The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed that there are no current plans to procure additional tanks or armoured vehicles beyond those already announced, despite increases in defence spending.
Responding to a parliamentary question from Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Conservative – Solihull West and Shirley) regarding the number of additional tanks and armoured vehicles expected to be operational by 2027-28, Minister of State Maria Eagle stated that future decisions will be guided by the upcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
“Whilst the Army’s modernisation will continue over the next decade with a programme of investment worth billions of pounds, future capability development priorities will be guided by the Strategic Defence Review (SDR),” Eagle said.
She added: “There are no current plans to procure additional tanks or armoured vehicles to those already announced however, it would be inappropriate to comment on future capability decisions until the SDR has reported and decisions have been made.”
Despite no immediate plans for additional armoured vehicle procurements, the MoD remains committed to Army modernisation, with multi-billion-pound investments planned over the next decade.
However, future force structure decisions—including potential increases in armoured capabilities—will depend on the outcomes of the SDR, which is slated shape the UK’s defence priorities and spending allocations for the coming years.
The response suggests that while defence spending is increasing, the MoD is awaiting the SDR’s findings before committing to further tank or armoured vehicle acquisitions.
An absolute joke.
Scam scam every where but don’t worry , every one is not a cheater, very reliable and profitable site. Thousands peoples are making good earning from it. z For further detail visit the link no instant money required free signup and information…….__
For more information about online businesses,
go to.…… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
The Best opportunities To Earn $22,000/Month. We all spend a lot of time on social media every day – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and the list goes on. If you’re used to getting a lot of likes or comments, or if you’re great at motivating others through your posts, you might want to consider turning this into a profession. It appears unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…
HERE →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐂𝐨𝐦
Earning over $15k monthly through a simple online job has been a game-changer for me. Last month alone, I earned $17,529 by dedicating just a few hours online. If you’re looking to increase your online income, you can start earning more cash by following the instructions provided here….!!
Open This——➤ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟕.𝐂𝐨𝐦
what is the relevancy of tanks on the battlefields when you’re fighting a modern force? truly intrigued, with the advent of drones, i’m guessing lighter, faster is better?
Really relevant actually, which is why everyone, including Russia and Ukraine wants them still.
Drones can not break through enemy positions. Drones can not take ground. Drones can not remain on station for days. Drones do not provide immediate fire support.
Tanks remain relevant because they do things that nothing else, including drones, can do. (And frankly when a drone can do what a tank does it’ll just look like an un-crewed tank).
Hence the lighter machines, bradleys, ifvs, etc
Tull, you are referring now to Infantry vehicles. Totally different roles to tanks.
Very relevant poland are buying over 1200 tanks
Bradley’s are IFV’s. And if you think IFV’s are better than MBT’s then I suggest you look at the BMP-1 loss rates in Ukraine.
Tanks are also very adept at switching between offensive and defensive roles. They can take land or hold it.
good points Dern
Tull.. a modern enemy force will include tanks and a lot of other AFVs. No-one is getting rid of tanks. They do what drones cannot do.
I’m basing the question of course on what Ukraine’s war has shown, they are important yes but also maybe not as suited in the way they are now to cheap weapons (basically a drone strapped with a bomb). Be interested to know the ratio of loss for MBT vs. IFVs etc
Oryx list Russia visually confirmed losses as:
7,500 AFVs (5,600 BMPs+1,900 other “lighter” AFVs such as BTRs and MTLBS) vs
3,800 MBTs
Warspotter lists
7,300 AFVs lost by Russia and
3,300 MBTs lost.
Honest question, if you are unaware of even the open source loss rates how do you know what the Ukraine war is showing?
I said Russia i.e percentage of loss basically how much they have vs how much they lost. Also you should take it easy, i’m asking a question and inviting debate
Ratio* ( not russia lol)
You asked for the Ratio of IFV losses vs MBT losses. I can see it in black and white. Sorry it doesn’t suit your narrative.
And you made a claim that you where basing your questions on what Ukraine had “shown.” I feel asking what you are basing your interpretation of the war om when you can’t even look at loss rates is a completely fair question, and a legitimate part of debate.
Also there are some good charts out there based on work by OS analysis on what % of Russian AFVs have been taken out of Storage and reactivated. I’ll try and post imgur links for you in a bit.
@Dern
Oryx only reports photographically confirmed kills. As such, they are certainly underestimates. UK MoD reorted 20/3 the Russian Armed Forces have “likely sustained approximately 900,000 casualties” since the war began in 2022. This includes 215,000 dead. An outstanding result for the Ukraine Armed Forces
@David
Indeed. Oryx is a floor. But if we are comparing MBT losses vs IFV/APC losses it’s as good a source as we will get, and also why I included the Russian competitor, Warspotter, which broadly corroborates Oryx. While the IFV/APC losses are certainly higher, I don’t think that somehow Russia lost and additional 5,000 or more MBTs that both sites didnt see, while not missing a single extra IFV.
