RBSL say that they are finishing touches are complete on the latest pre-production Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank.
Earlier in the year, the firm reported a huge leap towards delivering the British Army’s next Main Battle Tank capability, with the first pre-production Challenger 3 going into trials.
The finishing touches are complete on the latest Challenger 3 pre-production vehicle produced at our #Telford manufacturing facility, ready for its participation in #ArmyExpo24. #BestForTheBest #OneDefence #ShapingAGlobalBritain #TankTuesday pic.twitter.com/VBXAooBU0B
— RBSL (@RH_BAES_Land) September 3, 2024
This marked a major milestone for the Army and the culmination of many months of hard work by RBSL’s team. This prototype, along with further prototypes to follow close behind, will soon show their capabilities on trials. During the trials the prototypes will be tested under operational conditions to validate their performance and make refinements before another 140 are built and delivered to the British Army.
The Challenger 3 platform will be fitted with a new 120mm L55A1 smoothbore gun built by Rheinmetall, enabling the use of the most advanced ammunition available. Next Generation UK-sovereign modular armour, a fully digitised turret and integration of Trophy Medium Variant APS onto the platform will protect against rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles and provide the British Army with a step change in war-fighting capability.
Challenger 3 Deputy Project Manager at RBSL, Nick Berchem said:
“Designed with the crew’s safety, operational effectiveness, and comfort at its heart, and with the users’ advice at every stage, I am sure it will prove to be a very potent and popular addition to the British army’s inventory. It is hugely exciting and very satisfying to be part of the team bringing this immensely capable tank to life.”
RBSL is playing a key part in delivering the Land Industrial Strategy through its Challenger 3 programme, ensuring it benefits from the best of British engineering and manufacturing, whilst also sustaining valuable skills across the country. The multi-million pound investment in its Telford facility, and the creation of jobs within RBSL and the UK supply chain, contributes towards national industrial resilience, and the social value and ‘levelling up’ aspirations the UK Government has set out.
Colonel Will Waugh, Senior Responsible Owner of the Army’s Armour (Main Battle Tank) Programme, said:
“Delivery of the first pre-production Challenger 3 and the commencement of trials marks a critical milestone on the journey to the Army’s modernised Main Battle Tank capability. Challenger 3 will be at the heart of the Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, alongside Ajax and Boxer, under Future Soldier. Events in Ukraine have underscored the need for credible warfighting capabilities. The Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, with Challenger 3 at their centre, are key to the UK’s contribution to NATO’s deterrence.”
Major General Darren Crook, Director Land Equipment for Defence, Equipment & Support said:
“In an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world, our priority is to deliver to the Army the capability it needs to deliver Future Soldier and be more lethal on the Battlefield. I am immensely proud of the work the whole team has undertaken: the Army, DE&S and RBSL working together to deliver the first pre-production Challenger 3. This marks a critical milestone in our delivery of this impressive capability to the British Army and will provide our soldiers with a world-class Main Battle Tank made here in the UK. It also demonstrates the centrality of the Land Industrial Strategy, with the UK increasingly developing a highly-skilled industrial base and maintaining strategic advantage through our Industry partners such as RBSL.”
Very good but I don’t suppose it will make a difference if we ask for MORE of them will it!
Jacko, perhaps you did not see John Healey’s statement of yesterday warning of the strong likelihood of cuts in defence programmes. Don’t blame him though – blame Starmer, Reeves and the last Government who crashed the economy.
Will still be pootling along in Bulldogs 70+ years after they first used.
Joking? Bulldogs, together with Warriors, are being replaced by Boxer.
That is assuming MoD get enough funding to buy many, many more than a mere 623 vehicles.
Funding being one big key issue, speed of build being the other.
Yes, very true…and there is now the situation of waiting for the Boxer RCH-155 artillery piece (AS-90 replacement) to be built by the same manufacturer.
Not sure when they will be built (some development work to be concluded first) but true to form MoD has already got rid of most of the working AS90s!
We must only have a handful of 155mm artillery in service (mix of Archers and the last of the AS-90s).
Indeed, Graham. There can’t be more than a couple of dozen 155mm left in service at most.
GM,
Given that CR-3 has a replacement turret, would you presume the top armour has been upgraded/improved? Understand Trophy system has been ordered for (60?) CR-3, but shouldn’t there be some concern exhibited for the poor blighters assigned to the other 88 MBTs? 🤔😳
The 60 Trophy systems is very telling.
