            I agee that we should send far more CR2s – at least a UKR tank battalion of 31 plus attrition reserves – bare minimum – and send some Warriors. We do need to feed 148 CR2s into the CR3 line, slow that this process may be.

          • Got to disagree mate, they were designed to fight Russians, overseas, in Germany using Brit crews. Now they will fight Russians, overseas, in Ukraine, using Ukrainian crews. Don’t see much of a deviation from original planning concepts. Cheers.

          • The Russian economy is rapidly moving towards a war footing. They are fortunately hampered by sanctions. Once they have viable work arounds you can bet tank and IFV output will increase. They just need tech supplies from China, North Korea (what a joke) possibly even India (on the quiet) .
            The UK needs to think laterally. Approach Jordan for their C1s and Oman for their C2s. Bring them all back to the UK. Revamp the C1s and send to Ukraine. Retain the C2s and upgrade as many as possible to C3 standard, including fitting all of them with Trophy APS.

          • Jordan can revamp the CR1s at the KADDB – not sure we have a location for this, and we have no CR1 spares, but Jordan will have some.

            Amazed no-one has suggested this to Jordan yet – time is running out. We should give them the suggestion and the money to do the revamp.

          • If the tanks were all to sent to Ukraine, which could be done, we could ask the Americans for a loan or purchase of 150 Abrams for 10 years until challenger 3 is ready. Put the challenger 3 turret on a new build challenger chassis or a foreign chassis upgraded with armour.

          • We looked at and rejected Abrams years ago as it is maintenence intensive and very fuel inefficient and hence very costly to operate.
            The Challenger 3 programme is up and running and needs a steady supply of CR2s to be fed in. It is not configured or costed to build 148 new or different hulls.

          • Think Defence on twitter today has a very interesting discussion on the viability of new UK Tank production – ATM there is no requirement or need for any new builds but from what i have read we have just enough means ( for now ) should a very unlikely need arise to produce new.

          • The remanufacture of CR2s into the CR3 build standard requires reasonably sophisticated facilities, which RBSL have at Telford, but maufacture of new tanks requires more sophisticated facilities which I do not think we now have.
            Of course we shall build new tanks (even if under licence) when the time comes to replace CR3 – its not an unlikely occurence, but its not going to be for many years time.

          • Any problems with that?
            We would have to pay RBSL £hundreds of millions in cancellation charges of the CR3 programme, then have to ask the Treasury for £billions to buy the Leo2s including spares packs, special tools and test equipment, training aids, CES, simulators etc etc.
            ..and there is a sneaking suspicion that the Leos will have less armour protection that the CR2s – quite a few have been lost in combat unlike CR2.
            We would have a hiatus of zero capability of our warfighting division while we got the Leo2s delivered and the RAC and REME reconfigured to a totally different tank fleet.

          • Can we just give this Leo 2 love in a rest🙄the Germans themselves are looking at replacements for their own fleet! Their sights are obviously at the moment superior but the armour is still not up to the standard of Chobham/ Dorchester.All upgrades are on hulls that are actually older than CR2! So PLEASE give it a rest!!

          • But C3 will be superior to L2s and how many new L2s can we purchase for the £800 million C3 upgrade cost. Not many. RUSI investigated this and gave a £4 billion figure for a comparable new L2 fleet. Including spares. Not going to happen. Much cheaper and dare I say it better to get as many C2s as possible upgraded to C3 standard.

          • Likewise. There is, or was, an argument for this but too late now I think. The problem once again though is the painfully long time it takes us to do anything. We are looking at two small brigades plus a reserve in 2030. Ridiculous.

          • Whilst the CH3 program is ahead of schedule and on budget it has only just reached prototype stage.

            So the idea of a sudden CH3 upgrade being rolled out is unlikely as this would reduce the number of operational tanks.

            Now this could be offset by a deal with the Omani’s and certainly buying their ammunition stockpile would make a lot of sense. I’d also advocate buying all their hills so we can donate another 14 to Ukraine and upgrade a large number for attrition reserve and war stock.

          • Agree the fact we haven’t already done this is crazy. Omani C2s should be purchased under UOR and returned to UK asap. Then ask Jordan for all the remaining C1s. Bring as many as possible back to the UK. Revamp them and gift those to Ukraine.
            The Ukrainian soldiers training on C2 apparently are very impressed and looking forward to metering out some justice on the battlefield.

          • Supportive. I did say revamp the C1s to make them fit for purpose. So yes new electronics, sights, hunter killer commander periscopes, perhaps reactive armour, perhaps an automatic HMG on the roof for anti drone work. so a proposed thorough upgrade before deploying to Ukraine. Will take months but the C1s aren’t for now, they would be for 2024 onwards.

          • Why?

            If the war is still going on then I shudder to think of the death toll.

            Nope better to give the Ukranians better kit to finish the job off faster.

          • We are very close militarily with Oman.
            They are replacing the CH2s with K2 Black Panthers.
            Nobody else will buy CH2s because Oman was our only export.
            If Oman refused a request by the UK to buy their CH2 fleet and ammo stockpile I would be very surprised.

          • I doubt we could revamp CR1s in the UK – who could do this and where? The Jordanians have CR1 spares and should revamp at KADDB – but someone needs to ask them and provide the money.
            Recognise that CR1s are very old tanks and difficult to support, however Leo1s are going so maybe its an option.

          • I agree.

            Trying to do something with the CH1’s is a lot taller order than the Omani CH2’s – at least we are trying to do roughly the same thing with the same thing.

            I’d be surprised if we hadn’t offered to buy the Omani ammo stocks for Ukraine.

        • That’s correct but we will have 3’s and I suspect more than 148. The 3’s will not be ready for action for a while yet anyway – they haven’t yet started the work on them.

        • M wrote:

          “”No CH3’s will go to Ukraine in my estimation.””

          Well seeing as Chally 3 isnt meant to come on line until 2030, I hope not

        • No ch3 will exist during the war. They are several years off and it’s unlikely either side has the man power to continue for that long.

        • I think Boris was replying to Jason’s comment “That’s all well and good but what about our own fleet? Are we still planning on only having a pitiful 148 tanks in the British army? What a joke”. I hope Boris is right and that the increase isn’t just a token half a dozen …. or dozen even. I’d like to see the C3 numbers hit the 200 mark, minimum …. or whatever number makes an appropriate number for ….. an extra brigade?

          • The UK’s MBT crisis has been highlighted on this site endless times and I believe the UK could have avoided the issue by retaining at least 60% of CH1s as a war reserve. However, at the time of the introduction of the CH2, a load of old hogwash was being spouted about the imminent demise of the MBT. The Treasury jumped on this nonsense and sold off the CH1 on the premise that MBTs were a dying breed. The same daft theories were being banded about Europe too, also leading to smaller MBT fleets. Today, the MBT doubters continue to talk nonsense saying that the wholesale destruction of Russian armour reduces our requirement to build more than the 148 CH3. You really could not write this stuff.

          • We do not keep obsolete equipment – we sell it, gift it or scrap it – as quickly as possible. Reasons – the Treasury wants any sales receipts, it costs too much to store and maintain old tanks, storage space is very limited, there is no-one to crew and maintain such tanks if they are reactivated.

            MoD (not HM Treasury) sold CR1s to Jordan in 1999-2002 due to the above, not because of any debate about the future of the tank but because its successor CR2 had arrived and had been fielded!

            We have war reserve CR2s.

            The figure of 148 was set by contract in May 2021, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

          • Storage space is not limited as there are many UK bases that could accommodate a few hundred MBTs it’s the humidity facilities that cost money. The debate was afoot at the time of CH2 introduction hence the decision not to buy more than 400 CH2. Even CH1 numbers were reduced based on the thinking that the Chieftain fleet was too large for UK purposes in the future. The CH1 would be an ideal tank for the Ukrainians and we could have retained all CH2s for an upgrade program. As for CH2 war reserve that was underestimated and based on the unlikelihood that there would be no more tank battles on European soil, so much for that nonsense. The whole post-Chieftain thinking has been PANTS, thus leading to the pathetic state of play we have today.

          • We need at least 350 – 400 MBTs to allow for total replacement and major repair in times of serious full-on combat two support 3 regiments. That is why we really need to lift the attrition numbers. It will be interesting to see how many CH2s get damaged?

          • Until a month ago we had 227 tanks to equip three armoured regiments, and to provide tanks to the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve – yet you want 350-400?

            Also, do you realise that we are coming down to 2 regiments under FS?

    • Jason, what would we do with more tanks? They are really for use in open areas. Ukraine is ideal for tanks, country is like France and half of Germany together. Flat as a pancake. It’s good that we “keep our hand in” with the technology. To do any fighting with them they have to be transported over water. We must keep the manufacturing ability.

    • Yes but who are our pitiful tank regiments facing who is our immediate potential foe?
      Well if the answer is Russia the best thing we could do is give them to Ukraine and let them annihilate the Russians. Job done! Apart from which the tactics in warfare are developing and soon a few frontline tanks will be able to direct weaponry fired from afar onto targets that have been identified by data linked drone surveillance. Thus making those tanks 20 times more effective. The days of firing 100,000 shells and hitting nothing of military significance are long gone.

      • Our potential foe is more than Russia. There are a significant number of states who are lining up to be future worry spots, so no drawdown in our defence planning for the UK homeland.

        • Yes but they are more a worry for the international community than a direct threat to Britain or Europe. If we can deploy a division to such operations that’s more than enough. If every NATO member our size could deploy a Division then NATO would have a pretty massive force when combined with USA.

          • Sadly Jim, any international threat is the UK’s problem as we go arm-in-arm with the USA. Our forces are now so intertwined that we are considered a prime enemy simply by association. All the key potential foes are in our sights. So, no Ukraine is not our sole issue going forward in deployment terms.

          • The UK could not deploy a division anywhere other than in the UK. It’s the cold hard truth.

          • You wouldn’t recognise the truth even if it bitch-slapped your stupid face 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • The cold hard truth is that your parents were brother and sister.

            Did you call them “Auntie Mum” and “Uncle Dad?”

          • I still think it is quite a modest ambition for the UK to field just one warfighting division, when we are the 4th biggest defence spender in the world.

          • Not that blasted island argument again Andy M. Since WW2 we have used our heavy armour numerous times abroad and the MOD does not concentrate solely on UK mainland defence when buying new tanks. We are after all a big international player.

          • Let me correct that for you.

            ‘The MOD has studious ignored UK mainland defence since the 1980’s with no worthwhile AAW missile system in place’

            That said, I can’t see anyone trying to come ashore in landing craft.

            There FIFY

          • We live on an Island that is reliant on imports. Without those imports society would collapse and millions would starve to death. As a country, the UK needs to be able to project power around the world to support our allies. With whatever means are necessary to ensure the continuation of those imports.

          • Are you suggesting disbanding the army?
            We have almost always used our army in expeditionary operations, usually with alliance partners. Our island status does not mean we just need a tiny Home Defence force.

        • Agreed mate, but, those countries are a very long troop transport ship away, and that heavy armour will have to go by boat. We face no localised threat to the UK, which would necessitate heavy armoured brigades on our shores! Better they are stationed overseas, either preparing for, or being used in combat, to reduce the capability of our current “threat”! Heavy armour is essential (and I say that as a light role soldier) but the UK should concentrate on its strengths, those being SF, RN, RFA, STA, intelligence and surveillance, flank protection, Heavy lift, SH force and raiding. The Army needs sorting out big time, reduce light role Bns, increase CS, CSS, depth fire, smart/loitering munitions and AD! But, alas not enough cash or will to go around after 20 years (or so) of neglect and Counter Insurgency planning/thinking/equipping! Cheers.

          • This war has made it clear that tanks are very vulnerable and have seen better days.

          • Not at all! Well handled tanks, with up to date active/passive defensive systems, in a well trained combined arms force, are an essential and kinetic battle winner!

          • Tanks have always been vulnerable. No tank in history has ever been impervious to enemy fire.

            No. This war has made it clear that tanks should be used as part of a combined-arms approach with infantry, artillery and air power.

          • If tanks are vulnerable are you suggesting we scrap them (tell that to Ukraine army who desperately want more). If you scrap them why not scrap everything else with lower levels of protection as they are clearly more vulnerable. You end up dismantling the entire army!

            Carry that logic to the navy – we lost frigates and destroyers and RFA ships damaged or destroyed in the Falklands conflict – the navy did not then scrap frigates and destroyers.

          • Airborne, I’d actually say that in the NATO context our major strength in addition to this is Divisional Scale warfighting. We are the ONLY NATO Army in Europe who has conducted Divisional warfighting for real since WW2. And we have done that within professional memory. That is of huge value to NATO. Only the French Army come close in experience of actually running operations and they tend to work at Bde level.

          • Poppycock. What senior officer has experience of fighting a Div scale war?

            Please take note of my grammar.

          • Well, my first OC is currently a 2* and was an SO2 in the Div HQ in 2003. I know multiple officers who were staff officers in RC S when we had British Div HQs running those operations.

          • Exactly, having been a junior officer does really equate with having the experience to fight a Div., does it?

          • But the point is, they have experienced it. All of the training, experience and experimentation (and institutional knowledge) reflects that. My point was that that isn’t replicated anywhere else outside the US within NATO. That is valuable.

