Luke Pollard MP, Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, visited Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) in Telford this week, meeting staff working on two of the British Army’s most significant modernisation projects, the Challenger 3 main battle tank upgrade and the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle programme.
RBSL confirmed that the minister spoke with colleagues across the workforce, including apprentices who began their careers at the site and have since developed through training and progression opportunities. He also held discussions with trade union representatives, focusing on how skills development and investment in infrastructure are strengthening resilience across the UK defence sector.
The Telford facility is the largest of RBSL’s UK sites and plays a central role in delivering sovereign capability for the Army. Under the Challenger 3 programme, 148 tanks are being upgraded with new turrets, sensors and a 120mm smoothbore gun. In parallel, Boxer vehicles are being assembled and integrated at the plant, with final production expected to support thousands of jobs across the wider supply chain.
RBSL said its people are “at the heart of everything we do,” adding that the combination of significant investment in infrastructure and skills is creating long-term opportunities for the UK workforce while ensuring critical capabilities for the Army. The company also mentioned the importance of partnerships with trade unions and apprenticeships in maintaining a sustainable pipeline of skilled labour for the future.
Photographs released from the visit show Pollard alongside executives, staff and military personnel in front of a Boxer vehicle at the site, as well as touring workshops and speaking directly with engineers.
Checking up on the Boxer build rate before publishing the defence investment plan?
Or telling them future Boxer buys are shelved, hopefully, apart from a Recovery version and the RCH155. Will save a small fortune that could go towards Patria in bulk, or a LPM type, or the Ajax IFV version.
That Ajax version looked incredible. Blackjax it was called weren’t it?
I’d read of a Blackjax but unsure if that is another proposal or the version that had the article on it here.
Fair enough. Either way, along as it’s got a strong cannon, tow missiles and anti UAV capability id be happy with it.
Still think we should have ordered atleast 300 CH3 aswell
Elliott, ATGMs on an IFV would be a first for the BA. I think there are drawbacks in IFVs taking on an anti-tank role in addition to their Infantry transport, delivery and fire support role.
I would rather have Tank Destroyers that were dedicated to the task, a modern-day replacement for CVR(T) STRIKER, FV438 and SPARTAN MCT – all of which were (bizarrely) withdrawn without replacement.
I think with a lack of actual tanks for support an IFV with a last ditch anti tank capability cant be a bad thing ..case in point the Bradley. It would be more a case of how the doctrine for it is developed . Deploying it specifically to hunt for, or defend against tanks and other armoured vehicles would be a mistake.
The thing is they do have a last ditch ATGM capability, it’s just that it’s dismounted with the troops instead of fired under armour.
Hi Graham.
Agree on Striker Swingfire / Spartan Milan Compact Turret replacement.
I have read that some Boxer will have a single Javelin ready to fire on a RWS? This has been roundly criticised by some on X due to the vulnerability of the missile to enemy fire and inability to reload quickly.
Thanks Daniele, a single Javelin on just some of the Boxers. Wow! Rather pathetic.
Of course STRIKER had 5 Swingfires on the roof in launcher bins with a reload of 5 more inside; retired in 2005 without replacement.
FV438 had 2 roof mounted Swingfires and 12 more inside; reloading could be from the vehicle interior – retired in 1986.
For both vehicles, the missiles could be fired by a remote operator 75 m from the camouflaged and well hidden vehicle.
The FV120 SPARTAN carried thirteen MILAN Missiles, with two in launch positions.
We used to fit ATGW even to small platforms like Ferret (Mk2/6 (Vigilant), then Mk5 (4 x Swingfire))
As regards the vulnerability of the missile launcher to enemy fire…well there are parts even of a heavy MBT that are not invulnerable – antennaes, optics, sensors, lower half of road wheels, tracks. Not everything on an armoured vehicle can be protected and that would include a missile in a launcher. If an enemy spots you in your Boxer/Javelin and opens fire, you might have a bigger issue with your survival rather than whether the single missile has been blown off the roof! A bigger criticism is the fact that only one missile is proposed. As mentioned, even the tiny Ferret had 4 missiles ready to fire.
Thanks Graham.
Blackjax is a pure concept vehicle, separate from the IFV proposal. Its a concept test bed for Modular Integrated Protection System as well as essentially an dual purpose ground and AAW turret for the 40mm with a 85 degree elevation..it’s an ASCOD-type hull and they said it would be the spiral development platform to test concepts..with the Ajax IFV being they buy now ready product.. so obviously up for selling the Ajax IFV with already developed turret and none sovereign active protection while moving potentially in the future to a new turret with AAW capability and sovereign active protection…knowing the army it will simply ignore the buy now option step past spiral development and go for the whole new gold plated concept in one go ready for 2060.
Totally wrong dude. Blackjack is an upgraded Ajax to tempt future buyers.
That’s not what the press release stated, they had blackjack down as a concept vehicle and testbed.. they did not even claim it was Ajax… the media organisations that covered the press release speculated that it was the same hull type and it was sat next to the Ajax IFV which was being sold as a vehicle ready.
As I understand it, Blackjax is the recon vehicle updated with all sorts of new tech, not the IFV. They were displayed next to each other at DSEI, with Blackjax being seen more as a technology demonstrator, whereas the turreted IFV was closer to a concrete proposal.
The turret used on the Ajax IFV is a development of the Warrior turret built for the warrior capability sustainment program (WCSP). GD say the turret is capable of being used for firing trials, but is not the finished product. Although the blurb said it was an unmanned turret, it still has access hatches to make it a manned turret. Though it would need seating and basket to be added. Which would cut the number of pax carried to 6 rather than 8.
The Lockheed turret is designed to be unmanned and that’s the format that is on offer to the MoD. The turret is close to a production level unlike the IFV hull which remains to be developed, presumably using Ares as a starting point.
It’s the Ajax IFV on display that is the concept. It used an ASCOD hull, not Ajax. Not a “concrete proposal”.
I hope it’s a better build quality than current Ajax. Restrictions on its use at the moment on exercise, they’re being completely battered when going places a Bulldog can with 0 issues.
Steve, do say more. A little surprising that a hefty vehicle like 38 – 42t Ajax is not very durable, even in short duration trials/exercises. What areas/parts get battered?
I’ve seen damage to a fair amount of the vehicle, that’s what I’m comfortable saying.
Steve, if correct this totally unacceptable considering the time it’s taken to get into service. However, I did notice a simpler bodyside design on the new IFV concept at IDES. The slab-sided design would be less vulnerable to damage than the Ajax, and this may be a solution going forward? Last year, I watched a video of Scimitars during one of their last duties, dodging in and out of trees and bushes and finding access down very narrow tracks. Sadly, Ajax appears far to big to achieve anything like the concealment of Scimitar, which raises questions about whether they have got it right?
Ajax isn’t allowed to go into treelines anymore, or bushes apparently. I would say no, they haven’t got it anywhere near right.
EH..? Can’t go into treelines or bushes..!? Seriously?
Good grief treelines have got to be one of the most obvious defensive / observation opportunities on any battlefield, surely?
Madness. Unbelievable. Stupid. Incompetent. A huge waste of money if true and what happens if the issues can’t be fixed easily. GD and the British Army have provided an abject lesson in how NOT to procure equipment.
Utterly depressing.
