Britain’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has made a bit of a fanfare over the UK’s new main battle tank (MBT), the Challenger 3, and its first public appearance in prototype form.
Britain’s current MBT, the Challenger 2, is getting a bit long in the tooth and is basically obsolescent. First introduced into British army service in 1998, some 447 were built, including 38 for export to Oman.
I have always said that one indication of a weapons system’s usefulness is its sales performance to other states; those sent to Oman are Challenger 2’s only exports, which compared to similar statistics for the tank’s main competitors within NATO, the German Leopard 2 and the American M1 Abrams, are paltry. More recently fourteen Challenger 2s from UK stocks were donated to Ukraine.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The tank’s performance in UK service has been acceptable. It has been employed in British armoured deployments to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere. Only two have been lost to hostile action, one to “friendly fire” (there is no such thing!) in Iraq in 2003 and another more recently in Ukraine succumbing to mine and/or drone damage.
Britain, however, made relatively few improvements or upgrades to its tanks over the past twenty years, in contrast to the Americans and Germans who cave made major improvements iteratively. Consequently Challenger 2 is now comprehensively outclassed by the MBTs of friendly nations.
In the light of this, plus the perceived revival of the threat of conventional armoured warfare in Europe in the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, the decision was taken to upgrade Britain’s ageing tank fleet with the aforementioned Challenger 3, prototypes of which have been on trials in Germany.
The “new” tank will be a major improvement on its predecessor, no doubt about it, although it utilises the redundant Challenger 2 hulls as the basic building block for the new vehicle. That said, the hulls will be stripped down to the basics, refurbished, and improved in some ways. So “nearly-new” is probably a fair description.
The major change is above the waist with a completely new turret. This will boast many new systems including improved sights and optics and better armour protection, but the most obvious improvement is the adoption of the German 120 mm smoothbore cannon as replacement for the British 120 mm rifled gun of its predecessor.
Not only is the German gun superior in performance to its predecessor but it also uses ammunition compatible with the MBTs of other NATO nations, most notably the American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2. Many of us had been banging on (no pun intended) about adopting the German cannon for 40 years, so better late than never I suppose.
Accordingly it looks as if it’ll be a decent vehicle with initial deployment or “initial operating capability” planned for 2027 and a full in-service date of 2030, although previous history suggests that both dates should be taken with a pinch of salt.
And that’s good news; an almost brand new and modern tank for the British army is on its way. Now for the not-so-good news.
First and foremost of that is that we’re currently planning to procure only 148 of them, which is embarrassingly few when you remember that at the height of the Cold War, not that long ago, the British army’s Royal Armoured Corps could hope to field around 900 MBTs. No wonder some US senior officers have said that Britain is no longer a Tier 1 military power.
One hundred and forty eight is about sufficient to equip two armoured regiments plus reserve and training vehicles. It’s laughably small. In Ukraine the Russians have lost roughly 3,000 tanks in just over two years, and in 1944 the British and Canadian armies lost approximately the same number in about three months during the battle for Normandy.
So 148 MBTs might last about a fortnight in intensive combat if we’re lucky, and after that there will be no replacements. If there’s one lesson to come out of the current conflict in Ukraine it’s that you need lots of stuff, to use the correct technical term, and clearly 148 tanks ain’t going to cut it.
Next is that, despite reported upgraded armour, Challenger 3 seems to have precious little to counter the drone threat despite what we have witnessed in Ukraine and elsewhere. The new tank is fitted for, but not with, active protective systems (APS) which could shoot down incoming threats. Only 60 sets of APS are part of the Challenger 3 order, which makes you wonder what might happen to the remaining 84 unprotected MBTs.
Finally, for this article at least, there is no replacement powerpack planned. Challenger 3 will weigh around 70 tonnes and will still have a 1200 bhp engine, as does Challenger 2. Reports from Ukraine suggest that the Ukrainians regard the latter to be underpowered, and both M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 have 1500 bhp powerpacks. It would seem that Challenger 3 may be as underpowered as its predecessor.
All of the above is subject to the caveat that the UK does not think it will be embarking on conventional armoured warfare in the future solo; it will be alongside NATO allies and so will be fielding its meagre tank fleet together with the much larger fleets of others.
I never said that Challenger 2 was or is a bad tank, just that it was the wrong tank for the British army for reasons I have explained many times before until I’m blue in the face. I fear the same will be said of Challenger 3; produced in small numbers, no export potential doomed for extinction.
We were presented with the broad autobahn to the future offered by joining the Leopard 2 club, and instead in its wisdom the MoD has chosen the cul-de-sac that is Challenger 3. Very British, choosing the winding country lane that leads to a dead end.
Again.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a defence analyst and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk. First published on ThinkScotland.org.
We do not need 900 tanks or 150,000 strong Army. Two reason can not afford it, can not man 900 tanks and can not put 150,000 soldiers any where and numbers do not mean better.
Its an out dated argument that keeps getting used, i do agree 148 is a joke, not much if any in reserve.
Todays contact battle is about speed Arty fire, drones, long range interdiction, fire and forget weapons. Attack choppers and ground attack aircraft are the past ie the A10. Tanks are great in an open plain breakthrough battle and that is about it.
Vehicles are too easily knocked out by too many means,
Glad someone has actually said what a lot of people are actually thinking ….
Except even in todays world calling in Artillery or drones is slow. Direct application of 120mms of HE is considerably faster. And until we can replicate mobile protected firepower in a way that isn’t a tank, the tank will not be replaced.
Yes however assistance from tanks only lasts as long as the tank. Today’s wars seem to have brought new ways of attacking these vehicles. Drones may be slow (for the time being) but you can mass produce them cheaply and swamp your opponent giving them a big problem. Faster isn’t always better.
Contrary to what people are claiming tanks are not being swept from the battlefield however. What we are seeing is pretty standard attritional warfare, which we in the west just aren’t used to seeing. There will be tank losses to drones and mines and artillery, but there will also be SPG losses, drone operator losses, yet because those don’t feed into the narrative (and are less dramatic on film) they don’t get released (reminder the vast majority of drone on tank kills are on tanks that are already immobilized).
Direct Fires are generally preferable to indirect fires, because yes, getting fires on target faster is in fact better.
Yes the strategy in the west appears to be getting invincible kit and put that up against masses of dodgy disposeable kit & troops which seems to be the strategy in the East. If attritional warfare is the reality we need to ensure we either have the quality and/or quantity to deal with it. Sometimes I suspect it means accepting that tactics & kit might need changing quicker than in the past.
I mean that’s a blatant mischaracterisation and strawman, we’ve never aimed for invincible kit, we’ve just aimed for a qualitatitive edge over our opponents, and a combined arms approach that has resulted in several overwhelming victories in the last 30 years.
People are really focused on attritional warfare because that’s what’s happening in Ukraine right now, but there is absolutely no guarentee that’s what will happen if NATO comes up against an opponent, and in fact, given the lack of a Ukranian Air Force, Navy, and significant shortages of artillery, armour, and air defence, there is every reason to believe that a NATO-vs-Russia war would go considerably differently.
*Edit* Just to note that the US did loose tanks in both Gulf Wars, 10 M1’s destroyed in the first, 17 in the second. Plus it’s worth noting that while exact loss counts on the Iraqi side are still up in the air, the Pentagon credited almost half the Iraq tanks knocked out to Coalition Airstrikes.
Sorry Mate that was not my intention.
Challenger III seemed to me to be an attempt to plug some of the gaps of Challenger II caused by modern tech (or lack thereof). Invincible might have been too strong but I was comparing it to a different strategy used by the Russians which seems to rely on quantity & cannon fodder (which might also be too strong).
It is impossible to say how good C3 is until it is used in combat.Any weakness will be exploited and will show in the numbers we lose. This begs the question will drones and other tech in the near future make C3 obsolete.
Personally I think that is a fair question as it tends to dictate where we can use it, the quantity we need and the expected losses.
There is, understandably, a strong support for tanks on this site. It is part of the foundation of military doctrine going back maybe 80 years. However one day it will go the same way as the horse. Has that day arrived or will it arrive soon? Fair question in my book?
Of course we plug gaps as tech advances, that’s why the M1 Abrams is on the M1A2SEPV3 model, and why Leopard 2 is on it’s now on it’s A8 version. But as I said: It’s about a qualitative edge, rather than aiming for “invincibility.” And nobody is pretending that we wouldn’t loose M1E3’s, Leo 2A8s or Challenger 3’s in combat.
People have been keen to be the predictors of the end of the tank since 1916, especially in the lay community, and it’s rife in this day and age of “distrusting experts” who actually know what they are talking about. The horse is a perfect example because it only went away when the internal combustion engine became reliable enough to do what a horse did in the 1930s, even though horses had become vulnerable (though their vulnerability, like tanks today, is overstated by popular culture). Tanks won’t go away until something comes along that will do the same job as tanks (also just FYI the foundation of military doctrine is small unit infantry tactics, everything builds off of that, not tanks).
Of course weaknesses will be exploited, and then the next model of tank will seek to remedy those weaknesses, or at least mitigate them: that is why we no longer use Cruiser MkI tanks.
As for it being a fair question, sure it’s a fair question to ask, but people always jump to “yes” when the answer rather clearly is “no” because they desperately want to be Cassandra, and think they’re cleverer than the people who actually do this for a living (see Martin below dismissing CGS as a perfect example).
Just on the horses point, despite the Wehrmacht being know for tank mobility, Operation Barborossa was only possible by massive use of horses, which lasted throughout the eastern war. Despite their obsolescence being overstated by the Germans against Poland (Poles still fielded Cavalry) horses were still used in WW2 by the Germans, obsolescence isn’t that clear cut.
Well written Mate!
Disagree.