            Moreover you can get back in the rest of those HQs from retirement to talk to them and learn what they did. That’s the the HQ equivalent of bringing in the Falklands vet to talk to the Crow about the reality of war,

          • Agreed however that single Division has no real depth or balanced BCTs, with CS and CSS. Agreed we do need an element of heavy armour, and personally I would reinstate that Division back to the rule of three. But, we are where we are, and as if this moment our strengths are still the values and quite rare assets as mentioned above. No matter what is said our people are pretty much the best, most experienced, professional and adaptable and NATO do know this. Also Bob, as you know, we don’t mind getting into a fight and will accept losses, something which many European countries won’t! 👍 cheers.

        • Not really so sure on that. Plenty that may cause issues to the US dominance, but not many that will cause any serious issues to the UK, whos economy and trade is very much linked to the EU and the US, very little of our trade involves anywhere else (less than a 1/7th comes from anyway else combined). Securing European security by running down Russia should be our only priority right now.

      • Our tank foes in the past have included the Egyptian army, Serbian army, Iraqi army (twice) etc. Very blinkered to just focus on Russia.

    • Mate we getting the challenge 3 tanks next year in service what are a update to the challenge 2 tanks what will make the challenge 3 tanks best in the world.

    • From an equipment point of view it might be better to gift items which will allow the Ukraine to finish the job. For each tank we give they may get 10 more from other nations. Let’s face it we need to completely rebuild the Army & Ukraine has highlighted the need to have tanks to take back territory & for that certain kit is needed. Previously the post cold war role for the Army was a little unclear. Perhaps it is clearer now.

      • Well said, Mark. Like many others, I bought the hype that the day of the tank is over. How wrong we all were.

        • The tank and heavy armour are far from over. There is no other weaponry that enables a military to take and hold ground. In the 100+ years of tank development the armoured vehicles have gone through perhaps a dozen cycles of refinement in response to improved defensive and attacking measures. This is just another phase.
          Top attack weapons make Russian tanks eject their turrets. Hopefully same won’t occur in Western tanks due to blow out panels in rear turret.
          Then there is APS how those technologies will improve tank survivability is unknown. Could be a game changer.
          My advice would be to upgrade every C2 we can get our hands on with Trophy and hold onto as many as possible 200+ ideally. Purchase the Omani C2s.

      • We need to supply 148 CR2s to RBSL for the CR3 programme.

        I served in the army in the Cold War and for nearly two decades after – not sure I was ever puzzled as to what the army’s role was post-1991.

        • Gorbachev presented the west with an opportunity which slipped through our fingers. With the right support and inducements, and a touch of hindsight, all the warsaw pact countries including Russia would have become modern democracies & NATO members. Alternatively autocracy could have bounced back across eastern europe ,with modernised kit, leading to a greater threat. The instinct in the UK was to reduce military spending alrough it seemed sensible to modernise the RN and the RAF (lower numbers obviously) but would we be expecting any land battles in Europe & if so would the UK be wanted or needed in that defence. It rather depended on what happened as Eastern European Countries emerged into democracies if indeed they did.

          • Good points. But the UK has always been committed to defence of neighbouring Continental Europe – WW1 and WW2 are strong examples of this. In the NATO era we commit to defending the Euro-Atlantic area with allies, and that includes the commitment of land forces.

          • Absolutely. The difficulty for NATO countries at that point when the warsaw pact was disintegrating & the populations of those countries were installing democracy was how do we want to be seen. Vigilant maybe, but perhaps not building up our forces. As time progressed eastern bloc countries pushed to become members of NATO. Should Gorbachev have retained control of Russia it is plausable that they might have disarmed (Nuclear etc.) and become NATO members as well and Britain might have been helping defend the NATO border with China. The point being NATO was not looking to rock the boat or look agressive as people seized power in their own countries.

          • Difficult to believe that Gorbachev would have disarmed and apply to join NATO. Gorbachev wanted to retain the USSR but to reform it, and improve relations with the West, whilst keeping the Communist system.

          • Mikhail Gorbachev Reflects on Reykjavik & Status of Nuclear Weapons Today – YouTube

            Although I got the same impression as you at the time it would appear Gorbachev saw it as a simple solution however Reagan & Thatcher were not so keen for obvious reasons. Also there is china to consider.

            I totally agree that Gorbachev was a committed communist and conseqently out of touch with the population but he clearly was not the autocrat which would be necessary to pursue such a failed system.

      • Hi Jason,
        We need 30 tanks in Estonia as part of eFP.
        We need to be able to deploy 3 (UK) Div on any NATO or other Alliance warfighting deployment – we have assigned that Div (and more) to NATO – we need to also maintain an Attrition Reserve in case that happens.
        We need to continue to feed in 148 tanks in batches to RBSL for conversion to CR3.
        We need to continue to have tanks in the Training Organisation so that tank crews and maintainers (REME) can be trained in operating and maintaining tanks.
        We are sending 14 tanks to Ukraine this month, and they may ask us for more.

    • The army’s in a never ending slow contraction anyway, smaller by the year, so before long we couldn’t properly mann three Armoured regiments anyway.

      The war against Russia is being fought in Ukraine, here and now, so send the CH2’s there, no point them gathering dust here in the UK, slowly being scavenged for parts to keep the rest wheezing on…

      • We are rummaging around for MBTs because we don’t have enough in humidity storage. The notion that we don’t need our CH2’s is simply crass thinking. Britain has a MBT crisis at the moment with too few to share around, and if we had retained 60% of the CH1 fleet we would have been in a better position to offer many more tanks without drawing down on our limited CH2 stocks. Storing heavy armour is relatively cheap but the Treasury mindset is any replaced kit should be cast!😚

        • I agree with you Maurice, but the reality is the Army continues to contract and those that stalk the carpeted corridors of Whitehall have decided to simply reduce structure to fit in with the falling numbers and spin it as positive news!

          Reducing Armour to neche capabilities is part of that process. I dare say if they carry on the same course, MBT capability will disappear completely when CH3 goes.

          With 2 Armoured regiments, they have come close to getting shot, one final push….

          If any money is forthcoming, they have to turn round the declining numbers as No1 priority, then rebuild capability.

          • The size of the army is a political decision, not a MoD one. The army has contracted once or twice every single decade since the end of the Korean War in 1953. MoD shapes the army structure to suit revised numbers and other factors, such as doctrine, threat assessment etc. I have never seen army numbers cuts as positive news.

            I think there is very little chance of disapperance of MBT capability when CR3 reaches OSD in the 2040s, although a crystal ball may be needed to be sure.

            I think a single Warfighting division is a fairly low bar for a country which is the 4th biggest spender on Defence in the world (source is SIPRI 2022 fact sheet) even when bolstered by other components such as the ‘Regeneration div’ and 16 AA Bde, SF etc etc.

            Options for Change (1990) set the post Cold War army at 120,000 regulars folowing very careful analysis – there has been no reduction in threat or tasks since then.

          • I totally agree Graham, yet the army continues to contract via under par recruitment and the inability to retain folks.

            As the numbers fall (and in the absence of joined up thinking of investment and sensible procurement to combat it) there really isn’t any choice but to constantly fold the edges in and try to make it work.

            The constant spin and “Future Soldier” type programmes are nothing more than deflection.

            I know a few guys offered permanent secondment to the AR, after periods of selective engagement.

            Both systems have certainly helped retain people with specific skill sets they don’t want to loose, but only used on a relatively small scale.

            I don’t share your optimism re MBT’s Graham, unless the review turns round the loss of the third Armoured regiment, then MBT’s are slowly, but effectively being written out of the play.

            The next review will be telling.

            Absolutely, in an ideal world the Army would be 115, 000 with the new Army reserve model.

            I doubt you would find enough youngsters to attain that number today unfortunately.

          • I don’t share your pessimism about the demise of the tank. Ask the Ukrainians if they want to see the end of the tank in their Orbat!
            For as long as our potential opponents have tanks, we must have them.
            If there is another way to do what a tank can do, I would be interested to hear it.

        • What is the MBT crisis? We had 227 CR2s, now less 14 ie 213.
          We are gifting just 6% of our in-service fleet to Ukraine.

          148 of those 213 are being upgraded to CR3. I agree that it would be better if we retained the third regiment and converted all 213 tanks to CR3.

          We sold CR1s as they were Obsolete and were replaced by CR2. We don’t keep obsolete kit for very obvious reasons. Just one reasons is that storing heavy armour and maintaining it is very expensive and we don’t have much storage space.

      • FS reduces the army to two armoured regiments, with KRH losing its tanks.
        If you send all the CR2s to Ukraine, how do you feed the RBSL CR3 line?

        • I would suggest we cancel CH3 and replace the 148 with an off the shelf option to be honest Graham and feed the lot to Ukraine as we re-equip…

          They might as well be in the hands of people who will use them right now for their intended purpose of repelling the Russians back across their boarders.

          • You do realise how expensive that would be don’t you? Cancelling existing contracts and then trying to negotiate for a complete new weapons system would cost £x bns!

          • Slightly flippant remark on my part Jacko, but is CH3 under full contract yet?

            If the Ukrainians had a substantial number of CH2 and Leap they could quite literally bulldoze the Russians back over the boarder and theirs little they could do to stop it…

            Think 21st Century Marshall plan….

          • Ok mate no bother, yes CR 3 is going ahead now and noises about an increased No hopefully👍

          • The thing is Graham, we actually use those a lot.

            Ok slightly flippant remark by me re the CH2’s, but, the Ukrainians will actually use them to bring the hammer down, right now, when that hammer needs dropping!

          • Yes we use a few Typhoons – 4 in FI on QRA, 4 in GB on QRA and 4 on air policing in Eastern Europe.

            We have used our tanks a lot in warfighting over the last 30 years, but of course the Ukrainians will use their 14 CR2s a great deal in a short space of time.

    • Ben Wallace intimated some weeks ago that he might consider increasing numbers above 148 [that would equip the 2 regiments in ‘Future Soldier’].

  3. Leading the way with Ukraine in terms of being the first to deliver different weapon systems as well as the second largest contributor of military aid is doing far more for our soft power than any royal yacht could ever do. This is brilliant and needs to continue. I just hope Rishi sees sense and increases the defence budget.

  4. How many Challengers do we as a nation have left?? Whilst I actively support giving Ukraine all the help it needs, it’s become obvious that 148 Challeger 3s is no where near enough……..

      • Fine it odd the USA don’t have any M60s about in storage ,would of thought plenty in US military Reserve .Ok there old and I believe only 105mm gun but still all helps .Not read or seen anything about these Tanks 🤔

        • They have plenty of M1 Abrams in storage but seem reluctant to release them, possibly because they all have classified DU armour. It seems they are remanufacturing 31 Abrams but with conventional armour.

          M60s sound ancient but many seem to like the M60A3 – a 105mm cannon is archaic – we have not used them since the Centurion era. However Germany is sending some Leo1s which are also very old and also have a 105mm (a British L7, as it happens).

  7. Like most folks I think the numbers of intended CR3 is way too few for a meaningful Heavy Tank force. Even if every single hull was upgraded I still think it would be too few, and then what do we do ?
    To be perfectly honest I think we have also run our own industrial base down so far that CR3 is only delaying the inevitable. The next MBT will either be off the shelf or a collaboration not a U.K own build.
    On the other hand let’s be realistic if we send every single one we can spare and support other than those 148, is that such a bad idea ?
    The way Ukraine is going they may use these Tanks to degrade Russia so far it will not be any threat for a very long time, if ever.
    This could just be a very holistic approach to Defence.

    • Well BAE & Rheimetall have that joint factory in Telford turning out Boxer, so perhaps the factory could be expanded to turn out the new Panther as well?

        • Does it not make any hulls?
          If so we aren’t really making any armoured vehicles given Ajax hulls are coming from Spain.
          Glad to see Supacat line still open and hopefully when (if) MRVP is restarted they’ll put forward a good proposal as I quite like Jackal.

          • The Boxer drive hulls are made in Stockport by WEFL, a KMW subsidiary, while the functional modules are made in Telford by RBSL.

            Except for the Boxers that are being imported from Germany to kick start the process.

          • We are not making any tracked AFVs from scratch now. I understand that the facilities we have in the UK at GDUK (Ajax family) and RBSL (CR3) are simply Assembly Halls, not ‘tank factories’.

      • Panther? Where did that idea come from. RBSL is building 148 CR3s from CR2s at Telford. There is no money to buy Rheinmetall Panther tanks as well – and no-one who could crew and maintain them in service.

      • That factory is also busy converting CR2 to CR3. Doubt they have much more space to churn out Panther – anyway the Telford site is not a true tank factory – it is just an assembly hall, as I understand it.

    • With the 14 tanks gifted to Ukraine we now have 213 tanks on the active list.
      That is just sufficient for us to retain the three armoured regiments.

      We need to feed 148 CR2s to feed the CR3 line, or more if Ben Wallace uplifts that fugure.

    • We have 213 tanks on the active list, allowing for the 14 to UA. If we upgraded all 213, then that would be enough for the three regiments we have today – but we are coming down to two regiments so 213 would be too many.

      Many others have suggesting sending all our tanks – your idea of sending all less the 148 needed for the CR3 conversion is different. It would mean losing the third regt earlier than planned – and there may be other implications.

      • I just think that we have depleted too far to have a credible force for the the foreseeable future. But if we take a deep breath and step back and do a realistic risk assessment we may have an opportunity.
        If we use more of what we have now but know it isn’t really going to be upgraded then whilst it is usable we degrade the risk.
        If we accept that 148 will suffice as a stopgap to maintain our armoured expertise whilst we rebuild for a future uplift, Then we really supporti the UA CR2’s to degrade any immediate threat then to me that makes sense.
        I know it sounds brutal to equip the UA rather than keep them for ourselves but the fact is we have degraded our force so far it isn’t a credible force. So buy time and rebuild properly.