CR
I would imagine GD are perfectly happy sitting watchjng the exercise,rubbing their hands with glee as only they can repair most of the damage God knows what we’re going to do when they don’t deploy forward with the crews in any potential conflict or flashpoint.
I seriously doubt that. A quick google shows no evidence of Ajax being forbidden from entering bushes in any articles, and I’ve not heard anything of the sort. Even if it was true, it sounds more like the sort of “please don’t damage the training area” kind of thing than a vehicle flaw.
We should order CV90 as a Warrior replacement and the recently announced recce version and ditch Ajax. It simply isn’t going to work that much is now clear. The Army / MoD have got themselves into such a tangle over this and as you say GD are just sitting there fleecing the tax payer off the back of incompetence.
Depending on the situation I would also consider black listing GD for the next 10 years i.e. no new contracts from the UK Government and make it clear that we would be willing to do the same to anyone else trying to fleece us…
As for the incompetence in the Army / MoD I would go digging for names…
There needs to be real accountability.
I would also consider recruiting specialists from out side the Services / MoD structure to widen the experience pool in procurement. It is not processes or organisations that make decisions, it is people, although organised people with agendas can work together to stifle good practice.
While I accept that people are fallible the Ajax debacle suggests that there is a corporate lack of understanding and experience around how to effectively procure good kit. Note I say good, not outstanding or perfect..! 80% effective tends to be the sweet spot for cost effectiveness.
Can’t through bushes, good grief! The defence fortifications of the 21 century – Leylandii hedges, cheep and fast growing! Who needs minefields!
Cheers CR
Absolutely no point binning a program that is now delivering vehicles to start from square one.
Steve, I am shocked to hear that Ajax is not allowed to go into treelines or bushes. What is that about? Armd Recce units need to be able to conduct recce by stealth, as has always been British pratice, and that means moving through woods/bushes and operating from the edge of them. When it leaguers up, that would invariably be in a barn or wood to provide cover from view. Vehicle is not fit for purpose if it cannot be concealed at times in natural cover.
Granted that other nations conduct recce by fighting, the opposite of recce by stealth…and Ajax has the former option (at risk of taking fire which might be lethal) but to be denied the latter option is to make the vehicle almost unusable, as it will only gain a measure of cover by using dead ground and that is not universally available. [Not talking about Ajax being spotted by drones here – thats a different matter]
The no bushes/treeline thing is a new order after Ajax’s performance on exercise after crews were told to use it as normal, only for it to get pretty battered when they did when compared to other, older vehicles.
This is all as I understand it anyway. I have heard anecdotes and none of this is first-hand information. Grain of salt and all that, but I have seen evidence.
Yep, the Patria and the Nurol Makina Nomad look racing certainties. The Gun Hall in Telford is due to start production in 2026 so it does look like the site will focus on the RCH 155mm and 120mm barrels. That said, are we not still committed to the original 523+100 = 623 Boxers?
The nomad was a bit of a surprise to be honest, it’s seems a pretty good protected mobility vehicle and getting it manufactured in the UK is a good bit of industrial strategy.. I also suspect it’s a bit of a quid pro quo to Turkey to lubricate the typhoon sales.
But like everything it will be how many do they buy. My personal view is all the light role infantry should at a minimum be equipped with a sold protected mobility vehicle like this.
Its also a significant boost up in the level of protection in the British army protected mobility fleet, foxhound is only STANAG 2 ballistic and blast Nomad is standard level 3 in both blast and ballistic and can be upgraded to level 4 in ballistic ( 14.5mm ap rounds) which is a significant up lift.
Not that the British army will, but I believe it’s the only light protected mobility vehicle you can stick a 30mm cannon on the top of…
What Typhoon orders?? that went down the toilet when the Turks chose American aircraft instead.
Most, if not all, of the light armored vehicles in the Nomad’s 10 tonne class can carry up to a 30mm weapon.
I don’t think anyone could say the turkey typhoon deal is dead, because turkey is buying f16s and trying to maybe restart the F35 purchase ( which Isreal is busy killing in vitro) . As I said I’ve not seen any other light protected mobility vehicles with 30mm cannons on the top.. but always happy be be directed to interesting ones.
Boxers, yes.
But those are the batch 1 and 2 orders. It was widely reported that funding was in place for more to take the numbers to over 1,000.
The builder used to include this order in their financial projections going forward, until recently, as I understand the MoD quietly dropped it some time ago.
Quite right too in my view. Boxer may be good, but its cost is ruinous, it needs to be in conjunction with cheaper types, just as Warrior did not replace FV432 in all roles.
I believe this tier approach is inevitable across all the services as I see no other way to increase mass. T26, T31, RB2 are good examples for the RN. The RAF? Not so easy and I think they would resist cheaper fast jets.
Perhaps the Hawk replacement might have a combat variant?
It might. But the RAF would rightly say that money spent there means less F35.
It works better in an army setting.
I’d like to see the Turkish vehicle (Nomad/NMS) acquired (assuming it passes Army testing) but I know of no official announcement or hint that it is the preferred choice.
Have you seen something definite?
I found this on the English language edition of Türkyetoday.com.
“ The British Army displayed the NMS 4×4 armored vehicle at DSEI UK 2025, signaling its planned entry into the military’s armored combat vehicle fleet under the designation NOMAD 4×4.
The vehicle, manufactured by NMS U.K., the British subsidiary of Turkish defense company Nurol Makina, was exhibited alongside the army’s current in-service armored fighting vehicles at one of the world’s leading defense exhibitions.
NMS U.K. will produce the vehicles at a 32,000-square-meter facility located at Tachbrook Park“.
Thankx
I’m sure there are orders in the pipeline for the British Army due mainly to the extent the company has gone to establish a production facility in the UK. You don’t necessarily do that if there is no chance of business.
Paul, the orders for the 623 Boxers were contracted for ages ago. Vehicles are being built (at glacial pace). Of course MoD can cancel orders for kit that is in build but why would they? The army is years behind with its recapitalisation, given that an ‘A’ vehicle should not really soldier on much beyond 25 years, ideally. Cancelling anything will set things back way too far.
Thx Graham. I think I just needed someone to say my memory is still functional. As you say, we are very far behind with army recapitalisation. That said, it does look like most of the key vehicle replacement programs are decided and/or in progress. Light at the end of the tunnel.
Daniele, I’d agree to 623 Boxer if the Ajax IFV were ordered instead of a follow-on order. That said, the PM has made it clear he intends to place greater emphasis on the UK defence industry, thus possibly allowing for an additional order? The Patria 6X6 order should exceed the Fuchs fleet, which is relatively small. Ideally, this vehicle should replace some of the Bulldogs as well as the Mastiff? However, I fear the numbers will be disappointing as always, resulting in the retention of vehicles that would otherwise be sold off….so much for simplifying vehicle types.
Starmer will continue to give great emphasis on not buying anything at all.
Maurice, you are possibly mixing chalk and cheese. IFVs are for the Armd Inf, which would have been met by Warrior WCSP and now by something else (probably AJAX/ARES IFV). Wheeled APCs (MIVs) are for the Mech Inf. The army requirement was for about 1200 or 1400 MIVs. Unless that has changed then 623 Boxers represents half the total required. Either a third tranche order for Boxer is required or for some other (much cheaper) APC or MIV like the Patria to be ordered.