Drones with missiles, suicide drones, small drones that drop HEAT grenades, better ATGM with longer range and more widespread, more precise artillery with dumb rounds and even more precise with guided rounds.
Better detection devices that can sometimes achieve the “transparent battlefield” making manoeuvre warfare impossible.
All of that is a significant qualitative and quantitative increase in the threats against the tank
So how do you explain the actual succesful offensive in Kharkiv when the Ukranians used their tank brigades to knock a hole into the Russian line and then used manoevure warfare to keep the Russians off balance and force a general retreat?
I suggest what you mean is “attacking into prepared defences without air superiority or operational surprise results in high casualties and a very slow attritional advance.” … which has been true for ages.
It is explained in the above text i wrote. Seems you did not read it properly.
No Alex, your tweet doesn’t explain why a ARMOURED OFFENSIVE using TANKS AND MECHANISED INFANTRY to OUT MANEUVER the enemy was SUCCESSFUL despite all the issues you list making “maneuver warfare ‘impossible'”
So wind your neck back in.
Martin.
I’m 100% with you on this and was about to post similar, along the lines of – if Tanks are as vulnerable as we are seeing, is it thus not correct that we are not going all in on them and buying in large numbers?
It cannot just be down to how Russia uses them, Drones have arrived.
We still need the capability, sure, as any armoured vehicle is vulnerable, and you need Tanks for firepower and shock action as much as you need IFV, APC, and all the rest.
And Drones can and will be countered like any new wonder weapon.
But no more than we have now, 3 Regiments worty plus spare.
Spend on artillery, ISTAR, EW, and other stuff you list.
.
TBH I think what we are seeing is the West having to unlearn some bad habits we’ve picked up after 2 Gulf Wars, where we expected to see virtually no armoured casualties because we overmatched the enemy so thoroughly.
Hi Dern, Okay, which are?
As in what bad habits?
Morning mate. Yes.
The idea that we’d fight a war and sustain 400 odd deaths over the course of a decade would be one.
Ok.
Bit late to the party, but nonetheless:
I think it’s also worth pointing out that the vast majority of Ukraine’s tank casualties, particularly the NATO ones that everyone talks about, have been when a) they were forced on the attack with insufficient support, and b) on the defence when they had insufficient artillery ammunition to stop Russian attacks before they hit the line- and so had to blunt them with heavy armour instead.
Another couple of bad habits to get rid of based upon that:
a) Our strike/ordnance options (air, land, sea) are limited and really cannot be.
b) Our days of keeping lean munition inventory and expecting to be able to dip into our allies’ pool should be over.
That’s before we even get to drones and suchlike.
That is my point what would do with 900 tanks? we need some very good tanks which we will get and we have up coming great vehicles on their way, less for a wheeled IFV!
We need a lot of modern layed air defence long range not just very short range or one Regt of meduim range with only 5 launchers/complete systems 2 are which are in the Falklands, drone defence, and fast in to action out of action Arty with a long reach and as much ISTAR as possible,
Yes, I include AD with artillery, above all at the mo the way things are going.
I’d read that report of “5 systems” and wasn’t sure on it.
I’d like to know what a “system” actually comprises, as AFAIA our 4 Batteries have 2 Fire Groups each, each Fire Group with 2 or 3 launchers and a Radar.
One Battery covers the FI Roulement and the Poland Det, one FG each.
According to CGS, SHORAD will triple and MRAD double, so we shall see beyond the spin what that actually translates to in reality.
CGS oh oh i trust him, not, spin, spin, lets wait and see so the UK as whole will have no anti missile defence for the nation and some MRAD which has limited response time due to range, and speed of incoming missiles.
Ukraine has the tightest air defence in Europe and get it NATO as stripped its own down and still Ukraine is not safe.
Look at what Ukraine has now to what the entire UK has, its a joke.
Ok but Ukraine hasn’t the airpower to take the fight to the Orcs! I can assure you it will be a different matter facing NATO jets roaming the skies as what this war has shown us the Orcs have no AD themselves with slow drones penetrating 1500km with no bother!
This is likely one of the biggest differences between the current Ukraine Russia conflict vs a NATO Russia conflict. Air power would be a massive deciding factor, if it was to ever happen.
We only had 900 tanks at the height of the Cold War, so I agree that we don’t need that number unless someone tells us that we are in another Cold War.
It was decided that we needed 386 tanks for the post-Cold War world hence that’s the number of CR2s we then ordered in 1991 and 1994, which were then fielded from ’98 – and that was before we saw tanks being used in number in GW1, GW2 and more recently in the Ukraine war.
i do totally agree 148 is not enough, double that is needed to have a reserve as well.
I’d be more impressed if someone had ordered a version of Boxer with Skyshield or Mantis and 2 others with an auto mortar and Brimstones.
Yes but battle casualty replacements take time to train,around 6 months for an infantryman,look at Ukraine having to conscript
Ok, what has that to do with not needing 900 C3 tanks?
Entirely related to this discussion is the treason committed by Theresa May when she effectively gifted BEA Land Systems to Rheinmetal as a demonstration of the country she really loved (The Eu) when she was thankfully removed from Office
45% of Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land, is owned by BAE Systems. not quite sure what the EU has to do with it!!
A new European MBT project has been launched by France’s NEXTER and and Germany’ Rheinmetal, no other companies will be allowed to join, no mention of BAE. If you have knowledge that BAE will play a part please let me know.
Graham mentioned that we have observer status in the European MTB project and there are a couple of articles online to say the MOD were discussing it. The Rheinmettall part of RBSL is Rheinmetall UK
Observer status? No input and no control right?
Do you want us to money in? The pace on this project is very slow and as both countries have very different ideas on what they want from a tank it doesn’t bode well! Hence the Panther from Germany.
NO!
I want us to design and manufacture our own MBT
Spot on Colin we’ll get what we’re given
Which buys all its bits from Germany and is there to promote German products & technology- they are not doing r&d into new vehicles- it’s just like a big BMW dealership really. We aren’t even supply our own munitions for C3 just a vassal nation really
Perason are supplying the turret subsystems. G&H are manufacturing the periscope, there are other UK suppliers involved. ,
Mrs May as PM did not gift BAE Systems to Rheinmetall. She would have no authority or ability to do that to a privately owned company.
Those 2 companies freely chose to form a JV called RBSL to build CR3, and to possibly do other AFV work in the future.
I think you will find that a PM leaving office has a ridiculous amount of power.
Would you like to explain why one of the largest defence companies in the world would want to become a junior partner to a tiny company like Rheinmetal?
A PM leaving office has zero hard power but may have a considerable amount of soft power if they are popular and well connected in a given field, in the case Defence procurement.
However, that is irrelevant. Mrs May was the serving PM when the JV was being planned and set up – she had not retired. She left office on 24 Jul 2019. The JV had already been announced to the world on 21 Jan 2019.
Why do you think Theresa May would have any role at all in bringing BAE and Rheinmetall together to form a JV. Large corporates are very used to forming JVs without a retired or serving PM’s help.
I am not a Board member of either company so I have no idea why BAE and Rheinmetall set up the JV in the way they did.
To create the joint-venture, BAE Systems sold a 55% share of BAE Systems Land UK to Rheinmetall AG.The cost of that share was a very modest £28.6 million. In contrast Rheinmetall AG’s current Market Cap is $23.06Bn, so it is no ‘tiny company’! In fact it is many orders of magnitude larger than BAE Systems Land UK.
I had to do a little research here:
BEA is ranked as the 7th largest defence company in the world, with 5 US companies and 1 chinese company above it.
Rheinmetal is ranked 19th.
BAE defence related revenue $25 billion
#Rheinmetal defence related revenue $5 billion.
I repeat my question, why would BAE VOLUNTARILY agree to be a junior partner to Rheinmetal?
figures from ‘Defense News’.
I was quoting the info as regards the 2 companies that actually signed the JV – for the UK that was BAE Systems Land UK, not the whole of BAE across the entire world or the whole of BAE’s global Defence operation.
You are not looking at the two registered companies that collaborated and signed the JV – you are looking at a much, much larger BAE entity instead. Why?
Anyway, I have furnished the info that is in the public domain. I repeat that I am not on the Board of either company so I cannot say why BAE Systems Land UK chose to sell 55% of its equity to Rheinmetall for cash as their ‘in’ to the JV company, RBSL.
I suggest you write to the CEO of BAE Systems Land UK, The Gate House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, KT10 9PJ if you want the answer to this notty corporate question.
It is said that the Soviets in WW2 won by industrial might rather than military competence. Roll forward to today and we see Russia using the same attrition tactics in Ukraine.
If NATO goes to war with Russia we will need AFVs in greater numbers than we currently have.
What we need is lots of ammo, we out number the Russia in most bits of kit, with all of Nato russia would not last long unless it went Nuclear. Russia can do the numbers thing with Ukraine but not NATO. If Ukraine had the AMMO then it would be a lot diffirent, may be not an win but a lot more than just stalemate
Well watch out Russia because in 6 years time we have built 148 tanks !
In the same time they will have rolled out 600 to 1000 new T90Ms
And we would fight Russia on are own of course? Google ‘NATO’, that might help you understand things. What a stupid reply,
Bringing less troops, ships, AFVs, aircraft etc to the strength of NATO every year weakens NATO, not strengthens it. So our contribution, while not fighting in isolation, diminishes NATO. We should be increasing actual war fighting forces, not “agilely” cutting them or just marching time.
Ok, if you want to bring down a civil discussion with insults and ridicule then that speaks volumes about you.
If Trump wins the next US election there is strong possibility he will withdraw US from NATO. We will have one less big friend to hide behind.
U
Get off your high horse, and get over your self. He can not with draw with out a vote in congress. Why are we hiding behind any one? I do feel your understanding of the world is some what limited by your ego,
I like a civil discussion but i’m not here to talked to like a moron or have put up with your sarcasim.