        • We have declared an ‘armoured division’ to NATO (and other assets) – and must be able to commit that if required, with all its tanks.
          We must also feed 148 tanks into the CR3 production line. Those are the realities.
          There is scope for some more CR2s to go to UA but not most/all of the fleet, as some have called out for.

  8. “there is no longer any need to maintain such weapons in other word save money” On the contrary, working on the reasonable assumption that none of these vehicles will be returning, the tanks will need to be replaced, the capital cost of which far outweighs the revenue cost of maintenance of the existing fleet.

    Looking on the bright side, it at least holds open the opportunity to maintain or grow our manufacturing base, so long as we don’t go shopping for the replacements overseas!

  9. Very nice, but what about spare parts in the pipeline?
    From my limited understanding, most western armies have been cannibalizing their “tanks in reserves” for spare parts for the remaining active duty tanks since most tank production lines have been shut down many years ago. Just recently Poland has been complaining about lack of available Leo 2 spare parts, and the Leo tanks is still in production, unlike Challenger 2, Leclerc or Ariete.

    • Cannibalisation is the last resort and reflects a quite desperate Obsolescence Management plan. But it happens.

  10. I have so little faith in this government and defence spending that it would not surprise me if we donated them all just so we dont have so spend money upgrading them.

    • So right you are, the fewer the hulls, the fewer that are left to be converted to CH3.
      He’s probably thinking that we can go down from 148 CH3 and cut cost on the already paltry 800 million…
      It’s just a win/win really, if we can bring the numbers down we can also cut the troop numbers again too! Bingo!
      It’s a no brainer really, who needs defence these days? And besides, Boris said future wars would be fought on the internet and in space….

      • 148 CR3 is the minimum for a structure with two armoured regiments; with only a small Attrition Reserve, once Repair Pool and Trg Org tanks are considered.There is no way to have less than 148. Ben Wallace seems minded to consider some increase above 148.

  11. This is a reasonable number that will give an accurate assessment of the abilities of the Chally design gainst soviet and other Western tanks, I hope we are sending a suitable number of recovery wagon to ensure any damaged are recovered for repair and the latest charm rounds for the main gun as well as hesh. To replace these vehicles the UK should buy back those from Oman including all spares ammo and recovery vehicles as they are going to use lectern

    • “ I hope we are sending a suitable number of recovery wagon to ensure any damaged are recovered for repair”

      Yes this was announced in the first package.

      “ To replace these vehicles the UK should buy back those from Oman including all spares ammo and recovery vehicles”

      I agree

      • Doubling the number of tanks should do the same for the recovery wagons, also heard AS90 being increased to 32

          • Others say that we have 89 AS90s are in service, although we had 117 in service in 2015, according to the CFE Treaty.
            Assuming the 89 figure, I would expect that about 60-65 could be serviceable, rising to about 80 after a short (2 days) period of concerted maintenance activity.

      • Would be willing to bet that Big Ben has representatives exploring Omani option, as well as making a detailed evaluation of the proportion of the delta between active inventory (227) and original purchase (386) which is is salvageable, albeit w/ additional investment. He is too accomplished a manager to not cover the obvious options. The real tragedy is that he may be FIGMO by autumn. Wonder if he would be up for retaining his daytime gig and serving as NATO Secretary General nights, weekends and holidays? Who needs sleep or a life? 🤔😳😉😁

    • Aren’t you assuming Oman wants to sell them ? Besides which as they were our only export customer it may just be slightly embarressing if they then go and buy Leclercs or something with our money.

        • They have announced they are retiring Chally anyway.

          So either we buy them back or they end up on the open market – but with the odd ammo I can’t see anyone wanting them?

      • Not embarrassing at all given the Challenger is no-longer in production so we’re not try to sell an export model…
        The Leclercs aren’t in production either so unlikely they’d buy them.

    • I consider 14 tanks to be a very paltry figure for gifting to Ukraine.
      We are sending two CRARRVs but there have been no details yet provided of the totality of first and second line EME support that we are (or should be) supplying.

      14 tanks is only 6% of our active fleet. 2 CRARRVs is barely 3% of our CRARRV fleet. There is no real need to replace them from Oman stocks.

      • Graham , my point is if we can get the Oman tanks spares and ammo at a bargain price why would we not take advantage of that

        • CR2 has limited service life left – as CR3s start to roll out in 2027 (IOC).
          I doubt we need more CR2s as complete, working tanks.
          CR2 spares we can get from the manufacturer (if still made) or the hanger queens (of which there are many) at Ashchurch.
          Ammunition – maybe.

  12. I agree that the time is fast approaching where we need to be collaborating for a Challenger replacement beyond Challenger 3. Even with 148 Challenger 3’s in the future that will never be the actual number that can be actively put into the front line. A number of these will be placed into storage, some used for spare parts, lack of ammunition, crew shortage will result in actual hull numbers being far below.

    • I think industrial collaboration is well under way and the purchasing climate with respect to buying home produced has changed. Hostilities between the MOD and BAE have ceased.
      https://rbsl.com/

      • Not sure what your comment about purchasing home produced means – how has the climate changed?

        I am glad that hostilites have ceased between MoD and BAE – it resulted in MoD turning to GDUK for Ajax.

        • Just a feeling, and taking note of several value for money and badly needed buys e.g. NSM and upgrades to M270.
          Might be ‘the Wallace factor’. Regarding Ajax and GDUK my reading of this saga is that it is a learning experience for the MOD – sort of travel broadens the mind without travelling. BAE seem to have no trouble getting business in the US.

          • It was such a disastrous move to not buy the CV90 recce variant from BAE and to instead select a company that barely existed, who had never made an AFV before and would do so in the corner of a Fork Lift Truck factory – you couldn’t make it up.
            I worked with BAE at Abbeywood and used BAE products in my army days – never really had an issue.

          • Hi Graham, GDUK, Babcock and now Boeing partnering with Airbus to bid for Puma replacement seem to me, all to be evidence of the MOD policy not to rely on BAE.
            The CV90 ship has sailed and it looks like Ajax is going to work. Bit of a let off.
            It’s a case of welcome to the new world. cheers.

          • BAE is surely not still ‘on the naughty step’, if ever they were. They still have a lot of MoD work, including submarine work. They are building CR3 (with Rheinmetall).
            Yes, Ajax will work – GDUK have fitted some better seat cushions and improved the headsets – actually not a joke, that’s true!

    • The UK has Observer status on the Franco-German future MBT project – “Main Ground Combat System”.

      Of the 148 CR3s, 112 will be in the Field Force (two Type 56 armoured regiments) and the remainder will be split between the Trg Org, Repair Pool (in storage) and Attrition Reserve (in storage). None at the outset will be broken for spare parts!
      The Equipment Support Manager will have an obsolescence plan – small numbers of stored equipment are only cannibalised after many years have elapsed and if no other obsolescence strategies still work out.

  13. Good. It comes to something when a Guardian journalist wants more action and flat out war on Russia to completely defeat Putin in the Ukraine. I would send as many as the Ukrainians request.

    As for our tank inventory, where would we be fighting on our own where a large tank force would useful or relevant?

    Tanks grew out of imaginative thinking in this island. We need more such fresh ideas not flog old ones to death.

    • Before 1982, did the UK think it would fight Argentina? Before 1990 did the UK think it would fight Iraq? Before 2001, did the UK think it would have a major force in Afghanistan for a decade? Before 2014, did the UK think it would be giving major military aid to Ukraine? The unexpected has a bad habit of happening.

      • Falklands. Scimitar light tanks of limited usefulness I understand. Iraq. The U.S. provide much more armoured clout and had they not gone in neither would have we. Afghanistan. Not optimal for tanks, but again, allies fighting alongside has any if needed. I ask again: What are the feasible circumstances where the army would require a Cold War era number of tanks if any?

        • I’d agree with where you’re coming from.

          I’ve said for a while that a more mobile platform would make more sense for the UK. Something like the Japanese Type 16 or the Italian Centaro. Maybe even a Boxer variant.

          Means you could have the wheeled platforms working together for a faster, more mobile and more easily deployable strike option. Then have the CH3’s working with the other heavier tracked platforms where the extra armour is needed.

          • My somewhat controversial ideas to many here I think, would be to hone our armed forces into a very agile intervention force exploiting a growing number of technologies with inherent flexibility to meet our national interests, not one hammer looking only for nails to hit. We shouldn’t attempt to do everything – that is not very clever. Our objectives must be clear and the kind of support we can offer to close allies unsurpassed. However, the greatest threat to our values today is internal not external..

          • I would be quite happy to have a split tank force. A lighter, easily deployable medium tank, for example the K21-105. Anything not exceeding 32 tons, so it can go by A400M in an emergency. However, you also need a heavier tank, able to slug it out (C3, Abrams X, Panther). I am always dubious, when people claim to know the future. It is unknowable. So it is wise to spread your bets.

          • It is very inefficient to deploy one tank per A400M. 56 sorties to deploy one armoured regiment of tanks. Thats why we use ships to deploy quantities of vehicles, be they tanks or trucks.

          • You would not choose to send a large tank force, thousands of miles by air. However, a small pre-emptive force to deter the invasion of an ally is a possibility. As is sending your armour by sea to the nearest friendly port, then airlifting them the last hundred miles over hostile territory to the safe haven you are protecting. Also replacing damaged/destroyed vehicles quickly.

          • I don’t believe we have ever done a short tactical hop of multiple armoured vehicles in-Theatre. We use HETs and protect the convoy.

          • We do attempt to do nearly everything. The only example I can think of where we have dropped a capability completely is strategic bombers in the early 80s.
            You suggest we drop the ‘heavy metal’ side of the army. It is a modest aim for a country that is the 4th biggest spender on Defence in the world, to field a single digitised ‘armoured’ division (plus the other capabilities).

          • I doubt money could be found for having ‘wheeled tanks’ in addition to the CR3s. Who would crew them when FS has reduced the structure to just the two Chally regiments?

          • True, the armed forces have bigger issues currently than trying to procure a new type of vehicle. But, we are already buying an armoured wheeled platform with a 105mm turreted module option.

            Manpower is always going to be the problem. Especially when we talk about ideas, like more ships or submarines for the RN. Where are the crew coming from?

            Maybe we shouldn’t lose re-role the third Challenger regiment to Ajax and instead, increase the Boxer order and include the 105mm modules and re-equip them with those instead.

          • We are woefully short of artillery and need to replace the 105mm Light Gun, probably introduce a 155mm towed gun, replace AS90 with a 52-cal SPG, introduce a truck mounted 155mm and increase the number of MLRS (poosibly buy ATACMs munitions), maybe buy HIMARS….

            105mm is a very small artillery calibre and is only suited to very light forces.

          • Agree on the 105 to 155 replacement.

            Would it not be better to kill two birds with one stone and roll the AS90 replacement and the truck mounted 155 into one procurement?

            Not sure if we’d be better off sorting out the M270’s or replacing with HIMARS.

          • Replacing AS90 with a truck mounted system? Hmm, are you a bean counter? Much prefer to have Korean K9 Thunder (well armoured and tracked for best mobility) to replace AS90 and also buy Archer truck mounted arty for medium weight forces.

            We surely need tracked M270 and its smaller lighter HIMARS cousin. HIMARS has half the rockets and has less mobility than the tracked M270 – good for medium/light forces.

          • Not a bean counter, just a pessimist.

            The other reason I would go for the two truck based options is purely better strategic mobility, especially for expeditionary warfare.

            If the Army can get the funding boost it needs then I’d love to see a mixed fleet of K9s with something like Archer but, I doubt they will. Wheeled platforms are cheaper to run and easier to move around so, I can see that driving the decision

          • The army pretty much only does expeditionary warfare and strategic deployment of armour into Theatre was cracked in 1916.
            Truth is the army need a mix of artillery capabilities, not to abandon tracked SP Guns for reasons of cost and logistics.

        • Scimitars are recce vehicles – we don’t use the term ‘light tanks’ for that equipment. They were incredibly useful at delivering fire support for dismounted infantry – Brig. Julian Thompson said he wished he had more of them.

          We don’t have Cold War era numbers of any equipment – we had 900 Chieftains in the Cold War – we bought just 386 CR2s after the Cold War closed out and successive governments have chopped that number back time and again such that we will have a mere 148 CR3s (of which 112 in the field force) in the coming few years.

          You must know the number of times we have used tanks post-Cold War – Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq (twice). Denmark deployed some tanks to Afghanistan mainly in Show-of-Force roles. Our tanks (and other AFVs) have been used frequently. We have a sizable tank force in Estonia in the eFP role to deter the Russians from adventurism into the Baltic states.

          The main potential enemies for the West all own large numbers of tanks – it would be very foolish for us not to have some MBT capability – but we don’t have and have not had for many decades, ‘a Cold War era number of tanks’.

          • Pedantry aside the U.K. has few main battle tanks today and any sizeable force would have to come through buying a foreign design, hugely expensive and ultimately, as many on this side of the argument see it, a misdirection of resources.

    • The British Army has hardly ever fought on its own – so park that one, please.

      I am quite amazed that you cast doubt on the utility of our tank force. We have used our tanks (and other AFVs) in kinetic environments a heck of a lot over the years – they actually get used – whereas some expensive platforms I could mention have not actually been used for warfighting for many, many decades.

      You seem to think of the tank as an outdated platform – the Ukrainian army doesn’t think so as they fight for their existence against a country with huge numbers of tanks – they want more and more of them and high quality western ones, to boot.

      • Thanks. Many do not understand the history of this country’s many military experiences as part of a alignment of allies or coalitions; you will find as I have that is a difficult parking exercise.