Hello Graham, as I understood, Warrior would be replaced by Boxer unless a tracked alternative could be found, hence the possibility of a Boxer tracked IFV. As you correctly mentioned, the Ajax IFV or Ares IFV would make for a direct replacement. Daniele suggested that one way to pay for these new variants would be to draw a line under 623 Boxer (plus RCH 155) and purchase Ares IFV using some of the allocated Boxer funds to achieve a usable fleet. In recent weeks, Boxer tracked has reared its head once more, posing as an alternative to the Ares variant?
I’ve not heard that they are even considering a tracked vehicle to replace warrior my understanding is boxer is replacing it lock stock and zero smoking canons as it has a bloody .50 machine gun to fight bmp1/2 that has a auto canon (what could possibly go wrong)
As it stands, correct, Warrior is being replaced by Boxer. Tim is suggesting that Boxer would go toe to toe with a BMP which of course it wouldn’t, the conop for the infantry operating out of Boxer would change with the Boxer in most circumstances not operating as fire supprt as a Warrior does.
It is of course not so much whether a tracked alternative could be found, finding options is easy enough, it’s creating space in the budget to bring an IFV into the fleet. Drawing a line under 600 Boxer wouldn’t free up funding as anything beyond the 600 Boxers isn’t funded yet. In theory in a few years down the line when the time to fund another 600 Boxer would come up we’ll be maybe looking at an IFV.
But honestly the tracks isn’t the big deal, it’s the need for a gun that is.
So we are replacing a proper IVF with a pretend one, and the Army will have to change their way of operating to accommodate this ‘solution’? Are they committed to Boxers then – can they not just change direction due to previous fuck up’s with Army decisions, or is the continuation with procurement with this obvious gap just to save face?
I think we are replacing an IFV with an APC. They aren’t even pretending.
The conops was rewritten as part of Future Soldier, with Ajax and Boxer working together, and lots of doomsayers predicting that mixing track and wheel would end in tears. That’s where the purchase comes from, as I understand it. I think the conops has changed since then, probably more than once. The procurement plan however remains stubbonly the same.
Correct in general but a few minor corrections:
The “Tracks and Wheels” debate actually goes back to Army 2020, where Boxer and Ajax would have worked together in Medium Strike Brigades, and Ajax, Challenger and Warrior would have worked in Heavy Brigades. Budget crunch and the Warrior upgrade program being slow to deliver basically ended Warrior.
The ConOps has changed since Future Soldier, for the somewhat obvious reason that as the Army gets it’s hands on Boxer and uses it they work out what it can and can’t do first hand and will keep doing minor adjustments, but in broad strokes I think it’s similar to the OG Future Soldier ConOp.
It’s got nothing to do with saving face and everything to do with budgets. We’ve bought and paid for 600+ Boxer variants, that contract can not be cancelled without some stiff penalty clauses, and even if we did cancel it we’d have to throw more money after it running trials and selecting an IFV. The Boxer order currently doesn’t really touch the sides, now we’d have to spend even less money on what would probably be a more expensive (per vehicle) fleet.
Hi Dern,
Sorry to reply to you on this post – I couldn’t reply on your posts above regarding the Ajax / treeline discussion.
Firstly, your comment above about the possibility that the limitation might due training area rules rather than a problem with the vehicle is, I hope, a real possibility and a sensible suggestion at that.
Secondly, you make the point that scrapping the program now that it is delivering vehicles is not a good idea. Normally I would agree with you and to be honest I do have some sympathy for that position. Yup, there is a but! Well a couple…
The program has been a litany of c***k ups the two big ones that we know about are the hulls delivered from GD Spain were welded together badly with brackets and fixing points for tracks being different from one side to the other and if I remember rightly they were not the only things wrong with the dimensional accuracy of the hulls. As a former engineer I would find that laughable if it wasn’t so serious and speaks to a total lack of pride in ones work and respect for the customer. Then there is the noise issue…
The point is this vehicle is hugely expensive when you consider the waste on the development and production, because you can bet your bottom dollar the tax payer picked at least some of the bill up somewhere along the way for GD’s mistakes, even if it was via overcharging for spec changes part way through the development / build phases. All of which begs the questions, “will this vehicle actually work as intended or is it another unreliable hangar queen or Sherman / Ronson i.e. there is some design flaw in there somewhere that has not revealed itself yet, not impossible given the lamentable quality control displayed on the project?”, and, “should we be buying any more armoured vehicles from this family especially if we want them to do something they were not originally designed to do?”
As for the latter I fully understand the benefits regarding training, supply chain (if GD can be trusted), etc. but if the vehicles turn out to have the same kind of procurement pains as Ajax, God help the British Army!
I remember talking to colleagues about the difficulty of what to do about projects that seem to blunder from one crisis to another and whether talking about ‘sunk costs’ was really the right way to do things. Evidence suggests that once a project has momentum in a particular direction changing course is incredibly difficult both on the contractor and MoD side of the relationship and the biggest indicator that the momentum is in the wrong direction are delays and cost overruns. So talking about sunk costs simply allows you to ignore the lessons staring you in the face. Momentum is usually driven by culture and changing culture is notoriously difficult to change and in the case of complex procurement such as Ajax probably needs drastic action that few are willing to take.
On a personal note I feel this kind of debacle is entirely avoidable, but it would take a significant change in the way the UK military procure stuff. Officers in positions of responsibility should stay in post (and be promotable in post) for at least 5 years as well as be given specialist project management and awareness training prior to taking on their new role (for big programs this could be along as a 1 year MSc standard), have a proper minimum handover period of 6 months and have access to contractual and project management specialists recruited directly from outside the Civil Service / Military if necessary.
I would still go for the CV90 IFV instead of developing the Ares into a Warrior replacement. Use Ares as Bulldog replacement perhaps and buy it with minimum changes, because frankly I don’t trust the British Army to buy ‘good enough’. They simply cannot resist reaching for the gold plating and there is a real risk of the Ares procurement turning into an Ajax remake story. I might even go as far as pulling another Rishi Sunak and order the latest CV90 off the shelf! I know that would be very unpopular but we need a Warrior replacement and the Army’s history with AFV procurement over the last twenty is awful.
I shouldn’t read army procurement stories because it just makes my blood boil. It’s a shambles and the army is still woefully short of guns, tanks, APC’s and IFV’s, the basics in fact. Its not as if the army a huge force any more!
Cheers CR
There’s just a huge disconnect between “I think we’re going to go to war soon” and “Let’s cancel a vehicle that is in service and is being delivered and go back to step 1.” Like, even if you assume you could get enough CV90’s to replace Ajax like for like (No way you would once you factored in the costs of restarting the procurement process), you’d set the process of replacing scimitar back by literally years. (Also I’m not going to touch the Sherman thing, as the Sherman was one of the best tanks in the war).
I’m just going to gently point out you seem *very* ready to believe anything bad about Ajax. Steve has brought a story that he has admitted is second hand (His own words is “This is all as I understand it anyway. I have heard anecdotes and none of this is first-hand information.”) and the only thing Google AI could come up with was this thread. It’s just worth considering is all.
Maurice, you are right to say that Warrior IFV is officially to be replaced by Boxer APC however bizarre and irrational that is – announcement made by MoD in March 2021. I should not have suggested that this decision has been revoked, but I hope that it will be so that Warrior is replaced one day by a proper IFV. Perhaps the DCP/White Paper or MoD Sustainability Plan (was the Equipment Plan) will cast light on this.