It tells you they will never likely deploy both Regiments operationally.
Yes, the probable budget/programmatic rationale. However, frequently advised that the enemy usually has an independent vote.
It just tells you that HM Treasury has a lot of influence on Defence procurement.
If we needed two armoured regiments to deploy to achieve the mission, then they would. In the past we deployed troops on kinetic operations in weakly protected Snatch LandRovers and also deployed some soldiers without body armour. Of course I am not saying that is right but it’s what has been done in recent memory.
Amazing that a load of MPs with no military knowhow tell them with the knowhow and experiance what they need
The UK only has 2 Regiments of 58 MBTs for Frontline service. So Trophy goes on the Challengers that are at high readyness, or deployed in theatre, the remaining 58 being used by the recovering Regiments, and the remaining 30 being for training establishments and reserves.
The new special armour is Epsom and Farnham which will of course be an advance on the Dorchester Level 2 armour fitted to CR2. Of course we don’t (or shouldn’t) know about how much better it is or where on the vehicle it has been fitted or distributed. I would personally be surprised if the top armour of both turret and hull has not been improved. Since before the advent of attack drones, several ATGM were fielded of the Overfly Top Attack type (OTA) such as Bofors BILL 2 (fielded from 1999, the year after CR2 was fielded.) Some smart… Read more »
I think you have hit the budget nail on the head. I believe there is a £17B funding gap in the MoD capital plan for future years. I’m guessing that some smart people are figuring out how to do that in light of defence review results. As they say necessity is the mother of invention. Creative and practical ideas will be at a premium.
Bye bye, Type 32…
Very possibly. I can see the RN sacrificing the LPDs in an attempt to keep both QEC. Assuming the defence review affirms any strategic need pragmatic value for money will take priority over Gucci solutions. Argus is going on CSG25.😉 why not convert a second MV Contender Bezant and buy another Bay for MRSS? IMO T32 MCM mothership is quite a high priority but it can’t afford to be single function…has to be multi- function. Could it be built to commercial standards e.g. Kongsberg Vanguard?
More like the choice of losing an arm olr a leg: both are vital. ANyone cutting defence further hasn’t been watching these last 20+ years or the perilous state of the world. We may as well be abolishing the fire brigade while our house is burnin down.
Agreed. But that said times change . Expeditionary capabilities and probability has shifted away from landing on contested beeches to helicopter assault, F-35 strike and drones so it does make sense to reflect that in the balance of our capabilities. We have increased risk / vulnerability to undersea cables, power connectors, North Sea wind turbines, mining of coastal waters and choke points on sea routes, hybrid warfare. We have let our guard down. Agree we do need to hustle.
“Expeditionary capabilities and probability has shifted away from landing on contested beeches” Always gets me when this is said, Paul. Why, when the LPD subject arises, is it always assumed it would try to assault a contested beach? Because it has D Day style LCVPs? Use them, with their superior welldock and C3 facilties compared to a Bay to land on uncontested areas of coast based on intell. They are useful mother vessels still with a role for me. We lack the aviation for the LRG as it is, some of the Commandos ship shore connectors need to be in… Read more »
Not because I don’t think the LPDs are valuable and capable and newish. My argument rests on the likelihood of their being used and the cost of upkeep. Their capability would have to be replicated, but you don’t have to put all the capabilities in one hull. MRSS is an opportunity to rethink how you do things. Agree on connectors.
It’s not a real gap like earlier years’ black holes. It arises from 2 things.
1. The acceleration of nuclear programmes into the 10 year period ( +£37b) and
2. The RN inclusion of costs(+£17b) for programmes not yet even finally designed let alone approved or contracted- T31,T83, MROS,MRSS,FAD.
Using the same basis as previous 10 year plans, there is no black hole and no real need to make major cuts.