I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a reasonable assumption.
For Ukrainian losses, data is less granular. Oryx reported 558 tanks and over 500 IFVs lost by Ukraine as of mid-2023, suggesting a ratio closer to 1:1 at that point, though captures from Russia (545 tanks) complicate the net loss picture.
@Tullzter Cool, but lets skip forwards to 2025. Now they have losses listed as
MBTs: 1100 lost
Other AFVs: 2,000 (using the same categories as I did for Russia above, 1,200 BMPs and 800 BTR etc)
The numbers are narrower, but it’s still very near a 2-1 loss ratio for Ukraine.
Read recently that the SDR report may not be made public. Not sure how true this but if it is, then one can only infer that the state of our Armed Forces are even worse than first thought.
How much longer until the SDR is published (to the public or otherwise)?
I’m sure I read June on here recently. I think it coincides with the Spending Review being published.
The National Security Strategy is being published in June. The SDR is due in the spring; according to The Times (who revealed the E7 and A400M bits also) it is out in April.
D, that could not possibly be true. All defence reviews are made public. SDR is supposed to be published in Spring, so between 1 March and 1 June.
Graham, do you still stick with the 148 CH3 or are you edging toward more CH2 conversions……you know where I stand but the latest government statement does not surprise me in the least bit.
Maurice, if we keep to two armoured regiments as stated in the Future Soldier (FS) ORBAT, then 148 is incredibly taut, and does not permit a very significant Attrition Reserve. It would be 116 tanks in 3 Div and the balance of just 32 split between Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. [HQ Army may attribute the tanks in a different way, but stick with the conventional core methodology for now]. I think at least another 20 (min) would make sense to swell the Attrition Reserve.
If we somehow retained the 3rd armd regt (KRH), then we would need an additional 58+20 ie 78 more than the 148.
As far as reality…no-one outside the MoD really knows how many of the 213 tanks on the active list or the 70-ish CR2 tanks on the inactive list meet the Platform Presentation State criteria for conversion to CR3.
Also, on reality…the problem is that the increase to 2.5% of GDP does not happen for 2 years and this is a quite small uplift anyway. None of it might go on extra kit for any of the 3 services.
I heard Robert Fox suggest a couple of days ago that he was expecting the SDR report to be out round about Easter.
I’ve got to be honest, this title seems excessively click-baity considering the current environment, especially when the answer boiled down to “we plan to have what we’ve already announced, and any further changes to the plan will come about following the SDR”.
Utter click bait.
I still remain hopeful we retain the KRH as an Armoured Regiment and add a small uplift on Ch3 conversions, if such is possible.
We don’t have enough CH2 in a fit state to upgrade to equip the KHR .
We donated 14 to Ukraine out of a theoretical 227 leaving us with 213 but out of that 213 only 160 are available to be upgraded due the remaining hulls being used to keep 160 operational, but there is only enough money to upgrade 148 .
The government can find money to do what it wants to do..upgrading those extra 60-70 challenger 2s to 3 would costs around 350 million…that’s nothing money to HMG..HMGs budget is 1280 billion pounds a year…it can find .35 billion for 60-70 more challenger 3s if it wants..that’s a rounding error level of money..choice nothing more nothing less..HMG previously chose to reduce the number of MBT regiments and ordered the equivalent required number of Challenger 3s for that level..if it chooses to now maintain 3 regiments it can order more.
Can you imagine making $18,000 a month while working from home just a few hours a day? I’m doing it, and I never thought it was possible until I found this online opportunity. The work is super easy, and you don’t need any prior experience—just a desire to succeed! I can’t believe how much my life has changed in such a short time. If you’re ready to take control of your income, visit the website and get started today!
Visit This……… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐂𝐨𝐦
I agree that upgrading all of the CH2 hulls to CH3 standard is essential.
Absolutely Jonathan, sensible to take advantage of the current production and supply chain and build up a build up a bit of a reserve if not too costly. France and Italy are upgrading theirs and the latter also purchasing additional all new Panther tanks. Why can’t they UK look at even buying back some quantity CR2s (?) from Jordan, Oman or Kuwait (?) if they’re in good enough condition to refurbish and it’s viable?
Because it’s not just about getting hulls into service, it’s about the force structure to support them, and currently the British Army doesn’t have it. Realistically supporting an extra CR3 regiment would mean an extra 3-4 supporting regiments and battalions in artillery, medical, and logistics roles.