Take my advice if you have no clue what you are on about and just want rant then it might be wise to not say much
A bit triggered are we ? How dare I have a different opinion to you !!!
We are here to discuss not to throw insults, as you have done in you last 2 posts
That would be an issue if we were going to go toe-to-toe with Russia on our own. However, we will be alongside 31 other NATO nations, including the USA!
I’m many days late to this party but, if I were to point out that in 1939, the UK was fighting alongside several other “allied” countries in 1939. That number went down to just the UK in short order.
Forget history at our peril. Not saying it will be the case with NATO, You can almost guarantee Putin will make many NATO capitals think whether they will trade Paris, London, Berlin etc, for Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn.
I like the post. More recent history shows that every NATO country stepped up to the plate when Article 5 was called after 9/11. But of course it was not an existential crisis for those nations, so you may be right that some NATO nations might opt out of WW3, if they were not on the axis of advance for Russia’s forces. We shall find out ‘on the day’!
That is certainly the position on paper Graham. But I have serious doubts that the largest NATO army in Europe, Turkey, would join in at the outset or maybe at all. Erdoğan is facing several ways at once and shares a number of common strands with Putin.
Ditto Hungary under Orban, Slovakia, Bulgaria, all of whom have Russophile sympathies.
All we need is an isolationist US President who.is antipatheric to European affairs and thinks he can do business with Putin to give NATO a serious setback.
The main Western European powers need to be doing a lot more and planning to field much larger air and ground forces, we have all become far too reliant on the USA and run our forces right down. Defence of Europe’s Eastern border is not as assured as it might be and reinforcement from the USA may not be a given in the future.
Hi Cripes, you have a very good point. Turkey is often singing off a different page, somewhat anti-Ukrainina, often very pro-Putin, they delayed Sweden joining NATO etc. I am sure you are right about the other 3 countries.
An isolationist US President, which doesn’t have to be Trump, could join the next big war 3 or 4 years late, as happened in the last two world wars, or may not participate at full effort, or even at all (but that seems exceptionally hard to believe).
I believe that over time European NATO (and the EU?) should find the will and the defence money to defend Europe ourselves – we have a large population, strong industrialisation and many wealthy countries (France, Germany, Italy, UK are G7 nations), and have 2 nuclear armed nations. It may sound impossible but it should be examined; a feasibility study undertaken. Russia after all is a more manageable opponent compared to the USSR and Warsaw Pact forces of the Cold War days.The USA may be busy in the Indo-Pacific region dealing with China and we should be able to stand on our own. With the recent NATO membership of Sweden and Finland, European nations could become capable of effective self-defence.
Some of that industrial might employed by the USSR in world war 2 was in the UK and north America and shipped to the USSR by the arctic convoys.
I noticed that there are apparently two martins posting the above on arctic convoys is the first from me.
That misses the point I am making. In order to take on a country like Russia you must have the the military industrial capacity. Dont forget that Russia also cooperates with Iran, China, North Korea all of which have large military industries.
The Ukraine war has shown that this alliance of autocrats can out produce/ out supply NATO.
In a general war with Russia all those manufacturing sites will be prime targets!
Had the allies not landed in Italy or done d day the Soviet’s wouldn’t have won on the eastern front. The standards to which the T34 and other kit was built was awful. Parts missing, low quality etc. a large portion of losses were just due to bad quality rather than enemy engagement.
There has to be a balance between numbers and quality. Russia/Soviet’s went to the low end and the west went high end. The balance is probably somewhere in the middle.
I am not sure we should assume that all armoured warfare will be like that in Ukraine. There are many differences compared to how a NATO-Russia conflict would play out – for example we would conduct manouevre warfare in combined arms groupings with at least local air superiority.
True there is a danger of us taking too much away from the war in Ukraine. Its a risk we might want re fight battles that are in most cases not what a Russia NATO war would be and it would not drag on two years.
Nonsense
Please enlighten me. If you feel its not correct then a counter point is most welcome.
Agree 100%. Especially with manning…without national service starting now and in a serious way, there is no way the all the forces can do what they need to do. Build all the tanks and ships you want, truth is people are not signing up, especially Gen Z. Manpower is a really serious issue at hand
Manpower/women power issue are I feel the real massive problem that no one addresses. Retention is an other issue that the Army etc seem talk about but do little on.
The military will get more kit but i think they can not man it all.
I believe the Ukrainians have also found the Challengers they have as unable to move well in the muddy conditions. The Polish tanks are able due to a lower weight.
This is from a single sun report that was spinning a narrative (in fact if you read the report with a critical eye you’ll see the reporter saw a rookie crew bog their tank in, and a more experienced crew then not get bogged in in the same conditions). Doesn’t matter how good your tank is, a rookie crew will be able to bog it in.
C2 is heavy if add on armour is fitted , and under powered for such a weight. its 1200 hp. Where as to L2? MIA2sep4 etc are 1500 hp, its gun although good is no as good as 55cal 120mm Smooth Bore. And its ammo stopped being made a while ago. Its under hull armour is thin and its drivers position is weak spot as is the hull front.
Great tank 25 years ago but not now.
CH3 will have a 1500hp engine as well as armour enhancements
I know same MTU engine as L2, replacing the Perkins/condor 1200 hp engine. And blast attuation seats, Throphy APS,
The Engine in the CR3 will not be changing to an MTU unit – no one has suggested this, the original CR2 Engine will just have some ‘tweaks’.
Correct, it’s being converted to a common rail diesel, plus new turbos etc. Should pump up the horsepower to a reliable 1400hp. I would expect it could go further, but would start shortening the life of components.
No common rail , Cat developed a system but not used .The 9A has bigger turbos and radiators.
Well every bit of info I can find on the inter web says the 9A is a common rail engine capable of between 1200-1500 bhp and is the engine going into CR3
Would require fuel water separator as fitted to T2 and fuel return heat exchanger to prevent condensation. Does have funky new induction IMH so great clouds of black smoke on cold starts below 5 degrees should be thing of past and B bank starter will now be easy job. The exhaust location is problematic as fuel balances under the exhaust housing so cold fuel meeting this causes condensation which encourages bacterial growth. Both water and dirt are bad for common rail due to high pressures and small tolerances.
you are right i was wrong,
Common rail would be folly as bacteria eats the fuel sponges and fuel bags and would corrode pump and injectors causing poor reliability. One useful mod would be lengthening and re-routing APU fuel hoses away from its exhaust . If when replaced they are not carefully clipped or slight twist produced when tightening its a fire hazard.
Might be useful if you run through just how many leopard 2 tanks have been knocked out in combat compared to challenger then go back and tell us why leopard 2 is better. Maybe some analysis like we might expect in a defence journal rather than just opinion like we might expect in the daily mail.
More were used, more were supplied, C2 in its day best there was, not now its not kept up with things. Not saying L2 is better its gun is and its faster thats about it
One is actually used in frontline units.
Chally 2 is there in miniscule numbers and has seen limited combat. Realistically, the greatest impact sending them has had is breaking the taboo of sending western tanks to Ukraine. The M1 and L2 and just better tanks for Ukraine, they have much better supply lines and support facilities, as well as being more capable on difficult terrain.
He’s right. Despite not being primarily a land based power 148 is clearly not enough. I would take £1bn a year from the foreign aid budget and get a tank production line going for Ukraine. The MoD can then place orders without having to pay for the capital investment.
I am astounded that they are not upgrading the power pack, penny pinching at its worst.
AFAIK the CH3 engine will be upgraded to 1500hp
It won’t be.
I am just quoting I have read from the many available online specs. Nobody said a new engine would be used , so I assume that the original engines will be modified
The existing Perkins Condor Engine of the CR2 will undergo some modifications and enhancements,DaveyB describes best what these will be,but to get to 1500 BHP is very unlikely given budget limitations ( see reply by Grinch ) also any usable power is measured in Torque which is another rabbit hole altogether.
Designing a tank power pack requires a great deal of skill, experience & money. Because of the severe constraints imposed on power packs, increasing power is very difficult because of the knock on effects on such things as cooling, transmissions, gearboxes etc. Let alone the problems packing the changes within the current envelope. Unless, of course, such increases were forecast and including within design margins.
It would probably be easier/cheaper to entirely replace the Challenger power pack with the MTU/Renk Europack. I believe that was a feature of the export versions of Cr2. As in the version that was unfortunately prematurely rushed into the Greek trials. I think that was rated at 1500hp.
American Alison transmission would be better as it is designed for Abrams which is heavier with add on armor .
What would the point of bigger turbos and radiators be then ?
Make it more obvious to IR cameras?
The CR2-3 power pack will see some enhancements, that is all.
As a fan of 1980’s sci-fi I’m disappointed we haven’t got hover tanks with plasma cannons by now.
What’s the hold-up?
This requires a compact 3rd generation fusion reactor. Unfortunately, 1st generation city-block size reactors are still always 50 years in the future….
More seriously, the latest remote weapon stations coupled with best fire control systems are allowing very good accuracy, so the Hammers Slammers idea of tanks providing their own missile and air defense is getting more feasible. The solution to drone attacks may be an AI-enabled top remote weapon station with a HMG or light autocannon or (possibly in more distant future) a laser. Of course, that adds weight, but so does other active defense, and it does have the advantage of allowing engaging upperstory infantry with RPG in urban areas.
Saw an interesting point (made by Jack Watlin in his recent book) that suggested that same fire control and stabilization improvements (again in remote turrets) are starting to allow 30-50mm autocannon to put almost *all* shots in a burst into a precise area of armor with great accuracy. Via repeated hits on the exact same location to chew up and degrade the armor, this could make otherwise seemingly invulnerable MBT frontal armor somewhat vulnerable to even 40-50mm APFSDS at close range. This seemed quite surprising to me, though I’m aware that there are points on an MBT’s frontal arc that are weaker.