        I would like you to expand on the sentence about ‘heck of a lot’ with examples; in Iraq our tanks were given a third or fourth tier tasking by the U.S. command.

        It is not just me. Try not to personalise complex issues. I among many more and better informed people think the tank belongs like the big gun battleship nad four engined bomber to the past. You don’t. So be it. The debate continues.

        • Thanks Barry. Use of AFVs in kinetic environments. Not sure why you want to stress that we were the US junior partner in Iraq – we know that – 120 tanks still deployed and were used (plus 150 Warriors and over 30 AS90s), which is the point. Op Telic deployed 46,000 British troops. “Operation Telic was one of the largest deployments of British forces since World War II. It was only approached in size by the 1991 Operation Granby deployment for the Gulf War and the 1956 Operation Musketeer Suez Crisis deployment”. British troops seized the oil port of Umm Qar and the entirety of the southern oilfields and the eastern marshlands – hardly third or fourth tier tasks – and a bit disrespectful to the 179 Brits who died in very hard fighting. Being allocated Iraq’s second city, Basra, by the Americans was also not a 3rd or 4th tier task. The UK provided 25% of the ground forces, 2nd only to the US.

          Examples of British AFV use in kinetic environments since 1990 – Gulf War 1 in 1990/91, Bosnia (1992-1995), Kosovo (1998-1999)
          Gulf War 2 (2003-2011), Afghanistan (2005-2014). [Plus deterrence deployment of 30 tanks in Estonia of course]. Would be interesting to compile a similar list for the RN?

          Still not sure why you equate the MBT to the irrelevance of the battleship. Please inform us why. MBTs are still being used on todays battle fields – no-one serious is deleting them from their Orbats. Nothing can do what a tank can do. Nothing has replaced the tank. The best equipment to kill a tank is another tank. For as long as our enemies have tanks, we shall need tanks – ask the Ukrainians if you doubt that .

          • A civil and thoughtful reply. Thank you. From the Wrekin in Shropshire to the Ural’s in a straight line the terrain is flat. Tanks were an ideal solution to the problem of frontal attacks in this geography from 1916 through to today. However, faced with what we now have to think about in defence I suggest – like Hollywood no one knows anything in military futurology – our sovereign industrial base is capable to producing kinetic effects equal or better to those of tanks cost effectively. Incidentally, did you know the tank was dreamed up in a public house in Lincoln City!?

            Regards.

          • Thanks Barry. I knew the tank was born in Lincoln, but not that it arose from a chat in a pub – great info!

          • The pub is near the main gate into the cathedral. There’s a plaque on the wall outside. The meeting was most secret! Sorry, I cannot post a photograph.

  14. It would make sense to upgrade all the remaining hulls we are keeping to ch3. We could then give ukraine all of the remaining ammo for the ch2 riflled gun.

    • If we give the Ukranians all the ammunition what does our CH2 fleet fire in the meantime?

      There are several years to go before CH3 is in service?

    • Trouble is that FS and that pesky 10,000 manpower cut reduces the army to two armoured regiments, so no troops to crew and maintain a third regiment of tanks.

    • Alex wrote:

      “”Where is your 800k number coming from””

      Just checked, you were right to question me, it was actually 709000 from India. Figures from the Indian media backed by data from the British High Commisioner to India

      “”In the year 2022 UK issued the highest number of visas to India. Alex Ellis, British High Commissioner to India wrote on Twitter that last year UK issued 2,836,490 visas, out of which 25 per cent went to India. Indian nationals received the highest number of student visas which increased by 73 per cent from the year 2021. The work visas increased by 130 per cent in the year 2022. India was also issued 30 per cent of visit visas, which is the largest share compared to any other country.

      • Just visit Bridgewater in Somerset and you will see where they have gone or been put. it’s now rapidly changing from an English market town to a 3rd world ghetto. I detest the Politicians who have allowed this to happen. This countries finished a small island like ours cannot continue to take in half the world. We are heading for an absolute over-population disaster.

  16. We built 420 challenger 1 and over 400 challenger 2 tanks. Challenger 1 went to Jordan, but what happened to the rest of the challenger 2

      • True. But we need the man power, we can’t come close to filling all the vacancies without hiring professionals from abroad.

        • Nope, not until we do some very basic manpower planning.. and then actually taking action to recruit, to develop the skills required, and then retain those skills.
          Its basic management really. But there’s no sign of it ever happing in the NHS.
          Its just too easy to let poorer countries waste their scarce resources on training doctors and nurses so the neo colonials in the NHS can recruit them without having to worry about wasting money on training people born in the UK… I find it shocking really, its been like this for 30 years and still no sign of anything changing.
          Funny how its becoming increasingly unacceptable for the UK to hold on to historical artifacts obtained during the days of empire (and personally I’d be happy to see a lot of this stuff sent home), and yet its still acceptable to take human resources from countries that probably need it more than we do…

          • With over 1.2 million staff,I think the NHS knows how to conduct manpower planning. And anyone who joins the NHS as a career choice has voluntarily chosen that career, regardless if they are from the UK or overseas. Same with joining the Armed Force’s. Everyone is a volunteer. No conscription, no national service.

          • Having a workforce of 1.2m and an increasing FTE vacancy rate is not evidence of good manpowrr planning, it’s the reverse!
            And then manpower planning predicated on recruiting form abroad to negate the cost of recruitment and training in the UK? I guess you could call that manpower planning but is it morraly right?
            It’s certainly ineffective as they’ve been short on staff for 20 yrs and buy their own admission the vacancy rates are rising.
            So, the NHS may manpower plan, but from where I sit there planning, or at least the execution of it, looks pretty poor.
            Average wage of a nurse is above the national average, and the 20.6% employer pension contributions is huge (compared to a typical 8% in the private sector) and they still can’t sell it!
            It’s a dammed good shout compared to the army…

          • So you think that someone coming to study in the U.K. should leave behind their spouse and any children they have?… FFS 🤦🏻‍♂️

          • That’s not what he’s asking is it…but you know that…but in essence yes it’s a genuine question …why should they?

          • I believe he’s labouring under the false impression a student coming here can bring any family they like, rather than just dependents.

            But if he’s asking why for these as well, then I’d think it’s perfectly obvious that it’s unreasonable for a wife or husband to abandon their spouse and children for 3 or more years while they study here. Particularly given that they’re being charged large amounts by U.K. universities to do so.

          • What age are these students? What are they studying? Who is checking, they & their dependents, have left at the end of the course?

      • Not really a double edged, as they pay their taxes during their working life which pays for them when they are old. They also have kids here which also add to tax revenue as they grow up. The population density of the UK really isn’t that high when compared to some other advanced economies.

        • If they only have low paid jobs, then they are probably not paying enough tax to cover their old age costs to the UK State.

      • Its not just the NHS though, everywhere is crying out for workers. We need all the labour we can get, and if you don’t like Indians so much maybe if we’d stayed in the eu we’d still be getting workers from EU countries. Oh well…

        • J wrote:

          “”if you don’t like Indians so much maybe if we’d stayed in the eu “”

          My parents were from India.

          • Well you insinuate from the context of it being listed with a bunch of negative things rishi has done that “800,000 Indians coming here” was a bad thing. Sorry if that’s not what you meant but it certainly looked that way.

          • Some may think that 800k Indians coming here isn’t necessarily a good thing…Some would suggest the UK should be getting it’s own training and upskilling act in order to ensure they have the necessary skills …maybe in some sort of levelling up approach? 800k Indians do not all have skills that couldn’t be learned by UK people.Made me laugh when Johnson talked about IT skills as something that would need to be bought in from India ..when his government was complicit in allowing banks etc. To offshore IT en Masse to the detriment of the highly skilled IT staff we already had. If you think that me thinking that makes me racist…then you are quite simply a fool.

          • Offshoring IT en masse occurred mainly during the Blair years, I was working in the City at the time and watched it happen.

            But yes, companies are far too happy to ship in IT workers from India rather than train locals. Such workers are generally underpaid and very compliant as they know they could quickly end up back in India if they cause trouble. It’s not far off indentured servitude.

            But that 800k visa figure includes holidaymakers and students, only a portion are workers.

          • “But yes, companies are far too happy to ship in IT workers from India rather than train locals.”

            Worse than that, even. They’re not shipping in workers from India; they’re shipping the work OUT to India to be done remotely – so those Indians (paid far below UK minimum wage) will also be contributing nothing to the UK economy.

          • WRONG.
            They offshored large amounts of IT work to India in the late 90’s to early noughties. Very little new offshoring is being done these days. And as someone who had to liaise with Indian IT staff on a weekly basis, their competence and honesty was utterly appalling.

            These days you get a lot of Indian (eg InfoSys) or multinational (eg IBM) companies shipping in Indian IT workers to the U.K. Now these people are often very good technically, but it’s still unacceptable that they do this to save money on salaries instead of training local people to do this.

          • Well if we had a competent government then yes that would be brilliant but we don’t hence we need labour from abroad. Now and not in 50 years time.

        • Oh Jonny the casual efforts at directed presumed racism don’t work, do they, to a proud ex RE nutter, with Indian heritage, who’s name is actually Farouk, who is in fact a ninja at finding shit out and has some great “pull up a sandbag” dits! Cheers.

        • Actually we don’t, certainly not long term, many jobs will be redundant in the next 10-20 years. We’ll need to retrain professions like drivers to do other things and have to consider a universal basic income as automation takes over. Which means the government will have a pot of money to provide an income to all, its simple maths ‘a pot of cash/population = basic income’. Last thing we want to do is increase population long term. I would be providing anyone with more than a 5 year work visa max until we fully understand the impact of AI and Automation long term.

      • A very multicultural organisation. I think it’s a credit to our open society that so many see the NHS as a career choice.

    • The NHS is screwed no matter what tbh. It’s has been so successful in keeping people alive longer that it now will never have enough funds to manage an ageing population that cost an awful lot of money to sustain.

      Oh and a doctor told me this.

      • Not really.

        Productivity has dropped through the floor boards. Operating lists are at about 50% throughout because pre op scruff isn’t done, kits are not there etc etc

        A good clear out of incompetent staff is needed – plenty of them.

        The other thing is a return to small(er)-is-beautiful hospitals where it is a bit more personal which have a proper area of specialism.

        The era of the monster to-big-to-understand or manage hospital caused by some childlike management consultants really does have to stop.

        The mantra ‘it isn’t efficient’ is nonsense. What is there now isn’t efficient and doesn’t work.

        • Sorry but I have to agree with you again, having had over the past 4 years direct experience of the two large hospitals on Oxford, the medium size one in MK and the smaller one in Banbury. This is hopefully more recent user experience in the NHS than anyone else here.

          I have found world class teams, often with surgeons from around the World, and top grade nurses, also many from other countries but also some not so good. Part of the problem is that many regard it as a job not a vocation, a rot that started when nurses had to have degrees, leading to a ‘too posh to wash’ attitude and many more ‘its just a job’ attitudes.

          The mismanagement e.g. hospitals where admin rules over medical, is disturbing. The vast waste is almost beyond belief, the mishandling of Covid related supplies is no surprise, its the good old ‘not my money’ so prevalent in public services.

          I’ll stop here.

  18. A few more visits from Zelensky and Ukraine will have more Ch tanks than UK. The UK plan is currently to upgrade 148 to Ch3 and delete the rest. But that plan might change to upgrading of a larger number. Does anyone know how many hulls remain of the original 386? Are there enough to allow us to double the numbers?
    One of the main reasons given for replacing the main gun was commonality with other NATO countries using the Rheinmetall smoothbore. Giving Ukraine a small number of tanks with unique ammunition seems a bit daft.
    The only Western MBT still in production is Leopard. Ch 2, Leclerc and Ariete lines closed. USA has large reserves of Abrams that can be upgraded. Far better to supply Abrams or Leopard to ease ammunition supply and future replacement of losses.
    Longer term, it would make sense for Europe to develop a single design with work share proportionate to orders and enough sovereign control to satisfy each nations requirements.

    • According to Alex Chalk ( Govt Minister ) there are a maximum of 302 CR2 hulls available out of the 386 originally delivered,that is 227 Operational max for the BA plus 75 in deep storage in unspecified condition.

      • 38 Omani tanks as well which they’re going to replace soon anyway so we could just buy them and give them to Ukraine.

        • That is correct but the UK Govt/MOD wont have much say in what Oman does with its CR2’s,thats up to them,but id be surprised if some enquiries had not been made,similar situation to Jordan’s CR1’s.

          • Not necessarily, there probably is a technology transfer agreement so we can dictate where they could be sold

          • Yes but we have close military ties with Oman and given they are replacing their CH2 fleet with K2 Black Panther, I would be extremely surprised if they denied a request for the UK to buy them, given nobody else wants or needs them.
            Heard Rheinmetall had offered to refurbish Jordan’s CH1 but don’t know the validity to that statement

      • Well Alex Chalk is talking shit, sorry to say, Freedom of information request in 2016, gives a totally different picture. On that request the MOD stated, there were 227 in the active fleet and 72 awaiting final disposal instructions. Also i know that x amount were scrapped in or about 2012. i saw these hulks in Ashchurch awaiting final disposal in 2009.

        Number of tanks based on the Challenger 2 chassis within the British Army (publishing.service.gov.uk)

          • Technically Yes, but realistically, i would be very surprised if 72 final disposal vehicles are, still there. I was shown at Ashchurch what happened to the vehicles, put up for final disposal. They are stripped of all parts and are left sitting on 4 road wheels, just a empty hull and turret. from my experience in the Army, items put forward for final disposal, do not sit around for years, they are scrapped or sold, fairly quicky. The MOD does not like scrap or decommissioned, kit lying about. Ie, the Hercules fleet is already up for sale, before it has been withdrawn from service.