Andy, we don’t know what the Platform Presentation State amounts to, but of course it would not mandate that a donor tank had to be fully serviceable in every regard. Far from it.
I have used this extreme example before….given that an entirely new turret and gun is fitted it might be acceptable for a donor tank to have a terrible turret and gun or even to be lacking this entirely!
You mention the 213 tanks on the active list. There are also the tanks on the inactive list that could be considered for CR3 but they are likely to be in poor condition and lacking components that are required for the CR3 programme.
Graham, the PM has made it clear to increase the UK’s defence industries could this include a tie-up with Rheinmetall to create a MBT factory at Telford? Such a heavy armoured facility would rectify the closing of the Leeds plant and allow the UK to return to the big league. If such a plan is in the offing, should the UK build more brand new CH3 or attempt to join the German/French group but build our vehicles at home?
We definitely do not want to join the French/ German effort. It’s a mess due to workshare arguments, etc, etc, and I’ll be surprised if it actually ever delivers.
Hi, the current Europe estimation is that approximately 500 MBT will have to be produced annualy, to reach the level needed to face Russia, taking into consideration army fragmentation and Russian potential. If a war situation occurs, number will have to rise to 700 units per year. After 10 years, annual production rates can be flattened to 375 mBT per year for replenishment.
I think it is quite easy to understand that manufacturing will be mostly done in central and eastern Europe.
The production of IFV’s will double the Numbers of tanks. The list goes on and on. I think France will do some part of it, but not all. We should be ready to man a force though. But I believe with UK we have to make an expeditionary force, Space force, nuclear détergent and aviation. UK will hold a very good influence with the fleet, since it has no land borders to protect. The target fleet should be very important.
Maurice, we lost not only the Leeds tank factory but the Newcastle one as well. As I understand it Telford has an AFV Assembly Hall. If it is upgraded to a ‘proper tank factory’ that sounds fine and dandy, but it would need sizable orders to justify the improvement and infra investment. The reason BAES’s Newcastle and Leeds factories closed as tank factories was the lack of orders – for 20 years no MBT or MBT variant orders were placed, and no IFV or APC orders either. However 60 Terriers were built at Newcastle 2010-2014. That was never enough.
Even if money was found to build a very large number more CR3s than 148, which exceeded the number of suitable CR2 donor vehicles, I would find it odd that a new tank factory at Telford would build new CR3s from scratch – the CR2 design at the root of CR3 dates from the early 1990s, and it would have to be adapted for optimum stowage of one-piece 120mm rounds. Far better to move on to successor to CR3, call it CR4 if you like.
CR4 would certainly be collaborative. It could be license production of the Franco-German MGCS project (on which we currently have Observer status) but I have doubts that this would be a generational shift from CR3. Instead CR4 could be a collaboration with Germany (Rheinmetall) alone or with another nation such as South Korea or Japan. I doubt we would collaborate with the US even post-Trump.
CR4 will almost certainly be built in the UK.
If those figures are correct then we should definitely upgrade the remaining 12 in a suitable state to increase our attrition reserve. The incremental cost would be minimal. Rest go to spares.
Before America went rouge I would have agreed, now I just want more jets, frigates and GBAD.
“Rouge” ? Is this a feminine makeup colour sort of thing ?
Or did he mean Orange?
Rogue?
I want more of those too.
I prioritise those over Tanks.
It’s more that fact that getting the extra MBTs to keep 3 MBT regiments is really really cheap…challenger 3 is a one off bargain..we are never ever going to get another opportunity to purchase a modern western MBT at around 5 million a pop….ordering a new MBT is 20 million+ so we are essentially getting a buy one get three free offer. If we had to pay say 1.2 billion for the tanks to keep the 3rd regiment ( what it would cost for a regiments worth of Abrams or leopard 2s) I would agree there was a lot we could spend that 1.2 billion on..but it would only be around .35 billion..which is 3 typhoons or just under a third of a T26.
Disagree w/your assessment; the vast majority of American males would prefer to go rogue rather than rouge. 😁
Indeed. Death is a preferable alternative to Communism
With uplift in defence spending, it seems like upgrading all CH2 to CH3 (and going through with WCSP) plus sorting out the RA are quick wins at very low cost.
The only issue is if you want 3 CR Regiments then you really should have enablers for a third brigade.
Agree enablers including armoured supporting vehicles and associated logistics train are needed to maximise the effectiveness of MBTS.
The Russians seem to be operating their MBTs in small units, without dedicated armoured support and engineering vehicles needed to assemble enough critical mass and concentrate fires for a breakthrough. This tends to make MBTs even more vulnerable to drones and ATMs while not making best use of what MBTs are best at.