Don’t worry. Just as the epic clash between the Monitor and the Merrimac (CSS Virginia) rendered all wooden warships obsolete, hover tanks and plasma guns will be invented on the day after the last vehicle in the Ajax programme enters service. 😀
Side note: As great of a US PR line that story about Monitor and Merrimac “making every other ship obsolete” was, the Royal Navy had had an armoured Warship for over a year at that point, and unlike, especially, Monitor; the RN version was seagoing. (There’s a reason you can only see the first US Ironclad’s turret these days while you can have a gentle stroll along the decks of the Royal Navy’s first Ironclad, and enemy action is not that reason).
you are referring to HMS Warrior, yep?
Yes, I know. I’ve been fortunate to see both the turret of the Monitor (and other artefacts) in the Maritime Museum at Newport News and stepped aboard HMS Warrior in Portsmouth. Both wonderful experiences. And let’s not forget France’s La Gloire, launched a year before the Warrior. I could be wrong but I think the 2 American ships, however, were the first ironclads to demonstrate to the world’s navies how devastatingly effective this new type of warship was in combat, particularly against wooden ships.
It’s not surprising the author has a downer on Challenger!he is of the opion that we should have got leopard from the get go! It’s not a “ nearly new” tank the hull has been completely refurbished to new condition and a new turret,isn’t the engine now unrated to 1500 bhp? He mentions Abrams and Leo’s getting upgraded while omitting the fact these upgrades in some cases are on hulls older than CR2🙄
Are you suggesting that a refurbished tank can be sold as new? Because you can’t do this with other refurbished items. Apologies if I read you wrong, my brain isn’t what it once was!
Dunno I’m not in the market for a tank👍
Just had a google Australias ‘new’ M1A2 are being re manufactured from M1A1 hulls so I suppose you can😉
Believe CR3 will be a significant improvement over CR2. May have been the case that during contract negotiations MoD revealed the budget and required number and relied on RBSL to make the appropriate design trades w/in the budget. Really don’t find significant fault w/ refurbished/upgraded MBTs, especially as an interim measure (US is similarly upgrading M1A1 to latest M1A2 config at a deliberate pace). Do believe that it is unfortunate that funding was not available to upgrade all remaining operational hulls. Perhaps MoD will partner w/ a successful consortium for the development of a next generation MBT. 🤔🤞
👍
Barely 150 tanks is indeed pathetic. But even more so is the dreadful state of triple A systems. With the lessons of Ukraine we might bemoan the lack of artillery systems and logistics even more. Hard decisions are required. We need an army, small efficient and solid. But I would suggest a larger airforce and more robust navy are even more importsnt for the UK. Only in the last century has Britain gone down the road of mass field armies (as opposed to garrisons). There is no reason we have to continue along that path.
I agree, we have many conflicting priorities, so the key is to maintain skills base and operating model.
In a crisis, it’s much easier to add mass to an existing base, than it is to regenerate an entire capability from scratch. Although 150 seems a paltry number, I suspect that maintaining a minimum base is the logic behind CR3.
Given that we are an island nation, and the future of the tank itself is subject to much debate, it’s not an unreasonable strategy at this point IMO.
If extra money could be found, I would increase C3 numbers from 148 to 200. Probably all the hulls we have got left. Also 50-70 medium tanks in the 30-40 ton range that can go places 60+ ton tanks can’t. The new US Booker is an off the shelf purchase based on Ajax family hull. Finally, the Austrians/Germans are buying Boxer with 30mm gun & light SAMs for short range air defence. The British Army needs some of them too.
There’s zero commonality between Booker & Ajax
You don’t change the suspension to more expensive Hydro-pneumatic unless you have a problem.
Not exactly. You probably will struggle to take parts off a Booker and put them on Ajax, however they are both very much based off of the ASCOD family of vehicles.
So not true
Well it is true.
Not what I was saying. You would not take off bits from one to put on the other. Those who maintain one, should not find the other too great a leap to look after. Booker is just a repeat of British Army using 30 ton Grant/Shermans during WW2. Commonality with a major ally.
Incorrect. Booker has zero to do with ASCOD.
“The General Dynamics Griffin is a series of armored fighting vehicles under development by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) for the United States Army.[4] The Griffin is a derivative of ASCOD family of AFVs, which was also designed by GDLS.[5]”
And:
“Derived from the Austrian-Spanish ASCODinfantry fighting vehicle-platform,[10] the GDLS Griffin II was offered under Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)”
Griffin II was accepted for MPF under the name: M10 Booker.
Griffin Technology DemonstratorAt AUSA 2016 annual meeting, General Dynamics unveiled 120mm Griffin Technology Demonstrator (TD) as a “conversation starter” for the US Army Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program.[6] MPF is a light tracked vehicle intended to provide support of large caliber direct fire for Infantry Brigade Combat Team. The chassis of Griffin I shown at AUSA is from British Scout SV program (now called General Dynamics Ajax), but it only has six road wheels. The welded aluminum turret is armed with 120mm XM360 lightweight gun which was developed by the Army Research, Development and Engineering Center. The XM360 gun was developed as part of the canceled Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.[7]
Cheap way to build a tank ,upgrade the warriors ,take off the turret ,upgraded power plant, 30mm gau from a warthog ,a tin can shredder and used for anything, hehe cheap option 😄 😅 but a bit of food for thought and cheaper option
Ammo from warthog is fired in bursts of several seconds and all expended after about 17 seconds firing , suppose the warrior would have more room . Maybe Cockerill 105 turret , as experts CMI defence might have more luck than some companies.
I’m not convinced that the switch to a smoothbore cannon, requiring a new turret and reducing ammunition capacity, was the best use of the budget available for upgrading a tank that will only last until the mid 2030s. The Rheinmetall cannon is marginally more effective in penetrating armour up to @ 2000 metres( a combination of higher muzzle velocity and longer penetrator). But it is less accurate at longer range and less effective when using HE rounds. We could instead have refurbished more units along the lines of BAEs Black Knight proposal. This could have provided a perfectly adequate tank with a proper reserve for less money.
For the future, we need to rethink how mobile protected firepower can be delivered in an era dominated by PGMs, or whether it can be provided at all. If a 75/80 ton MBT can be destroyed by a top attack missile, no less well armoured vehicle has a chance. A new tank costs up to £12m, a Javelin missile @£50k. In the past, tanks have been most effective when employed en masse. WW2 level numbers are unaffordable and deployment in close formation makes destruction by missiles like Brimstone even easier.
For the successor, maybe they’ll end up keeping the new turrets but attaching them to a different hull…
$12M vs. $50K cost for MBT vs. javelin is not quite accurate — more like $13M vs. $200K if just counting weapon and crew…. Moreover, some nordic experiments with networked light infantry with modern ATGM vs. armored units indicated the armor just bypasses most of the infantry after initial contact, so except in special cases like urban fighting you really need to add in the cost of upgrading the ATGM teams with APCs, drivers, etc. and when you’ve done that, and paid a few million more for APCs like Boxer (even if not IFV)s, crew, etc. to get the javelin team somewhere, the ability to fire a single missile (or a couple of reloads) and then retire vs. having plenty of main gun rounds allowing 20-40 engagements tends to tilt things toward the tank.
I was giving ballpark figures just to highlight the enormous cost of a new MBT relative to what can destroy it. The round cost of Javelin was what we paid for an order of @ 9000.
Your comment on Nordic exercises is interesting- do you have a source?
I take your point on the cost of a vehicle to carry the PGM. I did note that anything less well armoured than an MBT is hopelessly vulnerable. Perhaps a light, unarmoured vehicle to carry the ATGMs and relying on high mobility and lower observability would do better?
It’s curious that warships have abandoned armour in favour of active protection systems but land vehicles are piling on ever more armour. Yet the threat is the same- PGMs.
A Panzerfaust for a pittance could take out a Sherman with ease at 100m. Its always been the same except with Flak 88’s at 1500m with Crusaders which cost a comparable amount .I hope that helps.
^This.
Always also worth food for thought: If you have 100 tanks then every enemy infantry unit has to carry AT weapons with them. That doesn’t just have a financial cost; ask any infantry soldier who has had to carry the AT system with them how easy it is, and whether they’d be more effective at their job of fighting infantry if they didn’t have to carry a 12 kilo pipe everywhere with them.
Yeah. Of course, a 7.62mm bullet can take out an infantry man for $0.40, which is cheaper than an anti-tank weapon.
It’s always combined arms…
Now put the mobility of a Panzerfaust being capable of hitting a tank at Flak88 range, the equation changes, even resource and manpower wise….
It’s certainly is an issue and the “tank to munition cost” is real.
I think it was a finnish exercise in 2013 in which dismounted recon troops (or Jaeger) were supposed to slow down a simulated Russian mechanized attack by using anti-tank weapons and calling down fire from artillery, etc. The conclusions were similar to your suggestion: they needed more mobility as otherwise the enemy punched through. Of course, that was 10 years ago, so a more more modern force with drones, guided rockets, etc. would probably do better. I am not certain of the source as I read a while ago, but I suspect it may have been in Arms of the Future (Jack Watling / Royal united service institute, 2023) as Watling discusses the particular issue of ATGM and artillery vs. armor in some depth.
@Peter S; it’s a small point but the USN has started designing in small amounts of ‘armour’ including kevlar into the latest Arleigh Burke destroyers. I think I read that it adds about 90 tons to the top weight which given how much more a destroyer weighs in comparison to a MBT, doesn’t sound like much armour, at all!
Perhaps rocket assisted technology could have been developed from XM 1113 project to keep rifled barrel.