Hi Maurice.
First time I have seen Fuchs mentioned here in a long, long time.
“Exceed the Fuchs fleet?” A handful of Fuchs are operated by Falcon Sqn of the RTR in support of 28 RE, who are now the Army CBRN specialists, so I’d certainly hope Patria orders exceed Fuch numbers! Perhaps you meant another vehicle, maybe Foxhound?
I echo what Graham says. I also suspect Boxer tranche 3 buy will be reduced and Patria ordered in greater numbers.
Daniele, the only reason I mentioned Fuch was the article I read, which said the Patria 6×6 was a direct replacement. I believe the only vehicles in the Army are based at Honnington? The Patria 6×6 looks like a candidate for many roles and being built in the UK could result in a sizeable order.
Hi Maurice.
Agree. I have wanted a Patria order for some time, it just looks the part and is much, much cheaper than Boxer to replace various support vehicles.
Patria replaces Fuchs, sure, not an article I have read, Will need some specialist kit attached for that role.
I may be wrong but I think the Fuchs are actually at Warminster with B Sqn RTR, not Honington.
Honington is the base for the RHQ / HQ Sqn of 28 RE, and the bulk of the Regiment is at Rock Barracks Woodbridge.
Probably having discussions about the implications of reducing our C3 numbers down to 18
Mr Bell, With a fleet of just 148 tanks, we will have the 21st largest tank fleet in NATO, of 32 countries. Not much to write home about.
It’s not great is it , there was a time I would have said yeah but we don’t really need tanks as our RAF and RN are who protects us but not there not much to write home about
Why can’t they buy a whole divisions worth 50-60 of another tank, (eg, Panther)? Okay, it’d be a two tank fleet, but it could operate as its own entity, maybe based n Europe? And all those 80 odd US Brooker tanks, could they be upgunned? Might be useful for Ukraine?
Money? We live in a nation that always harps on about how the Navy and RAF need the funds first and whatever is left goes to the Army, add in the cries of “the Tank is dead (again)” and you have perfect storm for not funding an increase in tanks. Just to be clear if the money was available it would be cheaper and easier to convert more challenger 2’s to 3’s. RBSL I beileve doesn’t want to do this at the current 5mil per tank price point because they’d loose money upgrading hulls that need more work, or fabricating more from scratch.
The problem with Booker isn’t so much the gun, it’s build on an IFV chassis (same as Ajax) so it’s very much at the limit of protection it can carry. So it may have a role, but that role would probably look quite different to an MBT.
I would say the boxer is totally inadequate for the role it’s being pushed into it’s a great vehicle one of the best of its type but it is no warrior replacement it’s gun cannot penetrate the frontal armour of a BMP this is crazy we need overmatch we need to buy a really AFV with a real canon and anti tank capability’s look at every single recent war bradly and cv90 type vehicles do most of the work
Want to try reading what I wrote instead of responding to what you wish I said?
Ha ha shoot me I thought u wrote boxer instead of brooker oh no so terrible
Thanks Dern. More money doesn’t mean it will be spent better either. Good comment on the Brooker, so more in the light tank category. Sure hope the Army gets a decent IFV especially as our allies seem to be upgrading with exactly these.
Hi Dern,
I can understand your frustration with the Navy first, then RAF and then the Army. When put like that it is clearly a poor reflection of where we are with our defences, but I am one of those in that camp. However, I am also on record saying that the Army should at least be in the 100 to 120 thousand personnel size bracket and equipped accordingly. In fact, I think our armed forces were touching a minimum practical size back in the 80’s / early 90’s and should never have got into the current state, but we are where we are.
So why do I believe navy first? Well firstly we are considering a NATO / Russia conflict. Given Russia’s non nuclear vulnerabilities and it’s importance to China any NATO Russia conflict will involve China and the other CRINK Axis members to some extent. If China gets involved, then the USN will need every escort and submarine it can scrape together to confront China in the Pacific Region. So eNATO will likely have to face Russia with minimum direct US support. The big risk is that China might see such a situation as a golden opportunity to to break NATO and hence the US hegemony. The week link for NATO is the absence of significant USN forces in the North Atlantic (other than defending the Eastern Sea Board, and China could easily support the Russian submarine fleet operating out of the Kola Inlet with a faction of its fleet. Rate of growth of the Chinese fleet therefore should really scare the hell out us. They are even building more mega shipyards to accelerate their navy’s growth! It is not the current Chinese navy that scares me, but the navy they will have in 10 years time!
As an island nation, if we lose at sea we lose, period. If we lose in the air then the navy’s bases can be attacked at will, we lose at sea, we lose again. In short, if we want to stay in the fight we need to be able to engage and at least hold the line in the 3rd Battle of the Atlantic. For the US hegemony to survive and Europe to maintain at least some semblance of independence NATO forces must be able to hold the Atlantic Sea Lines of Communication open. Fail in that and the West and Western aligned nations will face dominance from China. The Chinese have a lot of grudges against the those Western aligned nations for the ‘200 years of shame’ as they see it. For the UK the Opium Wars are a particular sore point in China..!
Having said all of that I agree that the Army needs to be able to field a credible force in the Baltic States. What is a credible force? I would suggest at least 2 fully formed ready to fight divisions, one heavy tracked and one mechanised, backed up with sufficient additional units at home to maintain an effective roulement. That force would then need to be expandable to 4 divisions, 2x heavy tracked and 2x mechanised by calling up a properly structured and prepared reserve force. That is way, way more than we can do at the moment, but that is the way the threat is developing and we need to start to get realistic about the threat. My force structure is not based n any particular knowledge but is indicative of how the country needs to start to think… I am sure you could come up with a better force structure, but I hope you see where I am coming from.
The new Home Secretary was asked by Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday (the only bit I caught) if she thought China was a threat. The Home Secretary suggested that China was not a threat but a Challenge..! The Tories aren’t much better as everyone knows that China is a threat but they still cling to the idea that we can get on and trade with them – too much money already invested perhaps or to frightened of the implications of any alternative assessment..? The alternative scares me, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
I believe we will be fighting a war within the next 10 years… and we are not getting ready for it in any way like fast enough. Our forces are a fraction of what we will need, our industrial capability is nowhere near capable of building the equipment we need and our home defences – frankly are so inadequate as to be bordering on the laughable if it wasn’t so scary.
So yeh, defend the home land first and NATO’s maritime flank in the process and then build up the land forces sufficiently to bring real and effective reinforcements where they are needed, all based on the assumption of minimum US participation in the European theater of operations.
Cheers CR
PS. If I was still writing planning scenarios for the MOD / NATO that’s the one I would focus on!
The thing is even without the US, ENATO’s naval strength dwarfs Russia’s. It’s not even close. The same with air. Even if the entire US Navy went to fight China, ENATO has a marked superiority over the Russian Navy in almost every department. Russia has 48 Submarines, 108 surface escorts (82 of which are short ranged corvettes). ENATO has 250. Over 100 of them are Frigates (In other words ENATO has more Frigates than Russia has surface combatants). Again, this is before you start factoring in the US Navy. And a reminder that the Russian fleet is split between the Baltic (which won’t last in Lake NATO), Black Sea (which will be isolated), the Pacific (which will be irelevant) and the Northern (the only credible) Fleets, while the ENATO fleets are for the most part in the Atlantic.