While Australia is acquiring ‘only’ 75 Abrams M1A2 SEP v3 (the first of which are already in country with deliveries ongoing) they will be supported by a significant number of armoured platforms based on Abrams chassis.
Specifically 29 M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles (mine clearing), 17 M1074 Joint Assault Bridge Vehicles (bridging) and an additional 6 M88A2 Hercules combat recovery vehicles to add to existing CRVs.
Curious as to what armoured support vehicles will operate alongside the upgraded Challenge 3s and what UK operational doctrine will be.
It’s not about maximising the effectiveness, it’s that the Army is currently set up for only two armoured brigades. There isn’t infantry, artillery, med, or logistics to field a third brigade at the moment, so any extra CR3’s will just not have a place in the army’s structure unless SDSR comes up with something clever.
Ironically for mine clearing etc the army is still in a relatively good place, with 3 CS Engineer Regiments in the armoured Division.
I agree it’s a profoundly cheap intervention to get an extra 60-70 challenger 3s to keep KRH as an MBT regiment…no increase in ongoing costs..just a pure capital investment of around 5.5 million per MBT so £350 million giver or take..that’s back of the sofa money for the UK Government. But it would mean the army retains the ability to in theory deploy an armoured brigade on a long term deployment into Eastern Europe or have a fighting chance of in extremis deploying an armoured division with 2 MBT regiments.
Jon, MoD would also have to increase the funded manpower count to retain the 3rd armoured regiment.
Do you know the establishment of an Armoured Reg vs an Armoured Cavalry Regiment?
Daniele, I don’t know that. But given that primary equipment in an armd regt has a 4-man crew and primary equipment in an ACR has a 3-man crew, it might be that the manpower establishment is fairly similar. I seem to recall that an armoured regiment has about 400 posts.
If we retained the 3rd armoured regiment and used it as a reason to convert 1 DSRBCT into an armoured brigade, it would need two armd/mech inf battalions, a CS Engr Regt, enabler units etc etc etc.
Hi Graham.
The extra CS CSS can only realistically be found by cutting some Infantry Battalions, if there is to be no increase in Establishment.
Although at present it’s still an MBT regiment..so it would just need to keep it the same as it’s not moved to armoured cav as yet..so it would be as per the 24/25 establishment…
Yes, my point. The personnel exist in situ.
From the little I know, that small uplift might just not be possible. I reckon that the doner fleet is pretty much exhausted now.
Having said that though, I do wonder if we might sit back and wait until the new German thing appears…. Can’t see much point investing billions producing our own again.
Essentially a non answer that essentially means “I’m not saying anything, wait for the defence review”
I would draw no conclusion from that answer at all.
Exactly.
Until the Defence review confirms that the uplift is too minor to do much anyway beyond fund the current programs already planned. Not a bad thing in itself, but it seems the plans of 2015/2020 surely are not fit for the realities of today considering how much has changed.
I cannot even begin to see how we could add to our Tank numbers given that we lost any ability to manufacture them decades ago. CH3’s are a rehash and nothing like a return to uk manufacturing. I doubt we even could begin to consider full on UK tank design and production now.
Because we are only converting 150 odd of the 213 challenger hulls available..if they chose to they could convert the whole 213. Choices choices. I agree beyond that becomes a problem…but 200 MBTs is probably about ok for an island nation..we are not personally going to fight off the hoards and only really need what we can deploy + a reserve.
Truth be known though, that’s all we could realistically convert. The rest are Toast.
You say that but the Russians are converting tanks that have been stood outside for 50 years. They are only Toast in that they are not repairable as challenger 2s…there is very little a factory that is essentially removing the turret and fighting compartment, completely refurbishing the hull and replacing the power pack cannot do. The number picked for conversion was based on the number needed not on what was possible as an engineering task.
“They are only toast in that they are not repairable as challenger 2’s” Almost. They are not *economically* repairable.
Hi Dern that’s the point really they are not economically repairable as challenger 2s..dragging them off to be gutted and rebuild as challenger 3s is a completely different proposition…it would be nonsense to spend 5-6 million to gut and rebuild a challenger 2 running against..so the are beyond economic repair…that does not mean in anyway they are beyond the scope of a complete gut and rebuild as a challenger 3 costing 5-6 million…two very very different sets of equations and the fact one challenger 2 is running and another is not would probably make little to no difference on the gut and rebuild costs as they will both be having their turrets removed, fighting compartments rebuild, electrical looms and systems removed and restrung etc.