The unpalatable fact is that everything is so hideously expensive that we really need to start spending less of our limited defence budget on “Rolls Royces” (or the latest ‘shiny’ model of something) and focus on less expensive items that can do the job just as well. It’s no use quoting how many tanks we had in WW2 or at the height of the Cold War when the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania were all part of the Warsaw Pact. The reality today is that East Germany no longer exists and Poland and the others are now in NATO (Czechoslovakia is now 2 countries). The way I see it, Britain’s changing role in this alliance reflects that we are no longer required to allocate our limited defence budget to a large Continental army so some of you should stop living in the past (bound to get a reaction). To me, that should be the Continental nations’ responsibility, particularly Germany, Poland and France. Where we can contribute is at sea and in the air (and that’s another thorny argument) with the Army providing a special expeditionary element to NATO’s ground forces options. Chally 2 is no longer in production. Our fault. But it is what is. Anyway, no one’s quite sure what the future of the MBT is. Not saying these will replace MBTs but future IFV development envisages enhanced firepower and therefore shouldering a greater part of the burden that WW2 tanks performed in support of the infantry (e.g., a 50mm gun for the Bradley replacement, etc. – during the Cold War, when the UK had 900 tanks, we had no IFVs as such, only “battle taxi” APCs). So maybe we won’t need so many MBTs in the future as we have had in the past (although not saying 148 is great either, btw). This is a period of transition. This Chally 2 upgrade (i.e., Chally 3) is just a stop gap but at least it fills me with more confidence than at least one recent fiasco I could name (but don’t need to).
Errrmm,we won’t have IFVs when warrior is retired. So far boxer is just a battle taxi with a pea shooter on its roof. A fat drone target too since it has no anti drone system.
And that’s another issue, specific to the British Army. Nevertheless, it doesn’t negate the premise that modern armies may not need numbers of expensive MBTs in the same numbers as previous eras when IFVs are currently evolving into more capable instruments of war. So, in the context of the British Army, how is allocating money upgrading the very limited number of remaining Chally 2s going to solve the issue you raised?
It isn’t but there’s a bigger problem at the root of this.
The British army seem to have a) forgotten everything it ever learned about armoured warfare and b) is not looking at how to counter the threats of today, never mind the threats of tomorrow.
Its a mess from top to bottom, though undoubtedly the mess starts at the top and runs downwards…
You think a 25-30mm IFV cannon can do what a 120mm tank cannon can?
When did I say that? Do you always use a sledgehammer to crack a peanut? Everyone knows 120mm is very effective, particularly against other MBTs, but there are many situations in the infantry support role that do not require such large calibre ordnance, particularly with the availability of the likes of programmable ammo that can punch through walls before exploding inside, etc. Remember, I said, “modern armies may not need numbers of expensive MBTs in the same numbers as previous eras” – I didn’t say they don’t need them at all. I also drew attention to higher calibre armaments being actively considered for future IFVs (e.g., 50mm) so I don’t know why 25mm jumped into your head (nevertheless I dare say standing at the mouth of a 120mm will spread you about a fair distance but I don’t see a happy outcome if you’re stood in front of a 25mm either).
Ahhh, OK. Tanks and Infantry provide mutual support. Tanks are focussing on engaging heavy armour and strongpoints. AI/Mech Inf are engaging enemy infantry (whether mounted or dismounted), clearing enemy AT teams, and targetting medium and light armour.
It would be a rare and strange situation for an MBT to waste 120mm rounds on peanut targets, when the Infantry should be doing that.
I hadn’t spotted that you were talking about very large calibre IFV cannons (eg 50mm). My reference to 25-30mm was of course to cover the vast majority of IFVs in service today, those recently fielded (ie Puma) and most of those coming in the next few years. I am not sure which countries are working towards introducing 50mm calibre.
A 50mm calibre (Bushmaster Chain Gun) is slated for The U.S. replacement for the Bradley. Great weapon that it is, I’m not sure why the 30mm was chosen for the Puma (perhaps subsequent improvements to ammo or space issues in the unmanned turret?), particularly when my understanding that one of the reasons for the U.S. looking at larger calibres is the perceived upgrade in armour of new generation Russian IFVs, where it was reckoned that a minimum of 35mm calibre was preferable to defeat these. I even read recently that Sweden’s next version (Mk.V) of the CV90 may select a 35mm (if so, I don’t know why their 40mm Bofors would be getting the cold shoulder – more ammo onboard? better NATO ammo compatibility benefits?). However, the upgraded Dutch CV9035 employs a 35mm Bushmaster III Chain Gun as do Denmark’s and the Czech Republic’s (or is it Slovakia? or both?) plus apparently the Bushmaster III can be re-barreled from 35mm to 50mm comparatively easily from what I’ve also heard. Other new support options that spring to mind are General Dynamics Booker Light Tank with its 105mm(?)(yes, having ‘teething’ issues …) and the CV90120mm variant. So, given their expense and vulnerabilities to other battlefield threats (mines, drones, ATGMs, etc), you can see why I’m speculating reduced proportions of MBTs in any future armoured force.
Thanks. I could the US rowing back from the 50mm at least due to the reduced ammunition load-out compared to 30/35/40mm option.
We shall certainly see a reduced number of MBTs in our future armoured force, but its not down to fielding ever more capable IFVs with more firepower. MoD has decided to scrap IFVs and drastically reduce the Infantry’s firepower!
A couple of points:
Firstly the upgrade package was finalized before the full extent of what was seen and the lessons learned from the Ukraine War, meant for heavy armour. Where the final design had settled on better optics and thermals, newer composite armour and the redesigned turret for the smoothbore gun and its one piece ammunition. However, due to how well Trophy performed against unguided RPGs and ATGMs for the Israeli Merkavas. Fitting Trophy to Chally seemed a logical upgrade path.
On a separate tack. There is also the Heavy Armour Automotive Improvement Program (HAAIP) This is a precursor to the Chalky 3 program. This includes new Hydrogas suspension, uprated final drives and gearbox. Which was originally scheduled to alleviate the west and tear issues caused by the weight of the additional theatre entry standard appliqué armour. Plus, it includes upgrades to the Perkins Condor V12 engine. The upgrades include converting the engine to a common rail diesel, new turbos and a better cooling system. These improvements pump up the horse power from 1200 to 1400, though I have also read 1500.
Overall the Chally, is a better war fighting vehicle than Leopard 2! I say this because firstly, it can be repaired a lot easier. The suspension being a prime example. Having witnessed a Canadian Leopard 2 leaping nearly 2ft in the air. Caused by stacked 152mm shells used as an IED. This blew of the tracks and some road wheels. But importantly bent the torsion bars. The Canadian REME could not fix the tank in theatre. So it had to be flown out of Afghan to Germany. Compare this to a Chally. The suspension components are on the outside of the hull. So they can be replaced in the field. The Leopard may be a better performing tank in trials and competitions. But when it comes to the real thing. It’s a poor design for maintaining and repairing. Which is a crucial factor at turning around damaged tanks, so they can stay in the fight.
The MoD/DE&S have also started putting lessons learned from the Ukraine War with regards to the drone threat. This is part of both a dismounted and a vehicle mounted solution. The first phase is giving the infantry the SMASH sighting system. Where the digital sighting system puts a predicted aim point for the shooter to lead a moving target. Thereby allowing the shooter a high chance of knocking the drone down. The second phase is where they turn a vehicle’s remote weapon system (RWS) and link it to a sensor along with a tracking computer. Thereby allowing the RWS’s GPMG, 50 Cal etc, to be used to knock down the drone.
Chally 3 will be a significant upgrade over Chally 2. It will be on par with the latest Abrams and Leopard 2A7/8. However, the question remains of what the MoD will do with the legacy Chally 2s? As they will no longer be compatible for spares. Plus BAe will stop making Fin rounds for it. So it will be unusable in a war fighting capacity.
I agree on one thing though, the tank force is far too small! But then so is the numbers of equipment and personnel in all three services. It does not have the mass or reserves to take losses. Where it will be expected to either maintain a defence line or be used offensively. It is inevitable in a peer vs peer war to take significant losses. Without a proper reserve, the tank force is in essence political window dressing.
You are incorrect on the horsepower increases. Such increases would require wholesale changes to the drive train which is not happening now. There’s a faint chance it will in a future program. However the current HAAIP will not increase HP.
I don’t know much about automotive transmissions. When you install an engine with greater horsepower, do you have to replace the transmission as well, or is transmission more tied to other factors?
Straight from the horses mouth, HAAIP will increase power over the current value. The main gearbox and differentials do not need upgrading as they were originally design for a 1500hp power plant with a 15% overload margin. Which means they could take up to 1725hp before failing. However, the final drives and suspension arms take a battering when the TES is fitted, hence they are being upgraded.
TN 54 has clutch packs and epicyclic gears not differentials , although designed to take 1500 hp they are all part worn and been repaired .
Do you have an idea as to how much the bhp is increased by for HAAIP on CR3?
Zero. DaveyB is pushing nonsense.
Your horse is misinformed, there will be no increase in hp for Cr3.
Even the very latest info on CR3 has the Perkins CV12-9A as the engine! A common rail capable of 1500 hp rating.
Cr3 is not getting any HP increase. HAAIP is to improve reliability at the higher weight.
It’s mainly the current cooling system that’s preventing any power increase.
well Perkins,RBSL are telling us fibs then! ALL spec data show the 9A not the 6A is the engine with an improved cooling system so if you have definite info perhaps you could share it.
Please share any official announcement that the Cr3 will have increased HP.
I’ll be waiting.
Please share any spec info that doesn’t show that 9A is not being used?
It’s really not that hard just google what engine is CR3 having and its there in black and white.
ill be waiting👍
PS even Rhienmettal have under the mobility section have.