So the weak link is not the US Navy pulling out to fight China, the week link is the fact that ENATO ground forces are designed to plug into a US frame work, and are not in a position to operate effectively without US support. In that framework it is the army and the construction of a credible British Corps that ENATO forces can bolt into that would bring the biggest shift in the balance.
As for the Island Nation thing, that’s really bad lesson that we never should have learned. First of all: If the army wins, you never have to rely on the Navy. Secondly, relying on the Navy to protect the home islands is the key to an economically destructive war that ruins the nation. Thirdly: It’s not the 1940’s. If it get’s to the point where Russia has over run the continent and defeated the British Army and we’re looking to the Navy “not to loose” it’s too late.
4 Divisions currently, even two of them reserve divisions is a pipe dream without a massive uptick in Army funding. A Corps (with Corps enablers) of 4 Divisions would be a big addition to NATO’s ground forces, and would certainly do more to shift the balance of power than increasing the ENATO naval lead over Russia from 142 surface combatants to 147.
We absolutely should not defend the Homeland first, that’s a terrible idea. The British Homeland is literally one of the last things that would be threatened by Russia, and to be under threat it would require large parts or the entirety of ENATO to have fallen. That is not a scenario we should be preparing for, we should be preparing to Win in Estonia and Latvia and Finland.
BTW if you think we’re fighting a war in 10 years, stopping a procurement program that is actually delivering vehicles to the forces to completely restart the entire process for a vehicle that you personally like more would be a disaster.
Hi Dern,
If Russia was the main threat then I would agree with you. However, I do not think Russia is the leading threat rather I see China as the key player in the CRINK Axis and they have a real beef with many Western countries because of the 200 years of shame. From our perspective history is just that historic stuff that happened long ago by people who are long dead.
China takes a different view of what it sees as it’s recent past and the Communist Party uses those injustices the grievances as well as its desire to reunite Taiwan to rally support for its military build up. Japan is definitely in the firing line, but so are many Western countries, for example, for the Boxer Rebellion and in the UK’s case the Opium Wars!
Russia is a significant threat to peace now in that it could trigger a conflict with NATO by accident which I agree currently eNATO could repel, but the fact that Russia is pushing it’s luck suggests that either Putin is simply losing any sense of reality (possible) or he is being encouraged in someway to push his luck. Certainly the CRINK nations have been identified as carrying out active and continuing grey area attacks on the West that are becoming increasingly brazen and risky. North Korean troops fighting on Russian soil is also a major change in the geopolitical landscape, one that was unimaginable just a few years ago. As such it is not a huge step to consider Chinese troops deploying to Western Russia if push came to shove. It all suggest that deterrence is breaking down and China’s President Xi is definitely sitting at the head of the table.
I think there is the very real risk that China will develop a global network of bases and the Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will be the single largest fleet in the world and as such will become a real threat to eNATO, especially as it seems they are planning on building even more mega shipyards. As China already builds over half of the worlds merchant ships and has won 60% of recent orders (quick search on Google) you can bet your bottom dollar that those yards will also be building more warships, and some projections suggest that the PLAN will have over 80 nuclear powered submarines by 2035 (Google AI). The thing is China will have the industrial base to rapidly replace losses while the West will not, unless we seriously respond to the threat. AN interestign point to note is that China does not separate warship and merchant ship building between special yards each yard tends to do a bit of both.
I take your point about the restarting a procurement program, but I did say in one of my other posts keep Ajax but don’t go with Ares as that appears to need significant development if it is to replace Warrior and frankly I do not trust our procurement system to bring that development forward at anything other than a snails pace, nor do I trust GD. The latest version of CV90 looks like a very capable vehicle and I did suggest buying initial batches direct from Sweden while we build a new factory. It would take time I know but NATO does accept that we all need to increase our defence industrial capacity, and to do so urgently. Just for clarity I am not insisting that CV90 is the best vehicle rather I am using it as an example of something already in production that could fit the bill and could be procured quickly. That would be dendant on us managing change our procurement system, of course, and it does need to change if we are to respond to the changing threat and technology landscapes.
The West’s deterrence is failing as witness the grey zone and cyber attacks we are suffering. We need to re-establish that deterrent capability urgently or we will face a real conflict at some point and deterrence is an industrial problem as much as it is a military one.
I will have respectively disagree agree with your contention that the island nation lesson is the wrong lesson. We have a number of vulnerabilities as an island nation, key amongst them being that we cannot grow enough food, nor do we have enough natural resources to feed our defence industrial base, especially if we are fighting a major war. I do, however, agree that wars are won on land and I have said in the past that boots on the ground are what win in the end. So I am not saying that the Army should be overlooked but it does need to sort out it’s role and accept that good enough, really is good enough.
In away Russia’s aggression as refocused minds on NATO first and the War in Ukraine is providing valuable lessons, all be it that some of them are quite disruptive! In short, I think the Army’s role is rapidly clarifying itself which should give the planners a clear steer on what they need to be able to do in the field and hence what kit they need. Next they just need to sort out the procurement system and get stuff ordered and put the gold plating away. That goes for all the services. Building selected kit in the UK would be our contribution to the West’s rebuilding of its defence industrial base and that does appear to be starting to happen at least. Thankfully.
Thanks for your comprehensive response, I do enjoy a good debate 🙂
Cheers CR
I really don’t think it’s monetary I think it’s more of they might believe the crap about the tank being dead and there waiting and hoping a more obvious answer to it appears with the number we now are getting in reality we could do 1 single major offensive with allies then it’s over but if that was the case we would obviously buy a lot more of anything as to the broker I hate light tanks I don’t see a point to them just buy a cv90 instead
Tim, we don’t need tanks? We invented the tank in mid-WW1 purely for expeditonary warfare (fighting in France). Nothing has changed with the logic – we continue to have tanks for expeditionary warfare in support of allies. We don’t have land forces solely to defend the UK base – in fact that is not what they have ever spent much time doing. The ony significant operation for the army in the UK in my lifetime was Op BANNER in NI. Our army fights overseas. We have used the tank in kinetic conflict more times in the last 40 years than warships, submarines or air superiority fighters.
BTW, if the tank is dead, that’s news to me – I don’t see any nation withdrawing tanks from their inventory.
It doesn’t matter who invented the tank we just don’t need hundreds of tanks anymore we need more ships and aircraft , also I never said the tank is dead ? And no we have not used tanks more than we have used ships and aircraft lol ships patrol every single day protecting our overseas territories and shipping lanes and air superiority happens on a weekly basis shadowing Russian aircraft where as huge armoured formations haven’t been used in the last 20 years
So you’ve ignored several parts of what Graham said there. He pointed out that we invented the Tank FOR EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE, meaning that our status as an Island is a bit irrelevant to how we use Tanks. You also ignored the bit where he said KINETIC CONFLICT rather than just “use” in a general sense.
But even if you choose to ignore the meaning of what Graham is saying and we just go with what you are saying, how do you count patrolling our sea’s and sky’s but not count the persistent presence of our Tank force on the Russian border to deter aggression against Estonia?
And It’s only taken 20 years since CH2 was to start being upgrade.