We don’t have any that have been sitting around for decades though…. Centurions, Cheiftan’s, CH1’s CH2’s were brilliant in their own era’s and still probably would be in Ukraine but…. we don’t store them and we no longer have them….. only Russia holds on to their antiques.
Rear Admiral.
Except we do. There’s hulls sitting in Ashcurch from the drawdown 15 years ago that never got scrapped.
@ Dern that’s interesting so they never scrapped them, just parked them up ? That would mean hull wise there are more that 213 available ? Although to be honest 210 would be fine for 3 regiments.
@Jonathan, I think 30 where scrapped early on, but after that they just got dumped in Ashchurch, I think about 70 are there off thd top of my head? You can see them in satellite and GE imagery.
They’ve been rained on for over a decade now, so probably in terrible condition and not as cheap to refurbish as in service CR2, but the hulls exist.
It wouldn’t be that hard to make new hulls TBH.
It is all perfectly possible if HMG want it to be possible.
Again, relatively, peanuts money to clone more hulls. The main thing is not to try and iterate the design for a CH3-II that would be the disaster as army would do they usual and Gucci it out of sight.
Pretty sure Rheinmetall have said they could produce new hulls for CH3 if the money was available.
They did. I remember reading that…
They also said they could build the new hulls in Telford, so it seems that it is possible to reopen a fully fledged tank production line in the UK with more than half the job already done (new engines and refurbed hulls)…
So I think we should be aiming at being able to field a fully functioning armoured division as our main contribution to the land battle.
However, I agree with Jim and Daniele, more frigates, jets and GBAD. So basically, build up the RN and RAF to cover the maritime flank of eNATO, hopefully with Canada. Once we have that sorted out the Army. However, we have an opportunity to build a very effective modernised MBT for a very modest cost when compared to a ‘new’ tank, so I would support building some extra tanks and increasing the number of armoured regiments ‘ahead’ of building up a full armoured division. Creating the rest capabilities would come later once we get the ships and planes sorted…
Cheers CR
We could definitely consider it, thats the easy part.. the designing and producing would just take time and money. If them bright lads can reverse engineer the F35 to keep it going then im sure they could reverse engineer our own tank for a head start.
Not sure at all about that. Sorry but the Shah Tank was a monumental engineering challenge back in the day. CH1 and 2 were vast sponges of UK defence money, CH3 is way less in proportion due to it’s fewer numbers and reliance upon German tech/manufacturing.
We ain’t building anymore CH3’s ever again.
BAe after the Chally 2 production line finished did not scrap the production jigs. So they could restart a new production line of Chally 2 hulls with the new turret. RBSL have stated as much, as they made an offer to produce new vehicles alongside the reconditioned and modernised ones.
Nope. It all ceased decades ago. You need to understand the entire process, the knowledge and experience and ability to re start manufacturing these.
It’s never going to happen.
Not with that attitude.
You should read RBSL’s statement, before saying it’s impossible. Granted it takes time to build up the manufacturing knowledge, but with the reconditioning the Chally 2 hull is getting along with the new turret build. They won’t be starting from scratch.
Sadly the Defence Ministers and MoD are taking up the offer (at the moment)!
Nah…. it’s not ever going to happen. CH3 ends here.
Having said that though, I’m not ruling out a future UK Tank type design/development at all, Just a CH3 Follow on. ….. I happen to believe that this Ukraine War has had a prefound effect on the future of ground warfare.
having watched the thousands of Videos of the war in the Ukraine now, I’m pretty convinced that a new era is upon us.
Anyone with knowledge on the subject will say that the Turret and Gun System (s) are the complicated parts of an MBT, the Hull and Automotive components not so much.RBSL have stated that new Hulls COULD be built if a customer required.
You have got to laugh! The cousins upgrade M1s the Germans upgrade Leopards all the time and yet as soon as we put a new turret,upgraded engine and suspension on a refurbished CR2 hull it’s a “rehash”🙄
British Army needs more tanks or at least vehicles with some decent similar firepower
You can’t discount any vehicle \ weapon on the battlefield. All have a use
The CH2 in Ukraine have mainly been used like artillery, hitting from long range and disappearing until favourable conditions
They and other tanks have been struggling in the Ukrainian winter as they are too heavy
But tanks are still needed on the battlefield and like every other piece of equipment will sustain damage… there is no escaping by any vehicle from drones with night vision capability attacking continuously!
As for the drone \ modern war issue>
Fibre-optic FPV drones are increasing in number and use as well, their range puts equipment in even more danger
And the weight and type of explosives used is increasing… 💣
As part of any defensive and offensive action the drones can help take ground and hold back the enemy until other assets engage
Its the No #1 thing asked to fundraise for from the front line!!!