Thx. This level of financial subtlety is above my pay grade. I would say the £17b is realistic and fair – its just saying what you think is needed, albeit padded out a bit – business as usual planning for the RN. The £37b is not business as usual – ‘we’ have committed to an eye watering spend. Looks like something we should have been saving up for rather than putting it on the credit card. Comparisons with previous years are useful but won’t help to raise the money 🙂
Peter, your post is very RN-centric. The £17bn black hole in defence is across all 3 services – and is an under-estimate in my opinion,as the army has not inputted unfunded aspirations to the EP. Not sure why it is not real. Someone has added up the cost of the programmes and projetcs in the EP and deducted the funds allocated to procurement. I have no doubt that it is a real figure. No real need to make major cuts. I don’t see that. Reeves has asked for cuts now to be made by all spending departments. When the SDR… Read more »
Thanks. The only reason we ran on fully 1,000 FV430s aka Bulldogs, was because Treasury did not fund one for one replacement of 430s by Warriors in the mid-80s. [Down to 746 Bulldogs held in 2023, so some have been binned.]
If they pull the same trick again the Army will not be able to replace all Warriors and 430s with Boxers.
I think the number of Warriors slated for wcsp was 245. But if we are no longer going to have a traditional IFV, but combine Ajax and Boxer variants somehow then the number and mix of types is up in the air. Just to complicate things I read a post on here suggesting army numbers could increase by 3000. Some hope perhaps that things have at least ⁷bottomed out.
The 245 figure for WCSP is very out of date, of course. HMG announced in March 2021 that the WCSP was scrapped, that Warrior would run on unmodified and that Boxer would replace all Warriors from the mid-2020s. It has been rather assumed that Boxer wil replace FV430 Bulldog too. Only 623 Boxers have been ordered thus far – far, far more are required.
I have no idea where the 3000 additional posts for the army story came from.
Labour have somewhat boxed themselves into a corner with Army numbers. They spent years criticising the Tories re the army size. Now they have the quandary of incresing the size of an army that isn’t properly funded as it stands, regarding re-equipment plans etc! I suspect their Review will ‘suddenly’ find that 73,000 is golden after all… Lots of piss taking from the opposition benches to come no doubt. With a destabilised Europe, the Army absolutely needs the equipment to deploy serious all round modern and effective heavy firepower, at Brigade level and forming a Division when needed. That needs… Read more »
Yes, all very true. I bet Healey is cursing Reeves and Starmer (who has to go along with Reeves). Healey wants to increase the size of the army but I doubt Reeves/Starmer will agree to it.
The equipment side is worrying too – for the army especially. They need to replace nearly every platform in the armoured division within a few short years, certainly by 2029-2030, I doubt that will now be possible.
The RN and RAF will also not feel safe – but their current position is not as parlous across the board as the Army’s.
It’s going to be piss take central for the opposition after the review, lots of squirming for Healey to do…
Ti be fair to him, he’s doomed, not much he can do about the lack of funding…
I’m hoping you are not talking about my post, because I didn’t suggest that it could increase by 3000, just that you that’s how many CSS pids you’d need to round the army out.
I don’t think so. But anyway, always good to clarify. Maybe UKDJ could open a sweepstake 🙂
Why should we need to? If Boxer is so expensive as some say why not a cheaper vehicle like Patria? It even looks like a Boxer.
How many of those could we get for a single Boxer?
Could they be used in supporting roles instead of a Boxer? And Boxers concentrated in the Infantry?
Would that save money but still provide the army with a modern vehicle?
We ordered the 600 Boxer, and read “there is funding” for over 1,000.
Isn’t that a fine saving right there?
The Tory Government ringfenced funding for about 1,013 Boxers (so far only 623 of those ordered), but not sure the new Government will feel bound by what was just a political statement by another party.
Army needs more than 1,013 as we know – I forget the figure it is in the range of 1,200-1,500. I think it is worth looking at cheaper new platforms such as Patria in additon to the 623 Boxers. This would speed delivery.
Too much crap is spoken about the difficulties of supporting a mixed fleet – it really is not hard.
Glad it’s not just me.
I don’t understand the Army need to gold plate everything.
The running cost of 432 used to be 1/4 per mile less than warrior according to a project manager at DSG.
Still not a good reason to fail to replace 1,000 FV430s by Warrior variants in the mid 80s.
They need to finally go the whole way and replace all FV432 / Warrior / Stormer with appropriate, modern Boxer variants.
Whether this actually happens is anyone’s guess at this point.
As for accusations of scaremongering, when you’ve been alive for a certain amount of time and seen so many cuts, a natural cynicism becomes undeniable.
So far only 623 Boxers have been ordered. That is less than half what is needed.
Simple solution mate, shrink the Army to match the number!
What could possibly go wrong…..