Hi halfwit, I worked for Rheinmetall on the CR2 LEP in 2016 as PM adviser. FOC to be in 2030. It would have been faster to build a brand new tank from the trackpad up.
Back in the day we used to regularly upgrade tanks throughout their life at frequent intervals – take a look at the Wiki entry for Chieftain – 24 different Mark Numbers! (albeit some are minor upgrades, and one u/g was planned but not implemented).
Hello Graham, It’s always great to hear from people in the know and having hands on experience. I believe this LEP was first muted back in the 2000’s but never got anywhere untill mid 2010’s so I guess that is backed up by your own involvement.
Being the PM’s advisor at that time must have been “Interesting” !
Always thought Chieftain looked the part.
There are times when cynicism is called for, when the latest world-beating nonsense announcement comes out of the MOD or the Government talks about the billions it’s injecting into Defence. This is just a factory visit. It seems to me to be a good thing that there’s interest being taken, because, well, history of Ajax. So I’ll save my cynicism for another time.
Cynicism is my department, for quite some time now, I’m sorry to say.
MoD will make hay out of it, though I’m shocked that having quickly skim read it Pollard is not Grandstanding, which is the SOP.
Hmm, having read Steve M’s post above I am defo in the same camp at the moment mate…
If you haven’t seem them, he asserts that the Ajax cannot drive through bushes because apparently it suffers too much damage! So no it can’t hide in treelines – something of a disadvantage in a European setting due to it being rainy and having lots of trees as a result!
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Ajax is never going to work properly and I wouldn’t trust GD to deliver go-cart let alone an armoured vehicle.
Ditch the whole bloody lot, buy CV90 as a Warrior replacement and the recce version to replace the delicate little flower that is Ajax. Buy straight from Sweden while we build the necessary production capability and then switch to UK manufacture. I’m sure we could get a couple of hundred into frontline units with a couple of years straight from Sweden – at least we know they work and then there is the commonality advantage with a number of northern NATO countries. Ajax will never work work as advertised IMHO.
And I am beginning to understand why Rishi Sunak might have just gone ahead and ordered the RCH155! Who in the right mind would trust the Army! How many billions have they now wasted and all they have is a wheeled APC with a 50cal machine gun? I wouldn’t trust the Army to buy a toy go-cart let alone a real one.
Cheers CR
PS I have just remembered why I haven’t read many Army related stories recently – its bad for me blood pressure!
Morning mate.
I’d only seen his initial comment reluctant to discuss more.
And……having now read his latest posts, I’m a bit speechless?
I don’t blame you…
They say you need a minimum of 170 MBT to be taken seriously, so 186 including spares.
John, Yes good RUSI analytical work points to between 170 to over 300 MBTs being required in an effective armoured division. Knowing our parsimony the lower figure would be the one of choice!
186 would not be enough as you need far more than 16 to cover the Training Organisation (RAC and REME), the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve. Maybe 50 – 100, rather than just 16 on top of the 170 to be credible? Clearly this is not the thinking of Treasury, SofS or MinDP!
I think we are limited by the number of C2 hulls available for conversion. Either 213 or 219 depending on who you talk to. A few may be too far gone to save. That is why the maximum C3 numbers we could increase to, would be between 186 to 202.
John, do you think the hull integrity is worse than is being reported, and even some of the 148 may require considerable restoration? If that is the case, then we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Surely, on completion of the CH3 order, an additional fleet of Leopard 2s will have to be considered?
Knowing how the Treasury likes to write off kit for relatively small amounts of restoration money, I suspect more than 148 C2 could be converted into C3, but they might need more work & money, than the 148. Without a proper survey of the extra hulls, it is hard to know.
John, the survey of hulls (many more than 148) will have been done, just that we are not privy to it.
I still in my heart of hearts hope that in the equipment plan they order enough for three type 56 regiments and a 3 squadron attritional reserve, so about 250 MBTs.
Big priority, that.
I think it highly unlikely.
Sadly I think with our leadership there is almost zero chance sadly.
Out of interest how much is it costing to upgrade per tank & how many additional upgradable hulls (over the 148) do we have . In addition I seem to recall reading comments on here saying they had intimated scratch hulls were possible? If so, does anyone know a ball park figure per ‘new’ tank.
Some AI assisted googling returns, “the Netherlands recently signed a contract to purchase 46 Leopard 2A8 tanks for over €1 billion (around $1.1 billion), indicating a unit cost of about €21.74 million per tank”. Have to say I’ve no idea whether this info could inform an estimate for say 100 refurbed or scratch build CR3.
That’s pretty accurate, most tanks come in at about 14-20 million per tank, depending on the contract and extras bundled in. But CR3 isn’t in that ballpark, it’s about 5million per upgraded tank, which is why we are upgrading not buying new.
It’s also why we are limited to 148 tanks, because if the hulls aren’t in good enough condition that RBSL can clean them up, install the upgrades, and hand them back to the BA for 5mil each they won’t want to hear it, and the MOD can’t fund more expensive per unit upgrades.
What is happening with Oman’s Challenger 2s? Would they be upgradable hulls?
The Cr2 jigs are still available. The engines, transmission, armor etc can still be produced. And the production chief at RBSL said new hulls could be produced there.
As to cost, there are so many variables, only an idiot would attempt a guess. But @halfwit wouldn’t be wrong if he estimated a basic brand new Cr3 with no additional bells & whistles would be significantly cheaper than either a new Leopard or M1. Probably be affordable to throw in an upgraded transmission to free up the 1500 bhp that the engine is capable of.
I’d guess we could build new CH3’s for significantly less than a Leopard or M1.
But WTF do I know.
I trust you to know the half of it 🙂
Yes but I’m at my Wit’s end !
CR3, CH3 would be Chieftain Mk 3. 🙂
I made a note of the C3 conversion price per tank. It is £5.4m. That figure is a couple of years out of date.
Not enough usable hulls for that, barely enough for the 148. I have it on very good authority.
Big, I am keen to hear this story. Who has said there are only 148 upgradable CR2 hulls? What are the issues? It takes an awful lot to write off a hull.
An old Army mate who now works on the Babcock CR2 Maintenance contract. I believe that are tasked with providing the 148 hulls. Id had few beers so most of the detail went over my head but definitely got the message that they were struggling to provide. Not sure what the defects were.
Jonathan, you are missing out the Trg Org and the Repair Pool requirement. Need far more than that. [The post-Cold War requirement was worked out to be 386, which was why we ordered that number (CR2) after June 1991!). Cuts since then to tank numbers have been due to making financial savings, not because the requirement was really any less.
I do live in the real world and those historical figures no longer ‘fly’ however those funding just 148 clearly do not live in the real world! It would be good to bottom out this story that Ben Wallace thought (or was told) that only 148 donor CR2s were upgradable – smells fishy to me.
Hi Graham the numbers work out at
168 deployed in 3 type 56 regiments
54 attritional reserve ( I’m being generous and giving a squadron per regiment.. 3 times more than planned)
10% maintaince pool
Training establishments tanks
That comes in at just over 250 MBTs.. drop the attritional reserve to the present idea of 1 squadron and you can go as low as about 215 .. but that is silly to my mind. 250 is the lowest safe number.
Jonathan, one aspect not mentioned in regards to CH3 numbers is the new addition armour and countermeasures, plus guardian drone networks, which must account for, say, 10 -15 additional vehicles in combat conditions, though breakdowns would reduce the fleet to standard. It’s all about survivability.