The difference between life and death…
About 85 % of damage is done by drones in Ukraine, and the attrition sheets show their dominance
Repurpose Sultans, stick some TOW mis.. err, fibre spools and drone racks on the roof.
I am going to disagree with part of that comment. As the Ukrainian 82nd Airborne Brigade who field the Chally2, used them in an offensive capacity to “enmasse” penetrate the Russian border and invade the Kursk region. According to “Wiki”, there have now been 4 Chally 2s lost (destroyed) in the fighting since being donated, predominantly by FPV drones.
Well said and like I mentioned above “until favourable conditions”
When the Kursk incursion started, and more recently they were spotted many times in Kursk and did what they could offensivly with 82nd Separate Air Assault Bukovynska Brigade
A big help in breaking through lines
The Ukrainians like them
Great seeing them on the video footage😁
Now Kursk has served its purpose I wonder where the CH2 end up going to next .. if they are moved!
Had read earlier in Janes, that a chairman of one of the Russian tank manufacturers that builds the T14 Armata. Has stated the Russian Army doesn’t want them, as they cost too much! He said the Army’s position is that you can buy 2 to 3 T90s for the price of one T14!
If that is the case, then I see little value in upgrading to a larger calibre main gun over the current L55A1 that will equip the Chally 3, that the proposed next gen Franco-German MBT requires. Especially as the donated to Ukraine Chally 2’s L30A1 using the CHARM Fin rounds, has successfully taken out the latest T90Ms, with the supposedly latest ERA fitted. There are rumours suggesting that a new version of the T90 may be seen soon. Where it removes the carousel autoloader and places it in a turret bustle. Perhaps the Russian Army is starting to see value in their troops and that keeping experienced tankers alive is worthwhile?
“Perhaps the Russian Army is starting to see value in their troops and that keeping experienced tankers alive is worthwhile?”
Putin sees value in anything other than preserving his miserable life? Struggle to believe that TBH.
Why would you want an expensive one when you use tanks like howitzers?
Does anyone know the fate of the removed C2 turrets? I assume they can just be scrpped due to the Dorchester armour.
They will be scrapped im sure – no doubt some clown on here would suggest putting the removed Turrets on Warrior,Boxer,Ajax or Are’s ( delete as appropriate ).
They should put them on the Rivers 2s turn them into gun boats..😵💫😵💫
More tanks etc – great. But do we have the crews to operate them, support units (REME?) and barracks to give them a home?
What about a missile defence system to defend out cities and infrastructure? Missile attack is the most likely way Russia would attack us directly
Agree but it’s not just GBAD/ integrated multi layered air defence network that’s needed it’s more of everything across the board. For far too long has defence been seen as an insurance policy we didn’t really need, under invested in and cut back to the thread bare. Now it’s coming home to roost.
The answer is yes we do because at present the army has 3 challenger 2 regiments..and its planning to drop down to 2 a year as it converts the kings royal hussars from a challenger 2 regiment to a armoured cal regiment..so all it has to do is not convert the KRH and it will have 3 regiments of tankies that need Challenger 3s so that’s 168 needed + 10% maintenance pool ( 16 ) + school ( 12 ) + attritional reserve of a squadron (18) for 210 challenger 3s…so they don’t need any more crews etc as that still is all in place until change is actually physically made.
Also the Royal Wessex Yeomanry is a reserve tank regiment that does not have any tanks..it’s set up at present to just supply individual crews as battlefield and attritional replacements.. but it could be equipped with tanks and its squadrons turned into deployable squadrons that could support infantry battle groups without taking squadrons from the 3 full time regiments.
So all in all the army could with a bit of Change of plans absorb and use around 250 MBTs.
Sadly we actually don’t.
There are only enough Medical Regiments to support 7X, 12X, 20X and 16X
There are only enough Gun Artillery regiments to support 2 armoured brigades.
RLC is less tight but would still require cuts to Divisional or Corps enablers to achieve.
The only way the army could support a 3rd CR3 regiment would be to use it in line with a completely different CONOP.
Hi Dern to be honest the question of 3 regiments of armour is a slightly different one to three standardised armour brigades. There is really nothing at all to stop the Army having one brigade of 2 MBT regiments and one of 1.. it does not negate the advantage of 3 regiments.. because in reality for sustained deployments at most the army deploys at battalion, regiment battle group level. And more than anything the 3 regiments is about being able to sustain the deployments of an MBT formations above the level of a sabre squadron for a sustained period of time.. 3 proper armoured brigades should be an ambition but as you say because of CS/CSS it’s a longer term ambition.. keeping three MBT regiments is really something they could just do if they wanted to.