For the last 30 years I have thought prior to each and every defence review “they couldn’t possibly cut the army again”….and then they do.
[It is usual to compare our forces with those of France for a rough sanity check – their army is about 100,000 (plus 9,000 Foreign Legion) compared to ours of 73,000].
I seem to recall that Osborne, as Chancellor, wanted to see the army cut to 50,000!
I am sure those who follow the RN and RAF closely have had much the same outlook.
Well quite, it really wouldn’t surprise me if they came up with a figure of 60,000 for the Army, perhaps trying to increase the AR to counter the drop on paper.
SDSR25 is going to be interesting….
The army might as well pack up and go home if it came down to 60,000. That would be about 42,000 in the field force. When you take out the soldiers in field force units who are unable to deploy due to individual circumstances, you are down to 37,000 to 38,000 who are actually deployable.
It’s crazy Graham, but it depends on Labours requirements. If they say, mainly peacekeeping and trim everything to a max Brigade level deployments for war fighting, etc, with a theoretical division deployment ‘maxed out’ with RA and deployable reserves in an emergency. Who knows what these bloody clowns will come up with in SDSR25…. When the last bunch of fools reduced Chally 3 to 148 in two regiments, many of us considered they were only ever playing lip service to the theoretical ‘war fighting ‘ Division anyway… Reduce the troop numbers to match the equipment order, what could possibly go… Read more »
Yes mate, I seem to recall seeing somewhere a requirement for 1500.
Yes, I have spent some time trying to find that figure again now. It is exasperating.
It really is. All out Bulldogs will soon be pootling across Ukraine, without adequate, expedient replacements.
That documented £17bn funding gap is sadly not the whole story. The army, uniquely, do not put anything in the EP until it is funded so they have unfunded aspirations as well.
MoD has to fund the recent pay award out of its existing money as usual, so might have to cut something to cover that and this is before the cuts required by Reeves in addition.
Its very hard to see what is left that can be cut in any of the 3 services without a huge impact on capability or sustainability.
Understood. There’s a lot resting on the defence review team, and the consultation process to deliver an effective, yet pragmatic strategy quickly.
I know it was only wishful thinking😂perhaps I can donate my WFA to a fund for some more🤔
The Tories were grim on defence, no argument with that, but the economy, that is to say the private sector mainly, was bouyant. They took the blame with a lot of the public for things beyond their control. Now we’re saddled with a bunch of left wing socialists. Defence cuts? What a surprise.
Exactly. The UK economy is outgrowing Germany. Its become very fashionable to describe everything with the word ‘crisis’ or crash. The economy has not crashed in a very long time. As for the defence budget, its been too low for decades. The current government just spent circa £10 billion on public sector payrises. Just think if they spent that instead on tanks. How many could you have? Left wing choices see train drivers handed 14.5% payrises to top up their £60k+ per year. Meanwhile we can’t scrape together a basic army with a couple of hundred tanks.
Yes, and if there is any unpleasantness, it will be us who pay the piper, not our vile political class.
Too much too soon and not thought out. In other words Labour at it’s best. There wibe cuts for sure but they’ll find a way of blaming something or someone. We’ve had nearly thirty years of indifference and now it’s going to get worse. As I and others have been saying for months, we are going to end up a socialist state. I see today the Milliband is talking about his great wind turbines being built in China. What a brilliant idea?🙄
I don’t see Germany as a good comparison. They are in difficulties of their own making: energy policy, immigration, propping up indisciplined EU. As far as recent flash of UK growth is concerned – one swallow does not make a summer. As the accountants say, growth is vanity, profit is sanity. The UKs problem is that the credit card is maxed out. Hence the panic to cut totemic things like pensioner heating allowance. So Ms Reeves’ immediate task is to follow the sound financial advice of Mr Micawber; hence cancellation of loads of construction projects which haven’t yet started and… Read more »
Exactly , the money is there its just what the government choose to spend it on . They need to sort their priorities out and put defence of the realm back where it belongs , on the top table .
Absolutely 👍
Well said
Labours first order of business was always going to be paying their TUC ‘dues’.
Things go ‘wrong’ for you if you don’t pay the Union protection money…
Remember when Calahan tried to resist his
union paymasters demands in the late 70’s, the Unions brought the UK to its knees…
How was the economy buoyant? The US is approx twice the size as it was in 2010 vs the uk at 40% larger.
