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.

Avatar photo
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.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

456 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago

Not a surprise, a very welcome story, I’m guessing a final number of about 40/50…

Mark B
Mark B
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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.

Jonny
Jonny
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

dc647a
dc647a
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonny

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  dc647a

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.

dc647a
dc647a
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

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… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  dc647a

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 ?.

dc647a
dc647a
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  dc647a

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  dc647a

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  dc647a

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  dc647a

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

Mark B
Mark B
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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].

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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… Read more »

dave12
dave12
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  dave12

don’t think 199 would be possible if we are giving 24 to ukraine. I doubt htere is enough left to upgrade.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Buy back from Oman?

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

199 is just about do-able,current strength is 227 minus 24 leaves 203,plus 75 possibles in deep storage.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

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

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

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.

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  dave12

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….

dave12
dave12
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Easy way to get recruitments levels back on top quickly , recruit more Gurkhas.

Louis
Louis
1 year ago
Reply to  dave12

Gurkha armoured regiment or artillery regiment would be very useful

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Louis

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah
1 year ago
Reply to  dave12

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.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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.… Read more »

jason
jason
1 year ago

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.

Dylan
Dylan
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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,

Last edited 1 year ago by Dylan
Mike Warr
Mike Warr
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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.

Craig
Craig
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  Craig

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.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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… Read more »

Louis
Louis
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Louis

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.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

‘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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I can only wish you luck!👙

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

😂😂

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

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…😂😂

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

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

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

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

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Grrrrrrrrrr……😇

Esteban
Esteban
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

If you believe the MOD press releases because they have been so accurate so far.

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

👜

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

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

Unlike yourself with your bigotry and daft political agenda.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

? You suggest they have been inaccurate. Examples, please.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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.

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

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.

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

I’ve read an argument that we scrap the C3 programme, give all C2s to Ukraine and buy Leopard 2s.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffi

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Monkey spanker
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul T
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffi

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… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffi

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!!

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffi

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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffi

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.

Boris Cross
Boris Cross
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

I thing you will find this will increase and they are likely to be Challenger 3’s.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Boris Cross

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

We gave only got a developed design that is being prototyped now!

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago

Please clarify.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago

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 Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

What use would CH1 be?

It electronics fit is ancient…..

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

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.

Steve R
Steve R
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Would the Omanis play ball, though? Would they be willing to sell us their C2s?

Louis
Louis
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve R

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

Quite fast work by RBSL given that Contract Award was only in May 2021.

Boris Cross
Boris Cross
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Boris Cross

IOC 2027. FOC 2030.

Farouk
Farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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

Steve R
Steve R
1 year ago
Reply to  Farouk

Not unless it’s a post-war export to rebuilding Ukraine, anyway.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve R

IOC 2027. FOC 2030. Why would we send Ukraine CR3s after 2030? We need them for our own army.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

DP
DP
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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?

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  DP

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  DP

227 tanks enables 3 regiments to be equipped.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

No CR3s are due to be released to the British Army until IOC in 2027.

Stuart Gartery
Stuart Gartery
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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.

Peter
Peter
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter

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.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

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.

Esteban
Esteban
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

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

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

👜👚

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

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

Steve R
Steve R
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

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

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

What’s stopping us?

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

We can’t deploy a Div.

Please smell some coffee.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

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.

Andy M
Andy M
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

We live on an Island. There are no enemy land forces that directly threaten us.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy M

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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

Johnlee
Johnlee
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy M

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy M

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.

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

Michael Brigg
Michael Brigg
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

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

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Brigg

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!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

Totally agree with you.

Properly used tanks are critical.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

👍

Steve R
Steve R
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Brigg

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.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve R

👍

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve R

Nothing has been invulnerable to enemy fire.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Brigg

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.

BobA
BobA
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

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.

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  BobA

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

Please take note of my grammar.

BobA
BobA
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barry

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.

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  BobA

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

BobA
BobA
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barry

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,

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  BobA

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,… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

All spot on, I think the same.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter

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

Oliver
Oliver
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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.