3rd generation hydro gas suspension,
upgraded engine with improved cooling,
through life costs reduced
Still struggling to find an official statement that says the Cr3 will have 1500hp?
Let me help you out:
Bye bye.
Read the engine specs it can be rated to 1500🙄
Hello DB.
I know you like random blue sky defence thoughts, so here goes, very O/T:
What is the feasibility of a high speed Spear variant? I’ve been looking recently at FC/ASW and the two variants, and think a similar combination could apply at the smaller scale, with adaptations to the Spear design:
With these modifications, you should end up with a 2m, 100kg class missile capable of around Mach 2/3. You would know better than me what the range penalty would be of high speed but with the larger size it would comfortably outrange Brimstone.
The problem with current Spear seems to be its low speed. At 600km/h hitting a target 120km away takes 12 minutes, in which time a fast vehicle could travel several miles, retreat into cover or shoot down the missile. A faster version, even if range dropped to, say, 80km, would allow a wider variety of targets to be engaged and for the F35’s AShM role also deal more damage to smaller fast attack craft and corvettes while remaining comfortably outside CAMM-class air defence range.
As ever would be delighted to hear your or anyone else’s thoughts on my madcap ideas.
I do know that the RAF are looking at a more reactive missile for ground attack. From what I can tell, this is for those pop-up targets that need a fast response to eliminate. Spear-3 is more for known targets. Brimstone does have this capability, but is relatively short ranged.
To me there are two obvious off the shelf choices, ASRAAM and Meteor. Both missiles have a greater than Mach 3 performance and carry a 10kg fragmentary high explosive warhead. However, they would need further modifications for ground attack.
Of the two I would say ASRAAM would be easier to modify for ground attack and targets of opportunity. The main mod would be to the missile’s software, so that the imaging infrared sensor can recognize ground targets. Another mod would be an imagery feed sent via data-link to the parent aircraft. Thereby allowing the pilot to confirm that the target the missile is aiming for is the one they have selected. It will also require a 2-way data-link. Other mods like GPS, RF receiver and perhaps semi-active laser homing, would add too much weight to what is primarily an air to air missile. I’m not sure how effective a 10kg fragmentary warhead would be against armoured vehicles. It may need a similar programmable warhead that Brimstone/Spear-3 uses. Though travelling at Mach 3+, I’m sure the kinetic energy will also help.
The radar on Meteor is being upgraded as part of the spiral development program, so it may include a wider bandwidth receiver. Which could be useful for targeting a ground based radar emitter. If a GPS receiver was also included. Then you have turned Meteor in to a fairly effective anti-radiation missile. You could change the parameters of the radar receiver to have a much greater bandwidth. Thereby allowing it to have a wider ability against a broader range of radar frequencies.
Using ASRAAM in the ground attack role, you would still have a fairly decent stand-off range of slightly beyond visual range. Whereas Meteor would give you well over 100km range, with a cruise speed over Mach 3.
Another option, would be Brimstone, which with the Block 3 variant, has a published range of around 60km. Compared to Spear-3, it is capable of Mach 1.5. You could look at including an additional 1st stage booster. Thereby giving it higher initial acceleration, but also increasing its cruise speed along with its range. The 1st stage could drop off after the motor has burnt out. Letting the Brimstone’s extant rocket motor to ignite and take over. Range/speed would be dependent upon the length of the booster motor and how much fuel it contained. Doubling the range and hitting Mach 2+ would be quite doable.
If you use an infrared seeker or semi-active laser homing seeker. You will require a hemispherical glass nose for optical clarity and a wide field of view. Unless you are prepared to have a much narrower field of view and include a flat plate. Either option isn’t greater for supersonic aerodynamics. With radar, you want a very high frequency, preferably in the millimetric range. Where the radar can “draw” images on the surface, that can then be used for target recognition. Meteor’s current radar would struggle in this context. But if it gets a Ku-band AESA, this might be sufficient.
If you put strakes on ASRAAM, as they have done with CAMM (turn CAMM-ER back into air launch?), how much extra range would that give you?
Tied with adapting the seeker to be an AGM, that effectively gives you what I was describing.
Isn’t Meteor a bit expensive for an ARM? It costs around £2m, while even the US’ new AARGM-ER, as far as I can tell, only costs a little more than a million. The range is more for AARGM as well, because it is a larger missile that also uses a ramjet motor.
As ever thank you for listening to my pestering and questions.
I liked all the maintenance points. The other thing about torsion bar suspension (Leo2, M1 Abrams) is that it produces an inferior ride to hydro-pneiumatic/hydrogas – one reason why the supposedly ‘underpowered’ CR2 can motor at the same cross-country speed as those two.
After the conversion of 148 CR2s to CR3s – you ask what will happen with the remaining CR2s, which of course will be in a variety of conditions. Same as always. Equipment declared Obsolete is gifted (to Ukraine, museums, to units as gate guards) or sold. The very last resort (very rare) is to scrap them.
At the moment the tank isn’t redundant, in the context of the war in Ukraine I’d say far from it. British thinking in producing a very heavily armed & therefore slow tank doesn’t translate to a good tank in conditions that Asia throws up but they would stand like rocks in a storm against a Russian offensive against Europe.
What Russian ofensive against Europe ?, they,re not able to win a war just a few kilometres from the border.
So Russia is very powerful or It,s a disaster , option 1 or 2 ?
European and British press they don’t clear up at once.
Russian propaganda is a joke but the euro-British one is similar.
I am sure some people thought the tank was redundant in 1916 when the first anti-tank rifle was fielded by the Germans, or in the early 1940s when the bazooka was first fielded or in 1959 when the first ATGW was fielded.
The attack drone is just the latest anti-tank weapon – counters are being devised for it.
With all the extra defence monies surely they can fund the extra 100+ APS sets and some counter drone gun mounts on the turret? Just common sense isn’t it? Isn’t Ukraine showing loud and clear what’s needed?
Thanks Stuart for an informative, and worrying article.
Hopefully a British MP will read it.
Regards,
Rob
(I’m a complete ignoramus when it comes to tanks)
900 Challenger 3s for The British Army please ,and up the number of soldiers to 150,000 .No not happening , for me this is what we need I know hardly anyone will agree with me even though we have war in Europe.At least when we had these numbers we we’re Respected ,and no one really wanted to mess with us.Sorry Guys just my opinion 🇬🇧
I am just so fed up with the argument about the CR3, we will have 148 and that’s it. So unless HMG finds an extra Billion to convert as many of rest of the CR2 we have 2 Armoured regiments.
What I find way more baffling is the lack of AD for what we do have, it’s as if no one is watching what is happening in Ukraine.
Without adequate AD for the Army, what ever we send is just going to get obliterated.
As I understand it we have bought 10 Sky Sabre Battery’s, units or whatever else we want to call them and 2 of those are in the Falklands.
So thought for the day 2,440 British citizens are protected by 20% of our land based medium range missile defences.
So the Army and RAF are protected by just 8, no mention anywhere about what is glaringly obvious. It’s irrelevant buying anything extra if it’s just going to get destroyed.
Now that’s really a scary thought. 🤔
GBAD went years ago mate, way back 1998-2004 time frame.
4 Regular and 3 Reserve regiments, plus the 4 AD Sqns of the RAF Regiment, reduced to 2 and 1.
16 RA consists/consisted of 4 Fire Batteries.
Each is made up of 2 Fire Groups, each FG has 2 or 3 Launchers and a Radar.
1 Battery takes the FI and Poland deployment, 1 FG assigned to each.
It is a murky area just how many systems we bought, I’m still not sure.
The Regiment provides area defence in the rear areas of the Field Army.
Then you have 12 RA, who do the SHORAD bit with HVM/Stormer.
4 Batteries in the SP role and 1 in the AA role with LML.
In theory, 1 Battery is assigned to each of our 5 Brigades for close AD support.
The problem is the UK. Both Regiments have allocated assets to UK events before, from the 2012 Olympics to G7 meetings, but they are assigned to the Army, not home defence.
One Regiment remains in the Reserves with the AD role, no idea what kit it actually owns to use.
What do we cut to expand in the UK home defence area? And I agree we need to.
Wiki: “106th (Yeomanry) Regiment Royal Artillery, HQ in Grove Park, Lewisham (Army Reserve air defence, equipped with Lightweight Multiple Launcher Starstreak and formerly with Self Propelled HVM Stormer) — paired with 12 and 16 Regiments RA”
Why isnt anyone discussing a new hull maybe made in partnership with Poland and S. Korea?
At the same time maybe we could build a lightweight version with a commonality of parts.
If combat becomes necessary in the South I dont think a 60t or 70t monster is going to be viable.
Bump up to 200 CH3’s and then 300 CH4LW’s with an emphasis on electronic defence.
The person who ordered the destruction of so many CH2’s should be identified.
Who was it?
David Cameron , also emboldened Putin by pulling back troops from Germany !
Cameron was a clueless man on defence matters. He should be sent to Ukraine to dig some trenches!
CH2 didn’t sell because the late 90’s/early 00’s was the worst time to try and sell new tanks, as their were reduced requirements and loads of cheap Leo1 and Leo2 available 2nd hand. Upgrading 148 does feel a bit pointless though as I can’t see the Germans or French or pretty much anyone else buying our new turret. Think it would have been braver to do some limited obsolescence management and a limited engine upgrade, and then build some really good heavy AFVs/APCs or something with a market that isn’t sewn up by the USA/Germany/France already.
Why is it pointless to upgrade equipment that is well overdue an upgrade?
I of course agree that 148 is too small a figure, by a long way.
I agree its not pointless to have 148 CH3’s but we need 296 minimum.