Compare that to 1997 to 2010 period under labour and the economy out grew every other g7 nation, and that included the banking crisis.
The economy is a mess, exports are well down and same with inwards investment, so it’s not going to get better any time soon.
Under Labour we had an economic bubble. House prices increased by 150%. Labour spent 3% of gdp based on something that at some point was going to come to a screaming stop. 2008 happened and by 2010 we were running a near 7% deficit. Massive cuts followed. That’s how we ended up with low growth. Exports are actually up. We passed both France and Japan. Although gold imports and exports can distort the figure. The economy is not in a mess. That’s just a Labour melodrama designed to make them look better later.
Exports are well down. The papers keep saying they are up but they don’t adjust the historic rates with inflation to use current pound costs.
Straight from the ONS. Inflation and seasonally adjusted with precious metals excluded.
“Exports of goods increased by £1.2 billion (1.3%) in Quarter 2 2024. Goods exports to the EU increased by £0.5 billion (1.1%), while goods exports to non-EU countries increased by £0.7 billion (1.5%).
Early estimates indicate that imports of services increased by £2.6 billion (3.3%) in Quarter 2 2024 compared with Quarter 1 2024 and exports of services rose by an estimated £3.3 billion (2.8%).”
One quarter figures?
Hardly a comparison to how the nation has done.
You are somewhat cherry picking there. One quarter of growth doesn’t cover up the real picture that exports are still below 2016 levels in real terms. Even just looking at the year to June, the government’s own figures show goods exports are down 4.2% on the previous 12 months. Yes, services are doing well but that hasn’t totally mitigated the loss from goods. Overall we have stagnated since 2016. As for economic growth, we’ve essentially flatlined. GDP growth has been weak, while looked at per capita it lags every other G7 nation.
The rate of growth in the UK., which is the only bench mark we can use, grew at an almost identical rate between 1997 to 2009 and from then until 2020 when it dipped. Why? Covid. By 2022 it was growing again at similar rates to before, despite a worldwide energy crisis and the Ukraine. By 2024 we grew at the fastest rate in the G7; the market was at a record high and the pound was strong. So I say again, the economy was bouyant.
Tories were a disaster because they are leftwing Tories and paid handsomely for those controlled Labour organisations.
When only one side can make political violence you have an almost Labour like policy even if the Tories are in power.
Economically the Tories were not a disaster. Have a look at my reply to Steve. As for the make up of the governmnet and all the back stabbing and silliness I agree with you. They brought about their own downfall but I bet you within months we’ll wish we had them back.
Within months? You seem quick to forgive the absolute shambles that was the previous government over many years
Don’t believe me. Just look up the figures for yourself. Easy.
The last government gave all the cash to their mates
Of course they did and I’m the next British astronaut. 😏
Just like Tony Blair pumped millions through his wifes law firm whilst he was in power? Its amazing how wealthy politicians seem to end up once they get in a seat of influence, regardless of political party.
What crash?
After the Kamakwasi budget things have returned to health with more growth than France or Germany.
It wasn’t perfect but the main problem if you need to cut benefits to free cash for corporate tax breaks for investment.
And that’s the major problem…
Our benefits bill is set to go over 100 billion soon, it’s a ‘vast’ amount of money and it’s got to be flatlined and started on a downward trend..
Unlikely under Labour….
I can see this govenment as a single term mob, they have already managed to piss off the public, good going for less than 2 months in power!
I didn’t think much of the competence of Hunt and Sunak but they look like geniuses compared to this lot. Starmer has a full charisma bypass and zero comms or leadership skills. Rayners policies match her hair colour. I agree, although they had a large parliamentary majority, they didn’t have a big % of the vote and they have upset a lot of people except train drivers who are not a core vote. Trouble is by buying off the train drivers they have annoyed a lot of people as they didn’t get any reform from the drivers in return. As… Read more »
Last government did not crash the economy. Labour were informed of state of finances close to election. This is typical new management tactics to give them an excuse to go back on their word.
Defence programmes are massively inefficient though they might just be getting a bit better. I hope they don’t cancel the helicopter contract for the sake of those employed by Leonardo etc.
Kwasi Kwarteng crashed the economy in Sep 2022, barely 2 years ago. Has it really fully recovered since in all aspects? What about this £22bn black hole that Labour is claiming?
Labour claims that even the OBR was not aware of some commitments ‘hidden’ by the last Government.