          • I recall a documentary from a while back about the US facility in Alabama where Abrams are refurbished. Hulls are stripped of everything then shot blasted and any damage repaired. These effectively new hulls are then refitted with a mix of new and refurbished components. All sensors and wiring are new but main guns and engines are reused. So it should be possible for UK to do something similar. The 148 planned are costing over £7m each. Another 100 won’t break the bank.

          • Sounds like what they used to do with Routemasters buses on a periodic basis, which is why they lasted so long.

          • Warrior has an aluminium hull which I imagine can’t cope with the treatment used to renovate thick steel.Aluminium has greater problems with fatigue over time. But USA has been refurbishing Bradleys ( also aluminium hull) for years, partly because all their projects to design a replacement have come to nothing. If the hulls are in decent condition, Warrior could be refurbished. But with Ajax apparently back on track and Boxer order increased, I can’t see it happening.

          • Interesting info, thx. It seems both the UK and the US have found it tricky to replace a good IFV design. Quiz question: Stryker is to Boxer as Bradley is to ?

          • Warrior’s aluminium hull is not an issue that prevents Base Overhaul. We have always conducted Base Overhaul (now called Base Inspection & Repair) on all AFVs.

          • For the whole time I was in the army (and for decades before) AFVs (including Warrior of course) underwent a Base Overhaul (BOH) roughly every 7 years. We introduced a value engineered service called BIR (Base Inspection & Repair) around 2001.

          • So was this BOH like what the US does to its Bradleys, a kind of bare metal respray thing?

          • It was possibly more involved than the Bradley treatment. Since the beginning of time(!) and roughly every 7 years (but dependent on mileage), a number of AFVs were withdrawn from a field force unit or the Trg Org, who would receive replacements form the Repair Pool. A REME Base workshop (23 Base Wksp in Wetter, Germany or 18 Base Wksp in Dorset) – would remove and store all loose CES items and condition them, replacing anything that was below par. The vehicle would have every single assembly, sub assy and component removed – removed assemblies that had a refurbishment plan were put through that except if they were in poor shape and then they would be replaced with new items. The hull and turret would be shotblasted and all welds inspected with ultrasonics and crack test penetrant fluid. Welds would be re-done as required using downhand welding – think hull/turret went into a manipulator to get the right angle. All parts for mods/upgrades would be sourced and delivered to the line. Interiors would be repainted. Then the vehicle would be completely rebuilt installing upgrades. Exterior would be spray painted. CES refitted. Power Pack run up and dyno tested. Vehicle road tested on road and cross-country circuits. Final inspections. Vehicles washed down. All documentation brought up to date. Modification plate stamped.
            Massive job which could easily take a year. Cost was huge but fortunately no profit was paid as the work was done in-house, not by a contractor.
            Then the static workshops including the base workshops became rebranded as ABRO but still in-house.
            Then we introduced BIR as a more affordable and cheaper replacement for BOH ie a value engineered scheme.
            Then ABRO was taken over by Babcocks and I have no idea how things panned out ie whether they carried on doing a BIR on all AFVs etc.

          • Warrior is an AFV and we have always done Base Overhaul (BOH) roughly every 7 years on our AFVs. BOH amended to be quicker and more afordable in 2001 and renamed Base Inspection & Repair (BIR). Been doing this since WW2, if not earlier. But I left the army in 2009 so no idea what Babcocks do now as they took over the in-house ABRO organisation.

          • We do that (or used to) for all our AFVs – roughly every 7 years – thats why 60-year old FV432s are still trundling around.

          • Would be very useful to pursue the option of doing that. Just to get a few prototypes and see if it is reasonable so in a war we could manufacture more tanks.

          • This is nothing new to us. For the whole time I was in the army (and for decades before) AFVs (not just tanks) underwent a Base Overhaul (BOH) roughly every 7 years. We introduced a value engineered service called BIR (Base Inspection & Repair) around 2001.

            I thought the CR3 programme was £800m which makes £5.4m each?

            Why put another 100 through the programme – there aren’t the crews available to man them. FS reduces us down to just two armoured regiments.

      • Thanks. I’d missed that. In theory then we should have enough hulls to increase the number upgraded if more funds are made available.

      • It does seem to be true that someone (who?) ordered the scrapping of 84 tanks (386-302) in the past. Truly disgraceful to scrap tanks that had not been declared Obsolete as a type.

    • For Ukraine with 125mm tank cannons, both Leo2 and M1 Abrams has non-standard ammunition. So CR2 with its120 rifled gun is no more of a problem. All western tanks have unique (to Ukraine) ammo.

      Abrams is maintenence intensive and has a horrendous fuel consumption – its really a very difficult tank for the UA to field.

      The next Franco-Geman tank (with other nations showing interest) may be the next EuroTank.

  19. Being a bit of a realist / pessimist I just hope we can actually keep them supplied with ammunition and spares. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

  20. its a good news bad news sort of thing…it’s good news we are providing more tanks.The bad news is that our MBT numbers have dropped around another 6%.

  21. Add a few more and the Ukrainian’s can equip a full tank battalion with 31 CR2’s, which makes a lot of sense. The bad news is were does this leave the British Army? It theoretically has 227 CR2’s, or 199 after the latest Ukraine donation, and some of these are probably unserviceable and stripped for spares to give to the Ukrainians! The Army is going to be very short of fully operational CR2’s in the short-term, and in the long term it now looks very unlikely that more than 148 will be upgraded to the CR3 standard – suitable hulls just don’t exist. Maybe one answer is to give all the CR2’s to Ukraine, cancel CR3 and urgently buy or lease some Abram’s or Leopard 2’s?

    • I’d donate the lot to Ukraine, the sooner Russia is smashed the better.

      Why urgently buy or lease Abrams or Leopards? We’re not at war, and being an island, not facing the threat of a foreign army crossing our borders. If we end up in a war, then through NATO there’ll be hordes of Abrams and Leopards being fielded by our allies.

      Instead, the issue is what to replace the Challengers with long-term…

      In 2023/2024 we’re going to see Leopard tanks and Challenger tank finally confronting the enemy they were designed for. While they are lots of variables determining success in any one battle, over time we’ll see which is the better existing design. This should be used in determining future direction.

      • Sean; “We’re not at war, and being an island, not facing the threat of a foreign army crossing our borders…”

        But Sean, by proxy, we are at war. And I would argue that being an island does not preclude us from being at risk. Mr Putin had made it very clear what he would like to do to the UK. We only have to look at the images of Bakhmut to appreciate Mr Putin’s intent.

        • When Britain is at war with Russia, you will know it … Britain is miles away from being “at war” with Russia.

        • We’re only in a proxy war, not a hot war. Ask any Ukrainian and they’ll tell you the huge f@cking difference.

          So tell me how Challenger tanks sat here in the U.K. are going to stop cruise or ballistic missiles fired by Mr Putin? How are Challenger tanks going to defeat Bear and Backfire bombers? How are they going to deal with the Russian submarine threat? 🤔
          The best way those Challengers can wreck Mr Putin’s plans and hasten his end is by them being in the ground in Ukraine destroying Russian forces.

          As we’ve seen in the Ukraine, there is a vast difference between what Mr Putin would like to do and what he’s actually capable of 🤣

          • The core of the forward deployed British Army battle groups (e.g. to Estonia) is usually a company of CR2’s. Not having these tanks would leave a big credibility gap. 

            Next year UK becomes the lead nation for NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (Land), even Germany has criticised the lack of any British MBTs in the assigned 7th Light Mechanised Brigade. A once mighty armoured formation has fallen on tough times indeed, although I suppose it is a small step up from being called 7th Infantry Brigade.

          • Germany is hardly one to criticise given that during an exercise in December to prepare a Bundeswehr tank brigade for inclusion in NATO’s high readiness response force, all 18 of the German Puma infantry fighting vehicles failed, from electronics to turret defects and bursting into flames… As a result they had to deploy 1970’s era Marders 🤦🏻‍♂️

            In fact the state of Germany’s military is so laughable that after Der Spiegel exposed it in January, the German Defence Minister felt the need to resign.

            That supposed German criticism sounds more like deflection.

            On the practical question of the battle group in Estonia, obviously if the U.K. donated all the CR2 to Ukraine then another NATO member would have to backfill the requirement with their tanks. Given the reason, our generosity towards Ukraine, no NATO member would criticise having to do this. Indeed there’s a precedent been set when Soviet-era tanks were donated by countries like Poland.

          • No. By that logic every other NATO member should be fielding aircraft carriers, SSNs and SSBNs? At the moment we seem to be “filling in” for everyone in Europe except the French.

            If it’s ok for the rest of our allies not to have our near unique capabilities on a permanent basis, then it’s perfectly acceptable to have them cover for us on a temporary basis until we acquire replacement tanks. This has happened many times before, with us covering for our allies, and our allies covering for us.

            And this is perfectly reasonable when the need arises from us making best efforts to save Ukrainian lives and defeat Russia as quickly as possible.

          • Our army does warfighting. It is unacceptable to give away all our tanks and have a gap in cover. It is crazy to cancel the CR3 project which we have all waited years for.

          • Name the enemy the army is going to fight alone, single-handedly, without allied support, in the near future?…

            A project plan, like any military plan, must change as circumstances change. To stick rigidly to any plan regardless is reckless. Guess you’d have continued with Nimrod MR4…

            The Panther as currently designed, but with the addition of U.K. Dorchester armour, would probably be the most powerful MBT available. And if we wanted more at any time, we could simply buy them off the production line.
            But you’d prefer the CR3 which is limited by the number of remaining CR2 hulls… 🤦🏻‍♂️

          • Sean, why do you keep thinking I said we will undertake a tank war without Allied support – never said that.

            What is this rigid plan I am sticking to? The CR3 programme? We have waited ages for the CR2 upgrade/LEP and the minute contracts are signed and it gets underway, you want to cancel it?! You would have to pay swingeing cancellation charges and encourage Treasury to commit to yet another tank project – they won’t play ball.
            CR3 is not limited by number of hulls – contract is for 148 and we have 213 CR2s in our ‘pool’. Or are you expecting Treasury will somehow allow MoD to upgrade more than 213 and we won’t have the hulls – wishful thinking.

          • Why do you keep deliberately misrepresenting what I say? Presumably because you cannot argue with the logic of my argument. Having allies means that every member nation does not need to be able to provide every capability, single-handedly, all the time.

            I was right, you would have gone ahead with Nimrod MR4 instead of cancelling… Why spend money upgrading CR2 to CR3 to be able to destroy tanks Russia might theoretically possess in future when they can be deployed now to destroy the tanks Russia actually has?

            CR3 is limited by hulls, 213 max and probably far less. What the Treasury may or may not allow is pure speculation. I recall people being convinced that the Treasury wouldn’t allow purchase of NSM, or Sea Ceptor addition to T45, etc, etc.

            If Ukraine fails to win this war it will most likely be simply due to nations withholding weapons and munitions that they could spare but which Ukraine desperately needs. You’re advocating a policy that risks Putin avoiding defeat.

          • Sean, you seem to think that the UK has armed forces solely to defend the homeland. Not so, the carriers and their escorts operate at distance from home waters.
            We have armed forces for a whole host of reasons and most of the time they have been used for expeditionary warfighting, and conducting stabilisation and peacekeeping operations overseas.
            Military Home Defence is not frequently on the mind of politicians and defence planners, excepting for Air Defence of the UK.
            We have not so far undertaken role specialisation, whereby we drop some capabilities because allies will cover them.
            We are the largest provider of military kit to Ukraine in Europe, 2nd largest supplier in the world – but I agree we could supply more. Ukraine is asking for tanks and fighter jets. We could send more than 14 tanks but not the whole fleet or we will not meet our NATO commitments of being able to deploy the one warfighting division that we have that is assigned to NATO. If Russia attacked a NATO country we would deploy 3rd (UK) Div with all our tanks – we cannot give them all up now.

          • Wrong. But do tell me how tanks defend the U.K. against foreign threats to our homeland given we’re a country?…

            You’re making the exact same mistake as Putin’s generals. Sticking with a pre-formulated plan despite completely changed circumstances.
            If Russian attacked a NATO member we would’ve even have time to deploy an armoured division from the U.K. in time. The Russian forces would be destroyed by NATO air-power alone before we had them loaded onto ships to transport to Europe.

            Agreed we’re the second largest supplier to Ukraine, the pitiful contributions made by other nations such as France are downright scandalous in my opinion. But we have to supply more and quickly.
            There is a danger that if Trump/De Santos wins in 2024 that American assistance to Ukraine could be sharply reduced.

            Donating all our tanks for what they are supposed to do, destroying the Russian army makes complete sense. Yes, for a short period we would have to accept a capability gap that would have to be coveted by our allies. But it’s not as though Russian is in any position to exploit that gap even if we didn’t have any allies to plug it.

          • What bit of my answer was wrong – and why?
            At the risk of repeating myself it is unlikely that we would use our tanks to defend our homeland. Equally, most of our bluewater navy is intended to deploy well outside our territorial waters. Much of our forces are designed and configured for expeditionary operations, almost always with allies, usually NATO.