I’m not sure You really say tank A is better so you need less of them.. especially when you are simply seeing an increase in defensive capabilities that are if you are lucky just keeping up with the threat increase..so the attritional reserve needs to be the same..
Jonathan, I will never support the 148 CH3 fleet and have banged on about that ad nauseam. I’m just saying advanced armour and countermeasures just might allow CH3 to survive on the battlefield better than previous UK tanks. This would result in greater availability, though it probably does not offer any improvements in terms of breakdown rates.
I think the best thing to do and our best example is the IDF as they simply have greater experience of tank warfare than anyone else in regards to development of protection aids.. in the 2006 Lebanon war Israel got a serious kick in the teeth around tank warfare that sort of got ignored.. Russian anti tank missiles caused a cull of MBTs and the IDF lost 20 of just about the best protected tank in the world.. and that was fighting about 1000 extremists over 4 weeks.. they realised the MBT as was was a death trap in attack against dug in infantry with anti tank missiles.. you use your tanks as a direct fire platform and they die.. which is why they developed active defence systems before anyone else was even thinking about the need.. now this served them well for 15 years of conflict with tiny tank losses in their semi regular fights with Hamas.. until now because essentially Hamas and co have developed anti active defence doctrine s and IDF tank losses have become a massive issue again.. to the point they are doing as the Russians are doing and having to dig out their retired reserve hulls to fill the gaps as apparently they may have lost 50% of their attritional reserves and Israel has a larger attritional reserve than most nations have tanks.
What Israel have proven is that offensive combined arms operations eat tanks even modern western MBTs with active protection and a modern combined arms army doctrine used by arguably the most experienced army in the world.
Thanks Jonathan on your further message about the numbers of future tanks required. 148 is a real problem even if we had two regiments in 3 Div as per the original Future Soldier Orbat. Daniele tells us that KRH now stays as the 3rd tank regiment. Regiments expected to go to Type 44, so 132 tanks in the field army with only 16 covering off Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
Using your numbers of 54 attritional reserve, 10% maintaince pool (say 14), Training establishments tanks (say 20). Then 220 tanks required, rather than 148.
Yes I think the attritional reserve figures are well out as well.. you cannot really take Russian losses as an example, but the IDF tank losses are a bit more worrying.. since the start of the Israeli Gaza war it’s been reported that the IDF have burnt through half of their tank reserves and I believe the IDF had a good 500-700 attritional reserves.. and they are fighting irregulars with no ISTAR or accurate artillery. And it’s not like the IDF are not very good at what they do, use western doctrine and have a very well protected MBT with active protection.. the reports I have read are that Hamas have essentially perfected anti active protection doctrines. I suspect any army that uses MBTs in an offensive direct fire role to support infantry is going to suffer a fair number of losses.. the thing about the IDF is it’s fighting in its back yard..so the attritional reserve is close.. I think any future peer conflict in which the British army deploys an MBT regiment, they will need to consider what is a reasonable in theatre attritional reserve..
I also think we will see a greater set of adaptations.. already Isreal is looking at a redesign of trophy to focus on combatting loitering air threats ( drones and loiter munitions).. and IDF tanks have started sporting the same headgear as Russian tanks to protect lighter armoured areas against drones and drone dropped munitions. The latest Merkava Mark 4 Barak is apparently been adapted from to learning around the war and is now essentially a heavyweight sensor platform with AI synergised sensors as well as networked sensos ( radar, building penetrating sensors, infrared,optical, accustic etc.. ) all providing data to the tank commander to help keep the tank alive….but at the same time they are fielding older tanks to fill in gaps.
Me again Graham.
What would we have had/ordered if Iran hadn’t had it’s revolution, It’s my understanding that the original CH was for export to the Shah.
I’m being lazy by not researching this !
Correct – the Iranian Army orders for Cheiftain led on to the Development of the Shir 1 ( product improved Cheiftain ) and the Shir 2 which more by Accident than Design spawned the CR1.Had the Shah not been deposed the Tank Industry in the UK would obviously be very different from what it is today.The Export orders alone would have provided more funding for R&D,which the British Army could have benefitted from indirectly.
Chieftain even .
Paul is right. The tank set to be exported to Iran was a highly developed Chieftain. Interestingly Iran paid for the tanks but we did not deliver – they are still chasing us for return of their money!
The Shah was deposed in 1979, at a time when Chieftain had been in service with the BA for 13 years, and had been through many upgrades – Chieftain Mk9 was being fielded in 1979! Chieftain would continue to be developed even when CR1 was fielded in 1983 (the Shaah’s order). Chieftain Mk 12/13
Had we not received the ‘Shah’s tanks’ as CR1 it was intended that the Chieftain would be replaced by a new design tank, the MBT-80, which would feature a new 120 gun, Chobham armour, a 1500hp CV12 pack and new TN38 transmission, new hydropneumatic suspension, revised electronics and air conditioning. As it turned out Challenger 1 met many of the MBT-80 design goals.
How does that maths work? Can’t we make 3 x type 56 regiments and a reserve with less than 250?
Hi Paul so you need 4 elements, deploy tanks to the regiments, the attritional reserve, training establishment and maintenance pool
Your 3 type 56 regiments gives you 168
Your training establishment needs a sabre squadron that’s 18
Now what is a reasonable attritional reserve is debatable.. but since a modern MBT is not replaceable and we can see the cost of a peer war 1 sabre squadron per regiment is not unreasonable so that is 54 tanks
That is a total of 240 tanks you then need a deep maintenance pool which is about 10% so another 24 tanks for 264.. if you drop your attritional reserve to 2 sabre squadrons you would need 244.. which is why I said about 250.. because my personal view is only having an attritional reserve of 1 sabre squadron is insanely risky and miss balanced.. because the army at preset has 5 squadrons of replacement crews..
Thx
How does the Army, MOD & UK Gov expect to be able to procure more tanks should the need arise bearing in mind the number of Challenger 3s, which after all is an upgrade, depends on the number of Challenger 2s in existence? Have they got a secret plan to build C3 from scratch or have they already come to the conclusion that in a real war we are going to have to put all the politics on one side and just get Leopards? Discuss.
Rob, I expect that it is only the army that would want to have more than 148 tanks. The MoD politicos, the Chancellor, HMT and the PM are doubtless uninterested. If it truly is the case that only 148 donor CR2s are upgradable (which I doubt) then there are two options to get above that number. Build CR2 hulls from scratch using the jigs that we are told are still available (incredibly) but I believe they should possibly be improved upon ie to increase number rounds stowed below the turret ring, improve lower glacis plate armour thickness etc….OR to buy another part fleet. The army has operated mixed fleets before – we had Chieftain and CR1 running side by side from about 1983 – 1998. Previously we had Centurion and Conqueror in service together but that is going back a bit. Many countries operate mixed tank fleets – too much emphasis is paid to the difficulties which are all solvable. What tank then? I’d probably go for a late Mark Leo2 to augment our woeful CR3 numbers, but other tanks are available, including K2 Black Panther if ERA/NERA add-on armour gave exceptional protection level. Certainly not Abrams.