Mark B
Mark B
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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.

edwinr
edwinr
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  edwinr

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

Mark B
Mark B
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

Mark B
Mark B
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark B

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.

Mark B
Mark B
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Jason
Jason
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

What do we actually need the tanks for at this moment?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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…

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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!😚

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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,… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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?

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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!

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

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….

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Shall we give Ukraine all our Typhoons too?

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

A review is due later this month,any change in numbers,unlikely as it is should be announced then

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  jason

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

Jonny
Jonny
1 year ago

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.

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonny

There is a story in the Express about he is going to increase the budget but let’s wait and see !

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonny

Agreed

Paul42
Paul42
1 year ago

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……..

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

Until recently we had 227 CR2s on the active list, now reduced by 14 gifted to Ukraine.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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 🤔

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew D

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).

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Egypt has hundreds in reserve.

Marked
Marked
1 year ago

Saves the PM and chancellor being asked for funds to upgrade a bigger fleet if they give them away first.

russell s thomas
russell s thomas
1 year ago

Well hunt has a Chinese wife who probably has influence over him .

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 year ago

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… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

That factory in Telford didn’t make the hulls.

Louis
Louis
1 year ago

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.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Louis

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jon
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Louis

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’.

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago

I did say that the factory would need to be expanded.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

After CR3. Something will have to replace it in decades to come.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

Paul Morris
Paul Morris
1 year ago

“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!

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
1 year ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

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

Paul Green
Paul Green
1 year ago

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Green
grumpy old steve
grumpy old steve
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Green

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….

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Green

The contract was signed in May 2021 for £800m to upgrade 148 of the CR2s to CR3 status.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
1 year ago

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago

“ 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

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
1 year ago

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago

I wonder out of the 179(?) AS90 made how many are serviceable?

Louis
Louis
1 year ago

89 in service don’t know how many of the remaining 90 are in storage

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago

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? 🤔😳😉😁

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 year ago

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.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Apparently UAE ure donating Leclerc to Oman therefore chally may be surplus to requirement

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago

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?

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago

UAE are donating their Leclercs to Jordan as a modern replacement for their Challenger 1s.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

They are replacing their Challenger 2s with K2 Black Panthers. So these will be spare soon.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago

Assumes Oman wants to sell CR2 at a reasonable price, and that the ones they have are in decent condition.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sean
Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

The UAE had donated 80 Leclerc Tanks to Jordan,not Oman.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Your right apparently Oman wants to buy k2 thunder tanks so chally will be surplus

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

Mikeytee
Mikeytee
1 year ago

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Mikeytee

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/

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mikeytee

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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?

Aaron L
Aaron L
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron L

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..

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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).

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron L

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?

Aaron L
Aaron L
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron L

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.

Aaron L
Aaron L
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron L

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.

Aaron L
Aaron L
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron L

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

👍

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Barry Larking
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 year ago

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

True. IOC in 2027, FOC in 2030 – so we need 120mm rifled ammo for the next 7 years.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

Alexander
Alexander
1 year ago

Where is your 800k number coming from

Farouk
Farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Alexander

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… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  Farouk

Visit. Not ‘Leave with remain to stay.’

Sorry, what was your point?

Michael Brigg
Michael Brigg
1 year ago
Reply to  Farouk

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.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago

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

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 year ago

And the NHS would be screwed without immigration from countries like India.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Well its a double edge sword, as the immigrants get old
& need NHS care themselves.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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

grumpy old steve
grumpy old steve
1 year ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

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… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 year ago

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.

Me again
Me again
1 year ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

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… Read more »

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

That’s just a population Ponzi scheme.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Only those with visas to stay long-term.
Student visas and visit visas are temporary.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

Why do students need to bring their relatives with them?

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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

Grizzler
Grizzler
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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?

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Grizzler

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Farouk
Farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Robert,
The question regards foriegn staff across the NHS was brought up in Parliment last Nov:
https://i.postimg.cc/cCS8tHS7/Opera-Snapshot-2023-03-05-174934-researchbriefings-files-parliament-uk.png

Jonny
Jonny
1 year ago
Reply to  Farouk

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…