            When we have deployed equipment overseas it has never been ‘late’ for the conflict.
            1.Some army kit is pre-positioned in Germany:
            Ayrshire Barracks, Mönchengladbach has the
            Store Equipment Fleet (Germany) — a store of vehicles and other equipment for exercises and operations around Europe.
            Athlone Barracks, Paderborn has the Land Training Fleet (Sennelager) — which provides and maintains a pool of military vehicles for units in training at Sennelager
            2.Some is in Estonia and Poland with NATO’s eFP
            3.Armour can be swiftly deployed on rail flats transiting the Channel Tunnel – and this has been exercised many times.
            4.Freighters can deploy armour to the North German port of Emden or Kiel.

            Moving military kit overseas is something we have done for a very long time. Its what we do all the time – and can do it quite quickly.

            Are you worried about transit times for RN vessels going out to the South China Sea? That would take much longer.
            RAF assets (aircraft, engineering and maintenance) also have to pre-position eastwards to cut sortie times.

            We just aren’t going to deploy all our tanks and other equipment to Ukraine – we would be unable to meet existing and future NATO commitments and feed the CR3 line.

          • Wrong, I don’t think our armed forces are soley to defend the homeland… but that is their first priority. And if a war has to be fought, the best way to protect it is to fight in in others peoples land. That’s easier for the U.K. to do, as why don’t have any land borders to defend. So our forces have always been, since before Napoleonic times, expeditionary in nature. Fight the enemy on the continental before it reaches our territory.

            Similar with the RN being bluewater. It would be insane for it to wait until the enemies warships are sat offshore inside territorial waters. Instead they engage them at distance, such as closing the GIUK Gap, long before they can threaten out territorial waters.

            Are you deliberately playing dumb? I never said that our military forces in the U.K. would be slow to deploy to Poland/ Baltics in the in the event of a Russian invasion. I said the Russians would be defeated by NATO air-power before they got there because of our overwhelming air-superiority and the state of the Russian military. Quite frankly it’s be pointless even beginning to mobilise them because there would be no Russian ground forces left for them to fight.

            The ONLY threat that NATO faces is from Russia. Destroy the Russian military in Ukraine and it will be generations before it can be a threat again – assuming the Russian Federation continues to exist as it currently does.
            Sticking to rigid doctrines of having to retain tanks to have them prepositioned in various places against masses of Russian armour that simply no-longer exist is just stupid. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and contact was made 24 Feb ‘2020. Destroy the enemies remaining forces far from our homeland, by giving the Ukrainians what they need to win the war for us.

            We don’t need to feed a CR3 line. Destroy the Russian military and we don’t need the bother with the CR3 line. 🤦🏻‍♂️
            It’s almost like you want Putin to win so that our military will have a bogeyman as a raisin d’etre. 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • Sean, I take issue with two of your points:

            “We don’t need to feed a CR3 line. Destroy the Russian military and we don’t need the bother with the CR3 line”.
            If we don’t feed the CR3 line with donor CR2 tanks, we won’t get a tank to replace CR2. Do you want us to not have a tank fleet in future? Practically, there is no alternative to creating CR3s – the contract was let nearly 2 years ago and the programme is funded and up and running.

            “It’s almost like you want Putin to win so that our military will have a bogeyman as a raisin d’etre”.
            I spent 34 years of my life in the regular army, much of it in units that were assigned to NATO. I had 4 postings totalling 6 years in Germany facing Russian forces. It is galling for you to think that there is any part of me that might want Putin to win. No sane person wants Putin to win – yet no supporting country is sending all its tanks. There are limits as to what we can do. However, I have said we should have sent more than 14 tanks but cannot send all of them.
            3xx, essentially an armoured division, is assigned to NATO – we cannot agree to commit an armoured division without any tanks. Do you have any military experience? If you did, you would understand that having declared a capability to NATO, we have to be able to deliver it when required. This is not blindly sticking to a rigid plan – it is how NATO works.

          • I don’t know why you can’t grasp this but, what is the point of letting your enemy survive just so that you can go ahead with a defence procurement to defend against that enemy?
            If the Russian army is destroyed by donating our CR2s then we won’t need CR3. You seem to want to have CR3 whether it’s needed or not and regardless of the consequences of not donating sufficient armour to Ukraine.

            CR3 was a stop-gap between CR2 and buying a new MBT. Best donate the lot and proceed with looking at what procuring a new MBT. For me the KF51 looks the best prospect.

            You might not want Putin to win, but your attitude is exactly why he might. It’s unbelievable that it took a year before NATO finally started supplying MBTs to Ukraine. Piecemeal sporadic donations of equipment after procrastinated indecision over fear of escalation is costing Ukrainian lives and endangers the outcome.

            As for NATO commitments, defeat Russian in Ukraine and NATO can breathe easier for at least a generation. Victory should be a bigger priority than maintaining a redundant commitment.

            But if you’re so concerned about a pointless commitment to a division that will never be mobilised let alone see action, then the answer is to ask our less generous allies to cover it with their tanks.

          • I can grasp your emotive point of view that does not understand NATO alliance matters.
            Even if Russia is defeated by Ukraine (with or without 14 or 227 CR2s) then we still need tanks in the future – we don’t just have tanks to deter or defeat Russia – you seem to think we do – since WW2 our tanks have been in action against North Korea, Egypt, Serbia, and Iraq (twice). I want a tank fleet for Britain in the future (as we have used our tanks in combat a lot in the past and will in the future, no doubt) whether or not it is CR3, but it is CR3 that we are getting.
            You think we could cancel the CR3 programme (invoking a sizavble penalty payment for MoD for cancellation) and than ask the Treasury for £billions to spens d on a different tank project? I worked in a Government Department (MoD) for 34 years and felt the impact of HM Treasury decisions and outlook. Treasury will be resistant to your propsed course of action.
            KF51 Panther is a tank in development, not series production. No-one has so far placed orders. It is not combat proven. It may well be expensive as Rheimetall must claw back its £1.3bn development costs.

            Where we agree is that it is astonishing that it took a year for the West to start to supply tanks (but it also took a long time for Zelensky to ask for them). By some accounts the US M1 Abrams may not arrive for a full year – shameful.
            I dislike that you think I do not have a strong pro-Ukraine attitude but we need to live in the real world. The richest country in the world is gifting just 31 tanks. Germany which has produced thousands of Leo1 and Leo 2 (many of the latter being in storage) are sending just 14. There is a reason for these small numbers – the NATO position (which I have tried to explain to you), politics, finance – you may not like it but they are real world matters, which you seem unable to grasp.
            NATO’s forces, including our warfighting division, is not pointless, just because they are not in combat today. NATO is a defensive, deterrent alliance. There is a reason Russia and (before it, the USSR) has never attacked a NATO country since 1949. NATO is succesful at deterrence (for which we can be thankful), and if required to fight against any opponent, then NATO should also be successful.

          • Forget the emotions, forgetting your pen-pushing bureaucratic niceties, and try to grasp the greater strategic perspective.

            The ONLY areas where the U.K. is required to fight a land action is in defence of U.K. territory and those allies we have specific commitments to. Basically Britain and our overseas territories, plus NATO members.
            By simple fact of geography, the only place our MBTs would be required to deploy is going to be Europe.
            And the only direct threat to Europe is Russia.

            Ergo if we destroy the Russian threat now, by aiding Ukraine, we have plenty of time to rearm our army with the best MBT possible.

            As for the far-flung expeditionary wars you mention where we deployed MBTs, we need not have participated in any of them. Indeed of the 4 wars you quote, 2 of them were illegal; Suez and Iraq 2003, so we had no business deploying them.
            Serbia was a peacekeeping mission, and which leaves only North Korea and Kuwait 1990. While these were laudable, these weren’t existential threats to the U.K. and we need not have contributed MBTs – others didn’t.

            I want a tank fleet that destroys military threats to Britain and her allies.
            Not a tank fleet that sits in depots, never to be used, because we baulk at the prospect of it being lost while doing what it was built for.
            Not a tank fleet that sits in depots never to be used, because we want to reserve it to fight non-existent Russian tank swarms.

            I hope that NATO doesn’t not follow the bureaucratic doctrine that you espouse. It’s reminiscent of the blinkered attitude of WW1 generals who refused to adapt to the new realities of war. If NATO prefers to maintain forces for theoretical deployments that it will never have to make rather than aid Ukraine then it doesn’t deserve to survive and is no-longer fit for purpose. Reserving MBTs for deployments that will never be made undermines and argument for evening having MBTs in the first place.

            Fortunately I am pretty confident NATO leadership is more adaptable to new scenarios and not a bunch of jobsworths.

            As for your argument that because the others are only sending small numbers of MBTs then it’s ok for us to do the same…
            Well that’s a completely morally indefensible position; argumentum ad populum. It’s basic ethics that something doesn’t become permissible simply because others are doing it.
            Thank goodness we didn’t think that way when we started flooding Ukraine with NLAWs before the invasion, when others were contributing nothing.

          • Poland has a land border with a Russia, we don’t… but they still managed to donate 200 tanks to Ukraine…

          • Poland donated those tanks in April 2022.
            The US sold Poland 250 M1A2 Abrams tanks, also last April but their delivery won’t be until 2025/2026.
            A 3 to 4 year gap.

            Poland then signed another deal in January to buy a further 116 M1A1 Abrams.

            Poland is donating an additional 60 Soviet tanks and 14 Leopards.

          • Prior to the Ukraine war, Poland had over 860 tanks and additionally have orders for hundreds of M1 Abrams and K2 Black Panthers currently being met.
            They could spare 200 – with our fleet of 227, we couldn’t.

          • Poland needs a large tank force because it has a 230km land-border with Russia and a 400km land-border with Belorussia.

            We have zero land border with Russia or Belorussia, that is why we can spare our entire tank force.

            (Poland had no orders for Abrams prior to the war. All orders we were placed AFTER the war began and after they made their donation to Ukraine. The order for 250 M1A2 Abrams won’t arrive until 2025/6.)

          • We invented the tank for expeditionary operations with Allies – our armoured forces still do that.
            We don’t just have armed forces to defend our homeland.

          • And? Planning to fight the wars of the past has been many a generals mistake.

            Better to avoid having to fight expeditionary wars by supplying weapons to those already fighting them for us. If Ukraine loses, western democracy loses, and it become a far more dangerous world for all of us.

          • There is no way we can give up our eFP role in Estonia, I agree, and the CR2s there are key.

            I remember when 7th Armoured Brigade (to 2014) was a worthy successor to the wartime 7th Armoured Division, a square brigade with two armoured regiments and two armoured infnatry bns. [The brigade, consisting of 112 Challenger 2 tanks, 140 Warriors and 32 AS-90 155 mm self-propelled howitzers, entered Iraq on 21 March]. 

            I am unsure of the remit for the VHRJTF(L) but it should be ready for anything in Europe and it is a major gaffe to not include some tanks.

          • We have Challengers in Estonia in a deterrence role and of course 14 going to the UA. We can send more to the UA and not prejudice our own security, I agree. We need to feed just 148 tanks to the CR3 line as the pooliticians have decided that we should cut the army by another 10,000 posts and that we will only have two armoured regiments in future. So we can send quite a few more than 14 to Ukraine.

          • Forget CR3, donate the entire CR2 fleet, spares, and ammunition to Ukraine.

            Then do a deal with Rheinmetall for 300 Panthers to be built at a U.K. production line. As it would be the first order for Panther, and the first production line, there’s a good chance of making it the primary production facility.

      • We invented the tank and first fielded it on expeditionary operations (WW1). We did not invent the tank to protect the homeland.
        Military Home Defence is not a strong component of our Defence posture. Our forces are primarily configured for expeditionary deployment alongside Allies. Hence why we need armoured forces. We should not have a gap in armoured vehicle cover – the world is a dangerous place- and the army actually do warfighting, not just deterrence activity and training.

        I agree that it will be interesting to see Leo and Chally confront Russian-crewed tanks, but Chally2 (and its predecessor) has taken on Soviet-era tanks in combat before.

        • We need armoured forces, but at the moment Ukraine needs them more. Every tank, armoured fighting vehicle, etc that the CR2s destroy in Ukraine means one less fit the British Army to face in future.

          Given the Ukrainians are fighting our battles for us, least we can do is give them all the weapons they need.
          Instead you suggest they should gather dust in a warehouse because we might need them to fight an unidentified enemy on our own without any allied help… 🤦🏻‍♂️

          • Sean, I have never said that we are likely to fight an enemy with our tanks without allied help.
            I agree we should send more AFVs including tanks (14 Challys is a patheticaly small number), but not everything we have. Should we give Ukraine all our Typhoons too?

          • I never said you did 🤦🏻‍♂️

            If we have to fight a war then thanks to allies we don’t NEED to have tanks, our allies can provide them. And this only applies during the period we have a gap; obviously the gap should be filled ASAP.

            Obviously not because Typhoons are actually useful in defending the U.K. – eg from enemy aircraft such as Bear and Backfire bombers. Do tell how you think tanks can defend the U.K. from enemy aircraft?

          • Sean,
            We have declared and assigned 3rd (UK) Div (and other units and formations) to NATO which currently includes three armoured regiments. If a NATO country in Continental Europe is attacked by armoured forces, then our warfighting Div ie 3rd Div deploys.
            It just cannot rock up without the tanks – it is not a proper ‘armoured’ div without them.

            My comment about Typhoons was just to illustrate, by way of another example (Ukraine urgently wanting western jets) the lunacy of UK doing without a major capability.

          • And who are these tanks in 3rd (U.K.) Div going to be fighting?… Are you expecting a sneak attack from a suddenly militaristic Lichtenstein or Monaco? No you’re thinking about a Russian invasion. And the best way to ensure a Russian invasion of a NATO member doesn’t occurs is by destroying the Russian army in the Ukraine. The Ukrainians are brave enough to do this for us, least we can do is to arm them fully.