Personally if I was having a bit of fun and really pushing the army to think differently about heavy formations I would get the royal Wessex yeomanry to actually have three of its squadrons as actually equipped with Challengers and set up as deployable sabre squadrons. Then each of the 2 armoured brigades would have 2 MBT regiments, for a total of 3 regular 1 reserve ( that was more in line with how the fins do reserve formations). That would give the army 12 sabre squadrons to deploy into battle groups and make sustaining a large “heavy” battle group in the Baltic states less of a strain. Finally I would keep 2 of the RWYs 5 squadrons as the more traditional Attritional reserve.. considering how small the challenge attritional reserve is and how very good the challenger is at keeping its crew alive how big a crew reserve does the army need.. 2 squadrons of around 40 crews would seem adequate to match the likely losses of tanks vs crew and their respective reserve pools.
The ambition is to deploy a coherent division, which means coherent brigade structures, which this wouldn’t be. I don’t really see the point of a third Challenger Regiment if there isn’t the force structure to employ it, and no, just having it sititng in one of the two Armoured Brigades is not a solution. The Armoured Brigades are already quite light on Infantry, with two battalions supporting a Challenger Regiment and and Ajax Regiment, now suddenly those two Battalions are supposed to be supporting three armoured regiments? I don’t think so. That’s asking for unescorted tanks wandering around the battlefield getting ambushed with Anti-Tank missiles.
It doesn’t really help with “Battlegroup rotation” either, as a Battlegroup is still majority infantry, usually a Armoured Squadron supporting an Infantry Battalion, or a Platoon of tanks per company. So unless there is a comensorate uptick in infantry to rotate, just having more tanks doesn’t result in an easier rotation… and if you add more infantry then suddenly you have a brigade that’s too big and unwieldy to be handled in combat, so you kind of need a third brigade.
That’s before we touch on the fact that the supporting arms ALSO have to rotate through deployments, and a great way to destroy retention in CS/CSS is to have them have to rotate into deployments more often than the teeth arms (again, never mind if you actually wanted to deploy the division).
@Dern.
Mate, as notifications don’t work, replied to you on KS1 discussion and UKAFC anti EU point. Cheers.
It is valid highlighting the lack of enablers for 3 regiments of CH3 even though it should be retained and the enablers added, however so far nothing has indicated the necessary changes or increases for this.
It’s also important to recognise in a peer war the losses will likely be significant and larger attrition reserves even if in place of a third regiment would be beneficial, even without war the 148 planned will also wear over time and their replacement likely won’t be any time soon and this number could drop and impact readiness in the event there is one.
If funding isn’t available currently to increase CH3 numbers for 3 regiments in 3 equal credible armoured brigades, in the event of war, a larger CH3 reserve could allow the training of replacement crews or even a reserve regiment to be added which could be equipped and supplied to the field army to help bridge the gap until manufacturing is restored as this would not be quick.
So far there is no evidence of anything which is going to be increased. All we’ve had is words. I won’t hold my breath waiting for something of more substance…
Just remember the SDR could recommend thecpurchasd of a 1000 mbps, but plans would have to made from those recommendations. Therefore note there are no current plans. So in other words smoke and mirrors evasive answer.
Sorry about the typos
Oh good. So SDSR is just going to be a complete fudge and fiasco.
I see the British army has gone on record to state they shouldn’t be sent into Ukraine as mission unclear, rules of engagement unclear. No mission priorities or objectives. Equipment not available, troops too few, no contingency reserve and most importantly if we do commit to Ukraine then no force available to meaningfully support allied NATO countries like Poland or Baltic states.
In summary it’s a Tory induced fiasco that Labour will need huge reallocation of funds and time to resolve. Yet news like this indicates there is zero resolve to rearm, re equip and build massively in our military again.
Mr Bell, it is very early days in planning a peacekeeping force. I am not surprised that very little is clear at this stage. Starmer has only been raising his Coalition of the Wiling for a a few short weeks, and at the moment there is no peace to keep. Russia predictably stalls on even agreeing a ceasefire.
Odd that the BA should leap in and say it is all impossible, before seeing firm political plans.
However, it is important for the Generals to inform politicians with total honesty and realism of the art of the possible and so shape their views.
On the plus side of things as I understand it, in roughly 3 years time the army will have 589 Ajax variants, of which 245 will be be 40mm turreted and, assuming 100 per year, some 300 Boxer APCs. They retain a comparable number of Warrior IFVs and several dozen Apache gunships. Where there’s a will there’s a way; I’m sure we could acquire another 70 CR3 somehow if its really important but the priority spending gap looks like more Boxer variants abd artillery rather than MBTs.