My real point is we need an AFV we can get into our C17’s. Perhaps in 3 parts: turret, super armour and hull.Nobody is thinking out of the box, Something I’m good at. In other words a medium tank with a 120mm and bolt on deck and other armour options and drone defence.
British army needs to think as it did in late 1918 and at Alamein ie massive striking power.
Lockheed should be sued without limit to give our F35’s British weapons now or they are so much scrap.
My reply has been lost..and not for the first time. CR2 and surely CR3 can of course fit in a C-17, but just one of them.
It really is not ‘an act of war’ to deploy an armoured brigade by air – we would probably only have 5-6 C-17s available at most and there are thousands of vehicles and trailers etc in a brigade…plus everything else (non-vehicular) in a brigade.
So we deploy large numbers of kit and heavy kit by other means.
Not saying that we would not benefit from a lighter tank for the Lt Mech Bde. [But we still keep heavy MBTs for the armoured bdes].
There is always a counter system for any weapon system created, that is simply the evolution of any battle space, so arguments about the demise of the usefulness of the MBT are ignorant of the tactical and strategic value of them.
At the end of the day, should HMG not be properly advised, nor invest correctly, it simply means the UK will have to accept greater losses until a war economy (led by the surviving military leaders…not the politicians who know nothing about service to their country) can be stood up…hopefully before the UK has to sue for peace and everyone is forced to learn Russian or Chinese 😉.
For what it’s worth, The UK needs more than 900 MBTs with twin major peer adversaries and of course larger Services all around (yes, even the light blue).
148 tanks…but people always want more…
A few questions.
Some will undoubtably be sat in Estonia etc.
Fine.
Thats where they are best placed for use.
How many will be sat in the UK and where?
If in the worst case they are needed 1500 miles away in the east(Poland /Ukr) then how will they get there?
Rail moves?
Tank Transporters?
Do we have enough capability to move 148 tanks let alone the hundreds more that people want?
You also need to shift the logs supply train to support them and all that encompasses. RA, Signals, RE, REME, RLC, Mech Infantry, Air Defence and the myriad other hangers on that the Army requires. All with their own tracks, wheels and specialist vehicles and systems.
Bombed up tanks and vehicles they don’t go through the Chunnel so you need to shift them first by sea.
So, transport to a UK port (Road transporters), embark (Point Class?), sail, disembark (Loggies and Road Transporters), then rail load ( Loggies).
Because of the size of MBTs only certain rail tracks can take them (Curve radius and tunnel cross section are issues).
With the distances involved in getting to Poland/Ukr rail is the only sensible move option.
Tracks are not going to do a 1500-mile road march! Wheels maybe but that would be pushing it and a lot would still go TU on the side of the road.
Although people want a massive increase in tank numbers it is spookily enough a bit more complex than just shouting “We want more Tanks! We want them now!”.
“it is spookily enough a bit more complex than just shouting “We want more Tanks! We want them now!”.”
Exactly, I wonder how many don’t actually realise that the CS CSS even exist.
Yes, Marchwood Military Port is the SMC. A rail link is at Tidworth but as you say not good for MBTs. We talked of this a few months ago, it has been retained and maintained so assume B vehicles and lighter armoured types could move via rail.
Rest on HETs, which we do not have enough of, with only 19 TT Sqn remaining.
They also use “Sponsored reserves”
“then rail load ( Loggies).”
Did you know another imbecilic move of the 2010 SDSR was cutting most of the rest of our railway capability? While concentrating the armour around SPTA at Tidworth, Warminster, Bulford, and the rest way up in the north at Catterick!
Very neat.
507 STRE, part of 65 WG, still exists at Chilwell and is an AR outfit, no doubt made up of Network Rail P Way types but beyond that. Gone.
is the rail link from Ludgershall to Marchwood not any good for tanks ? nothing seems to changed as such with it. the 2010 decision to withdraw from Germany and do away with the transport units at the same time seems crazy now
It’s the clearances on Network Rail lines I think.
I’m pleased the line is still there, though most of the yard network has gone with the closure of the Ludgershall site.
The niche, specialist railway units were such a small saving in the wider scheme of things.
Those, the JNBC Reg, the Bay, and Fort George. All utterly demented.
there was some sort of issue with clearance at Castlemartin as well. The story goes it was sort of ignore, until someone loaded an armoured vehicle a little more off centre then usually and it hit something!!
There is a rail link to Castlemartin?
Interesting.
Sorry, it goes to Pembroke Dock Station were there is a ramp at the end of the one station platform. However it seems now they go to Havodford West station were there is a Network Rail/MOD goods yard next to the station. thats quite a bit further away from Castlemartin then Pembroke dock which must mean a track issue and it has been mentioned about a tunnel on the line to Pembroke dock have clearance issue for large passenger trains, so may bit is that
507 STRE have an excellent hell site account. On my followed list.
Always lots of well I never knew that and why didn’t i think of that.
We have some tanks in Estonia and some in storage in Germany.
Sure, if the balloon went up we would need a lot of tanks to deploy from the UK to the Continent. We cracked this nut in 1916 – we designed the tank for warfare on the Continent. We have had over 100 years experience of deploying tanks (and other AFVs) strategically to France, Korea, the Gulf, Suez, the Balkans etc etc..
What would we use? As you say, they would not do a 1500 mile road march. You have given all the answers/options, but I would add STUFT. BTW we have deployed tanks and Warriors through the Chunnel before as a feasibility exercise – they were not bombed up because that scares the civvies – in time of war, peacetime rules can go out of the window.
In the Cold War large numbers of reinforcing units would often deploy on wheels from all over the UK (including the north of Scotland) to exercise in Germany.
Bombed up vehicles in any road tunnels get people twitching. The restrictions on routes you can take are laid down in JSP covering movements of haz materials if I remember correctly.
STUFT we can still do. Some Fast Cats would manage it. But with large numbers of vessels going via the Baltic route to get to Poland you then start adding in CAP, MCM, SAG and ASW to the mix…
There is a JSP covering movement of HAZMAT in poeacetime. I think a lot of peacetime rules would be waived in wartime.
I agree there is a need to protect sealift in wartime – I don’t doubt that we could do it.
TUFT can also include HETs, and their drivers if needed. There are plenty of suitable vehicles in use by industry for moving construction and mining equipment.
Yes. Many of our tanks do non-exercise/non-operational moves on hired civvy HETs, notwithstanding the existence MoD HETs (MoD 2023 equipment spreadsheet shows holding of 182, which sounds too high).
I think he is wrong about the power pack. It will not be the same one as the Challenger 2. It is an upgraded version with improved thermal management and fuel injection. It will be at least 1500 bhp if not 1600. This is the same if not better then M1 and Leopard. This power pack will be linked to an improved transmission, and a advanced 3rd generation hydrogas suspension. I would not rush to get on the Leopard bandwagon… it has not proved noticeably better in Ukraine than Challenger or M1. I would see CH3 as a stopgap until new evolved designs take the field.
As for APS it is clear it is needed for all the MTBs we send into combat and should form part of the TES along with extra armour etc. I suspect more APS may arrive with UOR in the future.
I think many nations are trending water with modified and upgraded designs, until there is a major shift… possibly to AI controlled unmanned vehicles.
It must be remembered that the Ukraine war is a very specific example of modern combat – it is NOT a NATO vs Russia all out war. In such a conflict air power would be a bigger factor with Western stealth having a significant impact on Russian use of the air in turms of use of fighters and drones etc. it woyld be wrong to extrapolate …
Advanced thermal management , lagging turbos for lower under louver temp’s!
RBSL is not declaring 1500 or 1600hp from the CV-12 9A.
Funny how certain countries like the USA, Germany and France etc., always seem to benefit financially from war, and the UK is always the poor relation.
I think there is an opportunity here for the UK to reverse decades of de- industrialization by re-kindling it’s heavy armoured vehicle design and manufacturing capability. By learning the lessons from Ukraine, looking at emerging technologies, and using the what industrial base remains, the UK could come up quickly with a low-cost, KISS world beating MBT (CH4?). e.g. Have a chat with JCB for starters.
The rapidly deteriorating world security situation, and the unreliableness of so-called partners, means that the future would be lot more secure for the UK if it had its own capabilities again.
While everyone bangs on about to small numbers unfortunately this is all the army is capable of operating in its current set up. To increase numbers would require restructuring and increasing numbers of other kit. Looking forward all the old kit is going so the force is going to be CH3, Ajax versions, boxer, some artillery and M270. A little over 2000 vehicles. With 72,000 troops that’s about the best that can be put together.
Personally I think 100,000 is a decent size for the army and another 100k spilt between Navy, RAF, cyber etc. that allows more kit to actually be used. It would take a few years but perfectly manageable with a budget in place.
There in lies the major problem. The government has slashed again and again. Take off the things added to the defence budget since 2010 and it’s probably 1.5% gdp. That is the major problem.
The 447 figure includes the 22 Driver Training Tanks.
I don’t agree that the usefulness of an equipment is partly predicated on its export sales performance – at the time that CR2 was being manufactured (1993-2002), few countries were in the market for a sophisticated western tank. US were building M1 from 1978 and Germany was building Leo 2 from 1979 – so they stole a march on us for exports. Besides we had a very strict security position on its Special Armour.
‘The tank’s performance in UK service has been acceptable’- talk about damning with faint praise!
Come on HMG we need 200+ of these vehicles not 148 and they ALL need to be fitted with the trophy APS, not just 60 or so vehicles. Time to get real please.
why not just buy c300-400 of the German or US tanks, taxpayers money so badly spent on these disastrous domestic procurement projects…
CR3 will be very good – why do you think otherwise?
Programme is ahead of schedule, two quality companies involved – so hardly disastrous.