            If Ukraine crushes the Russian Army, then 3rd (U.K.) Div and our servicemen need never go into battle.

    • I would be horrified if any of the 227 in-service tanks have been stripped for spares – that was surely the fate of some or even most, of the 179 tanks (386-227) taken out-of-service by the 2010 defence review. Apparently around 80 of those out-of-service tanks were scrapped sometime in the 2010-2018 period.

      Cannibalising tanks to obtain spares is the very last resort of the Equipment Support Manager and reflects a very poor obsolescence policy that looks firstly at other techniques, and should be done sparingly and on as few tanks as possible and is strictly controlled and documented.

      It turns out that the doubling of the gift from 14 tanks to 28 is ‘fake news’. 14 tanks is just 6% of our in-service fleet.

      I am not sure why you say that it is unlikely that we might get more than 148 converted to CR3 – I thought that Ben Wallace was actively considering this possibility.

      Your solution is a very bad option, in my view. No nation is gifting 100% of their tanks (ie 227) to Ukraine; no-one expects us to go that far. If we cancelled the CR3 programme, which we have waited ages for, we will have to pay huge cancellation charges to RBSL, then MoD have to approach Treasury for more huge money for the Abrams/Leopards – tell you for nothing, they would not pay up!
      We rejected Abrams years ago for its very high maintenance workload and excessive fuel consumption & that has not changed – many have been destroyed by enemy action over the years whereas no CR2s have.
      Leopard is a great tank but arguably even recent models may not be as good as CR3 – many have been lost in combat too, in particular to poorly trained insurgents.

      Do you want to put our tankies into vehicles that have failed to protect their crews in combat, whereas CR2 has done that?

      • The Ukrainian’s will reasonably want their CR2’s to be delivered with a full package of spare parts. Some spares will be near “gold dust”, with months waiting time for arrival, so stripping them from tanks in reserve or maintenance is the only quick option.

        The British Army supposedly has 227 CR2’s, but that is an 8(?) year old number. It briefly appeared (incorrectly) that Ukraine was getting 28, so 199 left. Tanks have a tough life and age and accidents will also have resulted in some attrition, basically 30+ year old hulls that are nominally still on strength but where restoring them to an operational condition has been assessed as being impractical and unaffordable. It’s a complete guess but maybe 24 CR2’s will fall in to this category, leaving just 175. Upgrading 148 of those 175 to CR3 standard will be a good percentage as there are always a few that once stripped down are found to have serious material issues, and to keep within budget have to be substituted for those in better condition.

        • Certainly we should be supplying the UA with a package of spares with the 14 tanks. The only info on the maint support has been the statement about 2 CRARRVs being supplied, but that scratches the surface regarding maint (& log) support.
          Some spares will be obtainable in armoured regiment’s FAMTO and QM(T) stores (if regt can spare them) and some in Ord Depots (Donington, Chilwell). Some spares will be unobtainable as the supplier is no longer trading – the Equipment Support Manager will have an Obsolescence management plan and several other options are available but the very, very, very last option is to cannibalise from another tank. If that has to be done it is done sparingly, from as few vehicles as possible and is carefully documented. You would first turn to out-of-service vehicles first, if you really had to do this – then you would turn to Repair Pool vehicles in the in-service fleet. It is really a terrible thing to have to cannibalise – it means that you have got a pretty crap Obsolescence management plan.
          Not sure why you doubt the 227 number – that is the figure set by the 2010 defence review and notified in the CFE Treaty. It is of course minus the 14 tanks going to Ukraine as someone mentioned that those are coming form the in-service fleet.

          Some tanks have a tough life (those in the Trg Org for example) whereas others sit in Ashchurch for years (such as the RP and Attrition Reserve) without doing much. Tanks in armoured regiments only spend a limited time on exercises.

          Challenger2s were built in 1993-2002 and were fielded from 1998.

          When I was serving, the yardstick was that 70% of equipment that was deemed operationally vital (ie CR2s) should be available for deployment, with that figure rising to 90% after a solid 24hrs of maint work. Maybe there is a different yardstick nowadays.

          • Great answer, thanks for the info. My experience is largely RN in the 90’s and early 2000’s, where there was always a rush to strip a returning warship of key equipment and parts needed urgently elsewhere. I don’t doubt the 227 CR2s, I just wasn’t sure the year when the force dropped to this level.

  22. A very interesting article from last Nov which reveals what vehicles the UK got rid of in 2022 (upto Nov that is)
    UK sells on more than 150 armoured vehicles in 2022, but to where?
    The UK has sold, auctioned off, or scrapped more than 1,000 pieces of military land equipment so far in 2022, including more than 150 tracked armoured vehicles formerly in service with the British Army, although their final destination remains unknown. Included in the 14 November Hansard Written Response of platforms sold by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), were the FV430 Bulldog (50), Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance – Tracked (CVRT) (102), MAN 6T Support Vehicle (147), Pinzgauer Truck Utility Medium – Heavy Duty (22), and 132 Land Rover vehicles across a range of variants.
     
    The MoD’s Defence Equipment and Sales Authority overseas the process of shedding itself of equipment no longer needed, raising money through the sales or scrapping equipment considered to be beyond use or repair. The UK’s Government Export Licence process is followed for overseas sales, in accordance with the Official Journal of the European Union tender procedures.https://i.postimg.cc/fWBNLf9H/Opera-Snapshot-2023-03-05-201706-questions-statements-parliament-uk.png

  23. Does anyone know if chieftain, chally1 and 2 have the same turret ring size, if so could the chally3 turret be retro fitted?

    • I asked that question on twitter to the QRH regarding CR1 and CR2 but didn’t get a definitive answer,the gist is the ring size is very likely the same but not 100% confirmed.Being designed and produced by the same authority there should be some commonality,i have both Haynes books but ive misplaced them,they should be published in them.Chieftain is probably not worth thinking about.

      • Paul lm thinking about the Jordanian al khalid tank which is the model chally 1 was based on , it has the same perkins1200hp engine and uprated suspension, I also think it may have a decent TOGS, it could be given reactivate armour to help counter ATGMs, whist it may not be able to compete with latest versions of t90m it could be useful against everything else and a 120mm hesh round would be effective against Russian infantry in buildings

        • The Al Khalid i am aware of,it would be ok as it is if they are in servicable condition,not worth thinking of putting a CR3 Turret on though.

          • I don’t think RBSL has built any or many CR3 turrets yet – they are all earmarked for the UK’s CR2 to CR3 project anyway.

      • Chieftain was designed largely in the 1950s – we have not had any for decades as they were replaced by firstly CR1 and then CR2. They are not suitable for combat now, even with a new turret.

        • Well Graham,seeing as Russia is dusting off it’s T62’s for use in Ukraine i think a fully working Chieftain would not be out of place on the battlefield,remember most of Russia’s Tank fleet is of a similar vintage,yes the Chieftain is very dated but it wouldn’t be useless.

          • We are not as desperate as the Russians are. They have bitten off more than they can chew and are resorting to extreme measures with raising fresh manpower and fielding outdated equipment.

          • We ( the British Army) don’t need Chieftain, the discussion is about Tanks that can be supplied to Ukraine.

          • OK, Not sure there are many Chieftains out there these days – Iran may have a few but they are not too helpful these days. They would be a nightmare to maintain and their mobility was never great. Armour protection was fine in the 60s and 70s but not now. CR1s from Jordan – a far better bet – if you are talking about ‘old school’ kit.

    • Chieftain? We got rid of half of them when CR1 was fielded from 1983 and the other half when CR2 was fielded from 1998!
      CR1s? We sold all of our CR1s to Jordan over 20 years ago, less a few to museums – it is up to Jordan what they do with them.
      CR3 turrets – have any been built yet?

  24. Why more tanks we only have a couple hundred what about our boys give give give give but back home scrape by with just enough challengers. M270 as90 we only have small numbers ourselves and won’t be replaced any time soon

  25. A brand new fleet of tanks we need ,big time about 1500,that way we have a big cosh for any one that fancied a fight ,numbers count, prime example challengers numbers woeful ,welcome to trainwrecked Britain’s armed forces labour and tories responsible for the run down ,

      • Thanks Paul,it would be really something like that to happen, Labour is the the last chance saloon for our armed forces,it will take a number of years to take a rebuild, if not bye bye for to the future defence of our country

    • Are you joking – we only bought 900 Chieftains in the 1960s, replaced by 420 CR1s, replaced by 386 CR2s. I can’t think when we bought 1500 tanks. Not realistic at all.

      • Well they better be realistic graham, 5 million pound for one tank over a certain amount of time can grow the numbers and it can be done ,there is no quick fix for the armed forces ,hollowed out by tories and Labour, Labour is a last chance saloon ,

        • David, Thinking of having a 1500 strong tank fleet is very unrealistic. Thats more than we had in the Cold War.

          • True graham,the way things have turned out for our armed forces is woeful but nothing up with a bit of optimisim I suppose, Labour government has boasted for the hundreds of billions for the armed forces first they must upgrade the infrastructure same time as build up of the armed forces, here’s hoping lol

          • 😆 I love those sort of posts…. as the RAC expands from 3 Armoured Regiments to, 20 plus?
            I recall we had 13 Armoured Regiments with Chieftain and CH1 in BAOR.

            The number of CSS – REME, RLC, and HETS required for that lot would fill the M25!

          • Great points. Was it really 13! I remember the RTR having 4 regiments and now only one – and a lot of Cav units being lost due to amalgamation, of course..

            Would be interesting to see how many HETS we have now, following observation that FastTrax has sold some at auction.

  26. No issues from me! Using the Chally to kill Nazi Russian dross is what they were built for, and if crewed by Ukrainian lads or Brits, doesn’t matter! A fucked up T72 is a fucked up T72 no matter who fires the APFSDS round. They are more useful, at this moment, to both the Ukrainians and NATO, being used in Ukraine than sat about “just in case” in Salisbury! However do we need to increase the availability of our armour, yes, numbers, yes, prepare for future conflicts away from Europe, yes of course. But at this moment, this time, they are going to do what they were designed to do, with decent and experienced crews. Crack on, good effort all round.

    • Agreed, we are so deeply unlikely to be actively needing them in the next 5-10 years that they should be going and doing what they were designed for.
      MASSIVE point to make on that though, we should be using that 5-10 years to invest in the Army and re-constitute it into the fighting force we need again. No criticism of the troops themselve in that statement- all of that goes towards equipment provision and force structure.

    • You are so stunning and brave. You should head out there asap and join one of Ukraines completely and definitely not Nazi units like the Freikorps. Actually, your off the cuff foreign policy suggestions are so intuitive perhaps we should keep you here and promote you into high civil service?

    • We certainly don’t have the desert environment to enable parking equipment outdoors.
      But of course we have several general storage depots for the army plus a vehicle depot in Ashchucrch and two vehicle depots in Germany.

  29. We are up shit creek in every way, economically and socially, yet these morons in charge will persist with a warlike attitude. If you leave the Russia/Ukraine war alone it will subside. Concentrate on putting our country right. Have you been shopping lately?

    • Have you any evidence to show that if you just ignore a brutal invasion and attempted destruction of a sovereign nation and look the other way that it somehow won’t empower that country’s leader to continue attacking other countries? Commodity prices won’t suddenly fall if Russia is allowed to prevail. Stopping Russia is at the very core of helping our country.

    • Well, you have a point. The country is indeed up self inflicted shit creek. But I don’t think its a case of either ( the war in Ukraine) or fix the UK. We have to deal with both. Empires come and go as conquered peoples recover their sense of identity and pride in their indigenous culture. France had to get out of Algeria as that people asserted their indigenous Berber culture; we have relinquished most of our empire. I’m sure Westminster would like to be rid of NI if we could persuade someone to take it. The problem is Putin. He is living in the past of so called Greater Russia and this obsession is killing thousands of young men – creating what by some estimates over a hundred thousand grieving Russian mothers. What will get is through both is grace under pressure, persistence and sadly sacrifice. And tanks.

    • Wrong.
      As just one example, out of the G7 nations only Germany has a better debt to GDP ratio.

      As for socially, the UK is probably the most multiculturally integrated and tolerant country in Europe.

      As for shopping, our current inflation is primarily due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The sooner that invasion ends, by helping the Ukraine to kick the Russians out, the sooner that the inflationary pressures arising from this will end.
      As it is, inflation has fallen the last 3 months, as the world adjusts to the situation in Ukraine.

  30. The scary thought I had was what happens if China invades Taiwan. I think it’s very unlikely that any other country will put boots on the ground to support them, but countries might be looking to give military aid again. The challange being what is left to give. Ukraine has taken most of the ‘spare’ kit that the west has got and it doesn’t look like they are planning to rebuild stocks, as most countries seem to be using it as an excuse to cut their old cold war supplies, that are long out of service.

    I had been thinking Ukraine war would put China off, but maybe it will be the reverse, they will consider it the perfect time, as the west won’t be in a position to help because of fully depleted stocks, which were low before Russia rolled over the border and now likely mean a full war can’t be supported.

    • If China invades there isn’t a whole lot the west can do short of going to war. The geography is completely different to Ukraine, there is no supply route into Taiwan short of a naval blockade backed up by force.

      • Kinda depends on China. If they are smart they will try and do it in a way that doesn’t corner the US into action. As such they will let US flagged ships through, as doing otherwise could force the hands of the US. The rest of the west they won’t care about, as no country is going to war with them without the US, so will happily board and impound non US flagged ships.

    • Boots on the ground to aid Taiwain? I doubt it.