In reality the army could be made heavier with relatively little or no extra capital investment
A total of 210 challenger 3s and maintaining 3 MBT regiments for around £350 million extra
Keep and life extend warrior for the AI battalions so keeping 300ish warriors 600 million
Use the 600 boxers for the mec infantry battalions
Move all the mec infantry battalions protected vehicles for use by the the light role infantry ( every light role infantry battalion should have its own protected mobility vehicle.
Order 1000 cheaper APC for all other functions..these can be purchased for around 1/5th the cost of buying more boxers ( France is buying five of its APCs for the price of every boxer we buy)…1000 million but saving around 4000 million from future boxer orders.
Massive increase in number and lethality of armies armoured vehicles and saving 2000-3000 million due to not following up on the armies self destructive boxer obsession…
Not questioning your value for money argument as it applies to desire to increase heavy structure. And I agree the SDR may see things the same way. But there are other spending priorities if it decides that’s not the way to go. E.g. minimum investment in Warrior and develop an Ares or Boxer IFV; the 155mm Boxers; accelerate the replacement of large numbers of clapped out or obsolete 432, protected patrol and light mobility vehicles. £350m for more CR3 could buy 350 Patria 6×6 APCs. Just saying.
432 is being replaced by Boxer, so delaying Boxer at this point means keeping 432 in service for longer.
To be honest Dern boxer is just to expensive, to slow to deliver and just to heavy to replace the armies armoured vehicles as planned at present.. in reality the army needs around 2000 armoured vehicles for its AI, Mec infantry and support roles..by 2032 it will have 630 boxers delivered at around 6 million pounds a pop…then it still needs another 1200+ it’s just not a viable plan in reality the army needs
1) an infantry fighting vehicle for its AI..in reality it should be a tracked IFV…the most cost effective viable option really for this was a warrior life ex at about 2 million per vehicle..not a wheeled apc at 6 million.
2) a decent APC for the MEC infantry… now there are cheaper options but boxer is pretty good for this role. So the 600 could be used for that.
3) a cheap and quick to purchase lighter APC in the 25 ton range.. around 1000 of these for everyone else, no more than 1 million per APC.
because buying around 1600-1800 6million pound, 40 ton APCs is an insane waste of money the army does not have..especially if it takes 20 years to deliver them.
It’s already got its armoured cav and cav sorted out… it could then look at how it’s giving its light role infantry protected mobility vehicles….because that should be a minimum standard for deployment.
I don’t really see the relevance? None of that changes the fact that 432 is going to go and be replaced by Boxer.
As for the critique of Boxer, it only is going to the AI units, so two brigades worth. Mech Inf is getting its own vehicles under the LMPV program. Anyway, there are 4 Armoured Infantry Battalions, and 10 Mech Inf Battalions (give or take 1-2 on each side of the scale depending on where overseas garrison units are drawn from). 600 Boxer will not cover the Mech Inf need, even if another procurement program was started. So ironically, your plan would in fact increase the Boxer buy.
As for Light Role, there is no light role infantry left in the Army that has a deployable role outside of 16AA, and that will never have organic PMV’s due to the airmobility requirement.
Yeh, I didn’t express it well. I guess what I was driving at was the age of the fleet, the scale of the task and what seems to be a piecemeal approach. Kind of catch 22 ..how do you know what you need if you haven’t decided what you want to do?
Agreed.
Paul, On current plans as Boxer comes in, the Warrior is withdrawn from service. We wait to see if somehow a new build IFV project can be crafted and funded.
What will the new SDR be about?
What a surprise 🙄
Of course not… that would be the smart decision and UK military procurement is not smart.
.
.
It purchases upgrade kits for a relatively small number absorbing higher per tank development costs, in the face of a clear requirement to boost back numbers to Cold War levels. The UK wants to build its economy and yet fails yet again to understand that if it doesn’t build it cannot export (military manufactured products – planes, ships, submarines, tanks, munitions etc).
.
.
It is little wonder the L30 became the evolutionary dead-end; with too few tanks and ammunition production requirements, the smoothbore is the adequate solution with the foolishness of the MoD – Give me a rifled cannon any day!
Rifled cannons are a requirement if you need to spin the effector, the fin stabilised discarding sabot actually does not work if spun by a rifled barrel and so needs a more complex slip obturator than the standard obturator of a APFSDS fired by a smoothbore. The main and to be honest only real reason for the rifled barrels in British tanks was that the physics of the spin make squash head rounds far more effective ( you can have a longer effector, the spin gives accuracy to a squash head and it spreads the pat of explosive in a larger area). As squash heads have gone out of fashion as the round of choose so the need for a rifled cannon has gone.