Graham, any increase in the UK’s MBT fleet would be modest, judging by the current government’s thinking and the Leo2 is the only sensible option, especially as the gun is the same as CH3. Sadly, knowing the MOD, they would require three years to train crews!
Hi Graham.
Talking of mixed fleets. Even with 148 Ch3 what becomes of the Challenger drivers training types and CRARRV?
They must carry on as is, surely?
Hi Daniele, I was surprised when the CR3 order was announced that there was no mention of a new DTT or even the conversion of the existing DTT to CR3 spec; I cannot really understand that. The assumption is presumably that existing DTT will be used unconverted to CR3 spec. As regards CRARRV, this is now a quite old equipment and I don’t think it has ever been upgraded except for fitting of the CR2 spec CV12-5C/6C engine with TN54E transmission. Fielded 37 years ago! A major weakness is that has some very old CR1 components and lacks even original Chobham armour. Doubtless CRARRV will continue to sp CR3 but it needs an upgrade especially protection and a replacement plan. As you know I disapprove of AFVs soldiering on beyond c.25 years service.
As ever it is the ‘support equipment’ that gets sidelined.
Evening Graham.
Thanks for those details.
The lack of Chobham surprised me, assumed it would have it.
Going for a mixed fleet would be very expensive as your brand spanking new modern MBT comes in at about 25 million a pop.. which is why I don’t understand why HMG is not rebuilding every challenger 2 it can to challenger 3s.. many be there is only 148 or so that can be rebuilt for the 5.4 million a pop.but I bet the other hulls can be refurbished..it would Just cost a bit more per tank..even if you refurbished all the hulls that had a 10million a pop cost for extra work your still well below 50% of the price of a new MBT… Russia is litterally stripping back 50 year old hulls that have been outside for 20-30 years.. because even that is apparently worth it over new built hulls.
ok, here goes. I think they are making a serious effort to engineer an additional tank regiment with new builds at Telford, with the money they save by switching some of the Boxer buy to Patria.
Need the people for it first!
And add the extra HETs and logistic train.
The Army has confirmed 3 MBT Regiments will remain, but I suspect they will drop to Type 44 and a Sqn of Ajax inserted into each. They pulled that stunt before pre 2010 with “Medium Armoured Squadrons” of Scimitar replacing 3 Squadrons of Tanks in the 3 MBT Regiments that then formed the tank complement of the 3 UK based Brigades of 3 Division, 1st,12th,19th ( then 4th )
Perfectly good and quite new CH2 were literally thrown away around that time, and after it post 2010.
Utterly scandalous and OF COURSE the imbeciles in government positions responsible are now in armchairs enjoying cushy retirements or on the company board.
“Ever decreasing circles”.
Thinking it again, it might be less than 44!
Still nowhere near enough for training, trials, a reserve, and maintenance.
A typical MoD/HMG mess for an asset cheap by comparison to others, that we don’t need to break the bank for or procure in vast numbers, as the British Army is no longer structured for it.
Hi Daniele, Regarding smaller than Type 44. There once were Type 38 regiments! Three sabre sqns of 12 tanks plus RHQ of 2 tanks.
And they pretty much instantly realised it was to small.. the British army has always flirted with smaller tank regiments..in the 60s and 70s 80s and 90s they had the type 43 regiments to make up the numbers alongside the type 57 regiments.. either 3 squadrons of 14 tanks in the type 43 or 4 squadrons in the type 57… I believe during the first gulf war the army was so not keen on the type 43 regiment it made sure it only used the type 57 organisation.
But instead of ordering 250 MBTs I agree I bet they go to three type 44 regiments.. but I cannot see even that working as you would need
132 tanks for the regiments
14 tanks for training establishments
28 tanks for attritional reserve
18 tanks for maintenance pool ( say 10%)
192 total
So I simply cannot see how on earth you can have 3 MBT regiments with 148 tanks.. unless you drop to 2 squadrons per regiment to form a type 30 regiment.. which would be a bit insane.
Knowing British defence, insane would not surprise me as a means for them to justify it.
The other thing i find interesting is that retaining the 3rd MBT Regiment doesn’t seem to be the result of reinstating a 3rd Armoured Brigade.
The 2 Divisions seem to settling on just 2, with the DRSB and Logistic Bde each, as we discussed before.
So the 2 Armoured Bdes are not of an identical orbat, which irks my OCD ordered mind.
Two Type 44s only and you have your reserve, your training pool and your maintenance pool, and a reserve.
Hi Danielle, why not stick the third armoured regiment in the DSR Bde? A revised CONOPS for that brigade could be configured – tanks, Ajax and artillery – it would be interesting to write it! Or this regt could be there in DSR as a placeholder and be chopped either completely or by sub-units to the ABCTs prior to an operation if they required beefing up or rushed forward as a mobile reserve to exploit success as required. All things are possible.
Morning Graham.
I actually like this idea, and it was also suggested by Dern, dividing the Bde into a Cavalry Group, including Tanks, and a Fires Group.
Like so much HMG and the MoD are coming out with, the Army reorg sees a lot of deckchairs shuffling and small, yet important, uplifts in niche areas like GBAD and EW.
There are no new people so no extra CS CSS appearing out of thin air to create the CSS required.
I don’t know why they just don’t pop one MBT regiment and 1 mec infantry battalion in the DRSB and at least pretend it could be deployable.. but then we hit the old issue of CS,CSS for only 2 brigades and not three ( what idiot came up with the idea of only having enough CS,CSS for 2 brigades in each division).
What idiot?
Well, post the 2010 cuts the Army STILL had CS CSS for 7 Brigades, which included 3 Cdo RM..
2015 review and reorg into the Strike Bde fiasco accounted for some, so, General Carter.
When he appears on breakfast TV lamenting our lack of Tanks, which he himself wanted culled, the presenters couod at least make enquiries in the CS SSS area as to why so many are culled yet Infantry cap badges of a few hundred remain.
Hegseth is planning to retire 90 something Apache E models. Perhaps the King could invite D. Trump for tea & scones & the AAC could get some of those Apache E cast offs cheap? Whether you use a tank or an attack helicopter to destroy the enemy, is not really a worry.
That would require another 90 “Flexible eyeball Pilots”.
Independant Vision using seperate orbs is a skill I no longer have now I’m Tea Total, otherwise I’d give it a go.
I am not saying we would get all 90, but even a dozen extra Apache E would be useful.
What an opportunity for sone op-shop buyong in the US! Plus some “extended range” Hellfire and JAGMs. Wonder if any other country might take these up. Australia has got an order for some of these and Indonesia too. Ukraine?
*some
If the UK for some reason needed to up it’s tank fleet from 148, say for example we decided the army needed expanding and a second armoured division creating, then we’d be buying Leopards in all probability. And it getting more MBT’s would be one of the more minor headaches.
148 Tanks is a ridiculous number but they again we have no manpower 🙄 And for Ajax IFV can’t see that happening under this government just like no more Typhoons .RCH155 just have a bad feeling has it was Chosen for the Army rather than letting them decide plus it seems a make shift job were other Artillery platforms are built from bottom up ? May of been better off buying more Archer platforms .
The South Koreans have just shown off their latest 155mm SPG with a 58 calibre barrel.
Took a look at that the South Korea’s have really made some good Weaponry fighting equipment from small arms rifles , body kit etc to the heavy kit ,Tanks ,Artillery system’s etc . Cheers 👍