      Ships in the sea, planes in the air though… I reckon that would happen. I could see QE or POW being deployed there to operate alongside the US Navy.

      The stocks depleted are mainly land systems; artillery rounds and ATGMs, for example.

      NATO still has plentiful stocks of AMRAAM, Meteor, Sidewinder and ASRAAM, as well as plenty of Tomahawks, Storm Shadows etc, and plenty of Harpoon, Harpoon II, NSM, JSM, LRASM etc.

      • Can’t see the west going to war with China over tawian, land or air. Too far away and the economic consequences too significant.

        • What’s the alternative then, really? Would what we’re doing with Ukraine work with Taiwan?

          Honest question, I don’t know.

          But if the answer is no then it means allowing China to a) conquer a democratic country just as Russia is trying to do, and b) enabling China control of most of the world’s manufacture of microprocessors, holding the entire world’s economy to ransom.

          • The issue is whilst everyone no doubt agrees letting China do it is wrong, being able to do anything without massive loss of life and destroying our economies makes it impossible. I make the same comment I made in early 2022, we and the US should be moving a large force into Taiwan now as a training exercise and so prevent the war starting, as once started there is nothing realistically we can do to stop it.

    • We are gifting 14 tanks – 10 for a tank company and 4 for attrition reserve.
      Some might think we could not spare 31 tanks for a tank battalion plus 10 or so attrition reserve.

      • Bit slow aren’t you? It was reported yesterday that the Ukrainian ambassador had made a mistake at the weekend in announcing the number being donated had been doubled to 28. Which means only 1 air-assault brigade is being equipped, not two. As per standard with their current T-80s, they use these 14 as a spilt of 10 deployed for operations with the remaining 4 in ready reserve.

        We can spare all our CR2s as we’re not at war, and we are members of the most powerful alliance on the planet.

        • I quickly, not slowly, put ‘We are gifting 14 tanks’ to mean that we were not gifting 28 tanks, and that the Ambassador mis-spoke.
          My comment about 31 related to my belief, contrary to that of others, that we could have instead spared 31 tanks which could have equipped a standard Ukrainian tank battalion.
          As it transpires our 14 (10+4) tanks have been allocated to an airborne brigade as you say – I did know that.

          You say we can spare all our CR2s; this assumes that we will not find ourselves needing them in the years to come – that is some assumption, given that we have often deployed our tanks on operations. It also means that you don’t mind cancelling the CR3 programme.
          If we can spare all our CR2s, then we can spare all our Typhoons as well?

          • I have no issues cancelling the CR3 upgrade programme and using the money to buy superior new tanks instead.

            The only war we’ve deployed CR2 in was Iraq, hopefully we won’t be doing any repeats of that illegal debacle. Any wars we do end up will undoubtedly be with allies, who will have tanks.

            Typhoons are used to actively defend the U.K., eg with QRA for any approaching Russian bombers. So we obviously have none spare.
            Whereas CR2 are useless for defending the U.K., unless an enemy has somehow gotten its armour across the Channel/North Sea. One would hope the RAF and RN would prevent that.

  32. Not up on tanks, but suppose we do need more I guess the first option would be to approach Oman and secure their 38 C2s as they seem to be interested in Leopards.

    As a discussion point seeing as the C3 is a complete change in turret and power packs could this be applied to C1s, obviously there would be design effort. Not suggesting we do this but just interested in how much of a change it would be and the engineering effort. The C3 turret is supposed to be designed to fit other NATO tanks, I’ll take that with pinch of salt as its probably like our carrier being suitable for cats and traps 🙂 . I’m thinking design weight of the C1 may be the biggest issue?

    Other options I guess would be;
    1) To join the Franco/German/Italian project.
    2) Buy US, German or say Korean off the shelf.
    3)Or buy another hull and upgrade apply C3 tech.
    4) Start a fresh.

    • Rather than trying to update C1s, what about the 70 odd C2s in storage? The MOD confirmed we have them recently.

      227 less the 28 donated, add 70 (I actually think it is 79), still gives us around 270 that could be updated to C3 standard. The problem isn’t the availability of hulls, but money and the political will.

      • The other problem is that with the third armoured regiment being disestablished under Future Soldier, there is no-one to crew and maintain that larger fleet you suggest.

        • FOC is 2030, probably 2032 or beyond if we ordered more. Enough time to train people. Won’t happen mind. The MOD is getting a bit extra to cover inflation, that’s it. I’d be shocked if we increased Cr3 by more than a token amount, if at all.

          • Training people isn’t the issue. We lose 10,000 soldiers – and so we will only have manpower for two armoured regiments.

            Some are speculating that Defence might get another £5bn in this months budget – I doubt it will be as much as that as Rishi is totally disinterested in Defence – and anyway, how much of the extra £££s will flow to the army? I agree that CR3 numbers would only rise by a token amount, if at all.

          • The 3rd Armoured Regiment has not gone yet, KRH is still equipped with Tanks as the Ajax replacement was delayed.

            So hoping the updated review keeps KRH as the 3rd regiment.

          • Here’s hoping. If so, the numbers of CR3 would have to head up to 227 again (less the 14 tanks gifted to UKR).

    • Probably a huge design effort to fix CR3 turret to CR1 hulls given how little commonality there is between the two Challengers.

      The Franco-German MGCS project is glacial, with it projected at being not operational before 2040. Astounding given the design is essentially a Leclerc turret on a Leopard chassis.
      The Italians are so frustrated with its speed, they tried to set up a rival project. The Poles were interested but walked away due to its laggard speed and went with the South Korean Black Panther instead.
      Even Rheinmetall who are involved with MGCS seem dubious it will succeed, and are now offering their own Panther design as the successor to the Leopard.

      Abrams is a fuel guzzler due to the turbine, I’d say best off the shelf option would be Leopard.
      But if you want to have something to last decades, go for Rheinmetall’s Panther on condition that the first production line for it is in the U.K. and that it be used for export as well as for British orders.

      • Franco-German tank. Think we’ve seen where the last two collaborations went – this one will be joining it.

      • Speed of MGCS is not a problem for us – we don’t need to replace CR3 until the 2040s or thereabouts. Problem is if it is only evolutionary, not revolutionary.

        • MGCS is not a problem for us as it’ll probably collapse as a project before it ever enters production. Rheinmetall clearly thinks so in its decision to develop Panther.

          If you’re happy in limiting the British Army to under 200 MBTs then you could go for CR3 with a 120mm smoothbore and 4 man crew.

          Or alternatively you can go for the new KF51 Panther with 130mm with auto-loader and 3 man crew and buy as many as you have money for.

          • Rheinmetall clearly want to have more than one option in play – very sensible.
            I am not happy that the army has less than 200 tanks (only two armoured regiments) but the Government has decided that the army shall only have 148 tanks – their decision, not my wish. The Government has also decided that they shall be CR3.
            You seem very sure that KF51 are very affordable – is that so?

          • Interestingly the KF51 is a private venture development, rather than government funded, just as the CR2 was. Rheinmetall are clearly skeptical of MGCS, the French muscling to take control of it, along with its very slow progress.

            If the U.K. wants a new tank the only options are;
            • Leopard 2 – now getting long in the tooth and arguably still deficient to Challenger in some aspects
            • Abrams – expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, expensive to run
            • K2 Black Panther – also getting old and requiring upgrades
            • KF51 Panther – still in development, so we can specify a boiling vessel for tea to be included 😏

            (Have I missed any?)

            The cost of the KF51 in part depends on volume produced, over which the development costs can be spread. Given the high volume sales of Leopard compared to say Challenger, the likely failure of MGCS, and Rheinmetall’s plan to target existing Leopard owners, chances are Panther sales will be equally large.

            Production costs can also be effectively reduced if we insist on a U.K. production line, as obviously taxes on Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) and it’s employees go back to the U.K. Treasury. As potentially the first production line for KF51, tax-income is likely to come not just from U.K. tank orders but for export sales too.

            Finally, despite the horrifying size of the national debt, it’s less than all other G7 members, bar Germany, as a % of GDP. So HMG has room to increase defence spending in general.
            The army is getting new wheeled AFV (Boxer), new tracked AFV (Ajax), new air-defence (Sky Sabre and Starstreak) and new attack helicopters (AH-64E Apache Guardian).
            The next two replacements should be for AS-90 artillery and CR2 tanks.

          • Thanks Sean for this. We are proceeding down the CR3 route and the programme should deliver a high quality tank – except that it should have been done at least 10 years ago as a midlife upgrade to CR2, should cost less than it does, has zero chances of export success and leaves us with a very small tank fleet. We should have done the CR3 upgrade in about 2010-2015 and replaced that tank (CR3) in the early 2030s.

            KF51 Panther is in development rather than series production and has many attractive features, albeit I am no fan of torsion bar suspension and it carries fewer main armament rounds than 120mm tanks. It will be interesting to see how the KF51 project pans out.

          • Given Challenger went out of production decades ago I’d agree, zero chance of an export sales even with CR3 upgrade. However I do believe CR3 will produce a tank superior to anything else in Europe.

            The KF51 is really Rheinmetall’s take on an alternative to MGCS (Leopard hull, Leclerc turret), with it designing a new turret added to a Leopard hull rather than using a Leclerc turret. Though I believe they’re looking at a new hull design too…
            Given its not in production, it gives the U.K. a good opportunity to influence design-decisions (such as suspension choice) if we enter an agreement for it.
            Yes it carries fewer rounds, but then the 130mm smoothbore rounds are significantly larger (and compared to CR2 shifting from rifled to smooth will see an ammunition reduction anyway).
            Given we no longer have a U.K. tank manufacturer such as Vickers, getting Rheinmetall U.K. building these here is the next-best thing.

    • I don’t see that we need any more than 213 CR2 tanks (227 less the 14 going to Ukraine) for our current Orbat which includes three armoured regiments.

      There is no time to finesse any tank solution that involves major manufacturing effort, for Ukraine – they need western tanks this month and next.

      We need to press on with the CR3 programme for our own army and hopefully to uplift the numbers and retain the third armoured regiment, rather than losing it.

      We are observers on the Franco/German/Italian project – which will cover the period after CR3 goes out of service. Good option – we should stick with it.

      • Yes Ukraine needs Western tanks this month, that why we should donate as many CR2s as they’d like.

        The MGCS, a project so mired in delays that the Italians tried to set up a rival project with Spain, and which the Polish rejected. We should stay as observers just to learn from all the mistakes made, but definitely not buy it, assuming it ever enters production…

        • Still minimum 14 doh! But with 30 AS90, and shed loads of L119s, NLAWS, Javs, Brimstone, GMLRS, starstreak, CVRTs, Stormer, Bulldogs, Mastiffs and other POVs…..hold on just getting a breath…..and Sea Kings, LR, UAVs, airborne and seaborne, 10000s of thousands ammo……hold on I’m worn out….and loads more, you can look it up if you know how to…..good math in most people’s books eh 👜?

        • Oh my you are very immature, but alas as I’m sure you are aware, the rest of the kit is there, the challys will be on their way! But it’s ok, you can use the blue roll and blow your nose, you won’t have to go. 👜

          • No fear, my moral cowardice of not agreeing with everyone and reserved occupation means I won’t have to go anyway. Not to mention that I hope they win. I’d fight for Russia before siding with Pædo Joe, the billionaire Indian in No. 10 and the fiddler of Kweef.

    • Yeah my thinking is they wanted to hold off an announcement for a couple of months so they could maintain pressure by making regular equipment announcements.

  35. Oh well. Looks like the MOD asked the army how many tanks have u got that work sitting around not deployed.
    Answer none.
    What a shit show these announcements are. If the U.K. wasn’t giving extra tanks a statement should of been sent out straight after the rumour started not several days later.
    Ukraine really could of done with those extra as well. 14 is a bit on the low side.

    • Sunak is expected to announce a “significant” boost in defence spending on a visit to the US next weekend.

      It has been reported across open source media that the Prime Minister will announce a multi-billion pound spending increase during the visit, which comes just days before Hunt’s Budget on March 15.

      Government sources have not denied the claims, first reported by The Sunday Times yesterday. Various figures have been bandied about, but whatever the military get it will have to be enough to impress the Americans. Wallace wants £10billion in part to pay for Ajax but he is unlikely to get that much. My guess is £5billion over the next 5 years.

      • Wallace should not need an additional £10bn to pay for Ajax – that is surely fully budgeted for in the 10-year Equipment Plan.

    • Do you have details or a reference/link? I cannot believe that all of the army’s non-deployed tanks (ie all less the sqn in Estonia) are VOR.

  36. Wish they’d stop all this talking in public. Ukraine needs tanks on the ground. Wish the powers that be would just do their best and get on with it! No need to keep broadcasting all this and showing signs indecision, disagreement and then lack of following through on promises. Delays are costing lives and lengthening this war. Ukraine needs all the advantages it can get to boot Russia out of its territory.

  37. I had this down as the Ukrainians issuing a press relelase to generate something that had not happened yet.

    Just like their bouncing Rishi into talking about fighter jets, when we all know that any of our own jets we send will be based firmly in cloud cuckoo land.

  38. You might want to create another article on this rather than just updating the previous one, most people won’t see it unless it’s recent

  39. Great post from Luke, Nazi loving Rogers, saying he would fight for Russia:

    Luke Rogers
    1 hour ago
    Reply to Airborne
    No fear, my moral cowardice of not agreeing with everyone and reserved occupation means I won’t have to go anyway. Not to mention that I hope they win. I’d fight for Russia before siding with Pædo Joe, the billionaire Indian in No. 10 and the fiddler of Kweef.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here