Can you buy 300-400 of the very latest M1s or Leo2s plus Initial Spares Pack, STTE, driving and gunnery simulators, other training aids, publications etc etc. for the same money as we are spendng on the CR3 project – £800m. I doubt it.
CR3 is so far not looking at all disastrous as a project. It is well ahead of schedule – and no hiccups have been reported.
1) It is fairly asinine to simplify “usefulness” of a tank to its exportability for a number of reasons. I note a some here: a) Tanks are meant to fit the tank warfare doctrine of the user and the UK, unlike Germany and the USA, who value mobility first, has a different balance, valuing protection over mobility, for example. Unless a nation has the same priorities then it will likely not select your tank. I note that several Abrahams were lost in the Gulf war to enemy action but no Challengers. I personally see the Leopard as too vulnerable and the Abrahams as more vulnerable than the Challenger. b) Price. If you are buying, for your domestic market, 1000 tanks then clearly the economies of scale are significantly better than if you are producing 400. Challenger is likely to seem pricey to export buyers. c) Technology. I note that the USA insisted that the UK share Chobham armour technology so that they could adapt it for the Abrahams. The latest armour is generation three and will not be exported – for fear of its secrets getting to the enemy, so any export tank will not be as well protected as the domestic one, removing one of its key advantages.
2) “Comprehensively outclassed” citing no examples and giving no indication of the relative performance. I note that the Challenger recently (May 2023) won a NATO tank competition against “friendly nations”. Hardly an indication that “comprehensively outclassed” is near the truth.
3) As an aside, the reasons for the rifled 120mm Challenger 2 gun include a) the need (UK doctrine) to accurately deliver general purpose HESH rounds (there was no equivalent for smoothbore barrels for decades) b) Accuracy – ever hear of a smoothbore sniper rifle? It is true that fin stabilised rounds can be as accurate. The smoothbore will mean only tungsten alloy sabots will be fired so any gain in speed is more than lost in penetration power because depleted uranium (from rifled round) has about 10% greater penetration. I note that the Challenger still has the record for the longest tank on tank main gun kill.
4) As an example, Israel (population under 10 million) alone has over 2,000 tanks. So new build Challenger 3s are required to equip a reasonable tank force to allow effective combat operations and to replace losses (we agree on that).
5) No doubt the active defence systems will be fitted to all the tanks and the power pack is new/updated and “sufficient” for the job (remember that mobility is not a top priority). The lower horsepower gives less mobility and more range. The Abrahams has to have a long chain of tankers to keep it fuelled, let alone armed. Challenger 2 range 340 miles; Abrahams 265 miles.
Yes all good points. I note that quite a few leopards, including A6 have been knocked out in Ukraine along with a few M1s. Only one Challenger has beeb knocked out but the crew got out. It looks like it was immobilised by a mine and then abandoned by the crew. It probably had the hatches open and was then attacked by a drone. If it had been a British CH2 it would have had a TES with extra armour and supported by other tanks and infantry. It probably would not have been knocked out it it was a British tank.
I suppose it depends how many of each of the tanks were actually sent and utlised at the front.
We only sent 12 & It has been stated by the UKr that the CH2 is underpowered , gets stuck in the mud BUT the gun is great – they consider it a ‘sniper’ tank
Its just a shame we got rid of the ‘sniper’ gun- and kept the rest.
Yes CH2 has suffered in the mud but it is not the only one… it will be ok in summer. CH3 has pore power at least 1500hp and improved transmission and suspension. So it should have enough power to tackle mud.
Dern said it was one rookie crew that got stuck in the mud, the next CR2 tank that drove past the reporter had no trouble with their more experienced crew.
CR2 has very similar X-C mobility to M1 Abrams and Leo2 due to its superior hydrogas suspension, which helps offset a P/W deficit.
The new one pore power and next gen hydogas…
1 st batch had cylinder pitch thread excess clearance issues , fitted anyway ISO 9001 box ticking !
Thanks. Not sure how signing up to ISO 9001, the premier international Quality Assurance standard, means you can now fit faulty parts!
Things must have changed since I was a CEng!
I wouldn’t normally post here as I have little knowledge of military hardware and I recognise the expertise of those who do comment. I learn a lot from you. However, looking at the specifications of the new German MBT, the Panther KF51, I’m compelled to ask the question why Britain doesn’t buy this tank instead.
59 tons, 3 crew, 130mm smoothbore gun, 1500hp engine, fully digitised NGVA data backbone, three layers of protection (passive, reactive and active), TAPS, design upgradeability and more. Surely the Challenger 3 will not come close to matching this. Like many here, I would like to see Britain take the lead in MBT development, but if Challenger 3 is just going to be a half measure, isn’t the KF51 the sensible way to go.
The thing people tend to forget when they talk about the obsolescence of the MBT on the modern battlefield (and the Ukrainians might disagree with you on that) is that when they state (rightly) that 148 Chally 3s is a token force and that the real power lies in massed fires, rocket artillery and armoured strike brigades etc, is that – like a credible MBT capability – we don’t have those really either.
A few GMLRS and a couple of dozen Archers is not going to cut it if you are suggesting this is now the main combat firepower of any UK deployed force. Neither will a few Apaches and some single-use drones.
The true tragedy of the C3 debacle is not that we are getting a couple of Regiment’s worth and that is it, but that the combat power hasn’t been shifted to artillery, guided long range fires, etc. This capability has been gutted AS WELL.
Maybe MBTs are obsolete on a battlefield against a peer foe, maybe they aren’t. But if they are, then what are we doing instead? Boxer and Ajax? A handful of AS-90s and some Archers, backed up with far too few rocket systems? Anything else? Nope. Not really.
It’s classic British flighty lack of decisiveness. Either keep the MBT capability with 400-odd Leo 2A7+ and learn how to use them and how to properly protect them, or drop it and put the money into radically enhancing the other stuff. As it is the half measure of sitting in the middle is worse than either of the alternatives. C3 is a waste of time, always has been and is merely to keep voters happy. The British Army hasn’t got a use for them except to send to Estonia to look hard on SkyNews. As Mr Crawford states very rightly – they wouldn’t last two weeks against anyone half decent and we cannot replace them so what’s the point?
If you want to be a tank army then be a tank army. Enough with the token gestures and playing politics.
Drones and anti tank missiles might render tanks obsolete today but tomorrows APS and lasers will make them total unusable. Tanks will be king again and investment in Challenger is a good start, let’s hope they can find a sustainable solution to keeping production lines open or start work on a successor because we are going to need a lot more soon.
How long will it take to build each challenger 3 ?
I don’t think you will ever get that figure but it will take until 2030 to build 148. Contract Award was in May 2021. So 16.5 built per year would be the average.
I very much hope we are listening to the Ukrainian army and implementing the lessons learned from actual combat.
One message that is coming through loud and clear is that it is under powered and the lack of spares .
One rookie crew recently bogged in their CR2 in deep mud in Ukraine in front of a journalist. It was said, by non-experts, that if the tank had more power it would not have bogged in.
Experienced tank crews passing the journalist did not get bogged in, but that was not the headline!
CR2’s top speed across country is on a par with M1 Abrams and Leo2, in part due to its superior suspension which offsets its slightly lower power/weight ratio.
I would not think power would be much use if the tank was bogged down. If the tracks are not getting traction. You are not going anywhere regardless of the power.
I would think power would be most useful accelerating and going up steep inclines.
It was just a journo’s comment.
Two ways to get through mud assuming it is in a defined area – full power before you hit the mud and get carried through by momentum…or crawl through in low gear with high torque. Much will depend on what the enemy is doing!
I had never heard any claims that CR2 was under-powered until recently and only in the Ukraine conflict. Of course it has somewhat less power than its peers but that does not mean it is under-powered.
I read in multiple sources over the years but I am unable to find a link.
One of the limits to the power was the drive train, it simply couldn’t handle it.
Now there is no restriction so putting in a new more powerful unit to compensate for the increase in weight , would seem logical.
I have never heard that a 1200hp unit [Perkins CV12-6A V12 diesel 26.1 L] was fitted to CR2 rather than a more powerful one because the drive train could not handle any more power than that. The tank has a beefier transmission (TN54) than the CR1 (TN37) which had a very similar 1200 hp engine. The transmission is better than that for CR1- it is not limited.
CR3 also has the Perkins 1200hp unit CV12-9A. The transmission is still the TN54 but with minor imrpovements.
You are entitled to your viewpoint however as a self confessed arm chair general I question why everyone else has a significantly larger power pack than the British and it was originally intended to upgrade challenger 3 to a unit on a par with its peers.
As for Ukraine reports that it is a good tank in all respects but lacking power, I will confess, my info comes through the main stream media. Either way it would be wise for the MoD to incorporate any lessons learned but I will also not be surprised if they adopt their trusted three monkeys position.
My reply has been lost, so I offer here a shorter version.
The reports of CR2 being underpowered are largely coming from a journo who saw a rookie CR2 crew In Ukraine get bogged in in mud, and people spotting that it has a 1200bhp engine compared to the 1500bhp of Abrams and Leo 2.
It is not reasonable to compare anything to a Gas Turbine. Compared to Leo 2, the CR2 is 6mph slower on road (37mph vs 43 mph) and I estimate just 1-2mph slower cross-country due to Chally’s superior suspension. The penalty of Leo2’s 1500bhp MTU unit is significantly higher fuel consumption aka reduced range for just a marginal speed increase.
CR3 is of course an upgrade and will have an improved Perkins CV12 a 9A rather than a 6A which I understand has better fuel injection – power output is undeclared but it might be somewhat higher than 1200 but won’t be 1500hp.
Interestingly CV-12 can do 1500hp in unregulated mode – clearly we prefer the greater reliability and longer range from running it at 1200bhp, when the performance difference (in mph) is so marginal.
CR3 design has been frozen so there will be no changes this side of fielding.