14 years of Tory rule crashed the economy. Most of us suffered with austerity buy it made no difference. the rich got richer at everyone elses expense, but that was always the Tory plan. they took the nations debt to ridiculous levels, so all that sacrifice was just to look after the few who didn’t need it.
Blame the Tories who splaffed all our money away
Interesting to know how the Ukraine conflict has altered the way any conflict would play out involving our forces, land sea or air.
Never fight the previous war ??
TBF Billy the Ukraine war is not how NATO would fight it is more akin to WW1 with the attrition battles! Look more to the Kursk operation only with more AirPower for how NATO would do it.
But, to a certain extent, you have to fight your enemy.
Yes, NATO would take out all the fuel, munitions dumps and anything aircraft related on day one as well as dropping key rail and road bridges…
Still leaves the issue of clearing trenches….as with Russian approach to ‘tactics’ taking out the armour doesn’t have the effect you would want as they are just using the armour as yet more field guns.
👍
With no rail, bridges, roads, air support and no ability to move large columns without being attacked by aircraft, Ivan’s enthusiasm for a fight might fade.
Looking at Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine, professional and motivated is the last thing I’d describe them as.
All true, but they have caused havoc in Ukraine and still control 20% of the country. Putin shows no sign of ending the war. We should also not assume that even when this war ends, that Russia will be a passive nation.
I think it’s fair to say that with the level of indoctrination of the society, Russia is not going away and becoming a peaceful neighbour. If it wins it will be emboldened to take another bit, if it losses it will simply hold the grudge until it’s ready to take another bit. Generally when this level of tension develops between competing societies, conflict or the likelihood of conflict will remain until either one side collapses due to the strain of competition or is completely shattered in a major war.
I guess we have nothing to worry about then and can safely continue cutting UK forces back? Or is this a Schrödingers Russia that simultaneously poses an existential threat to the West while being an incompetent clown car army that can’t beat a third world country on its border?
I don’t think the ‘meat’ battalions are at all keen well equipped or competent.
However, I think the enforcement battalions behind them are keen to push the ‘meat’ forwards so they don’t get into the grinder.
I think your and Jacko’s comments are both relevant here. The Kursk campaign would certainly be how NATO would want to fight it with added air support of course making it potentially far more lethal. However NATO would be fundamentally defending and regaining any lost Allied territory as its prime motivator which takes us back to Ukraine itself. The important lesson and one that should, now that NATO is becoming a different more powerful beast, is to not allow Russia or anyone else seize territory and then have up to a year or more to turn it into a 1st… Read more »
The other issue is political – saying what NATO would or wouldn’t do depends on how many countries would actually act upon Article 5 if it were triggered. If Trump wins in a couple of months and considering the rise of popular nationalist movements across Europe, one cannot assume a united NATO and, of course, Russia (and the Guardian…;-)) would do all it could to undermine what unity does exist.
That’s a very good point and I would not be overly concerned about the US, even under Trump (or then again…), but I certainly would not expect Hungary, Slovakia or Turkey to turn up.
All NATO countries stepped up when Article 5 was last triggered.
But the enemy then was al-qaida. Russia would surely be a different prospect.
Article 5 does not have a proviso that permits member nations to weigh up what they think about the enemy before committing.
Question: is NATO war fighting doctrine in any way based on blitzkrieg tactics and isn’t blitzkrieg a British invention developed in 1917??
The Ukraine war is not homogenous. Ukraine’s incursion force in Kursk is certainly not fighting a war of attrition. That is Combined Arms manoeuvre warfare, on Ukraine’s part at least.
Yep that was my point👍
Yes, OK.
Agreed 👍
Unfortunately Ukraine is a bit limited in being able to fight the deep war, due to US/western restrictions in what it’s long range fires and weapons can target. Assuming NATO would not self inflict limits and simply destroy everything it wanted to.
The Russians are even using gas
Never expect the next war to be like the last one but you have to learn from the experience of the last one. Bit of a paradox!
Actually Graham, I respectively suggest that the latter action leads to the former outcome… Hmm that was a bit Sir Humphrey. 🙂 In other words, the side that learns the lessons best from a conflict has the best chance to determine how the next war is fought, although that does not necessarily guarantee victory as no plan survives contact with the enemy… Complex, ain’t it… The West probably has good defence analytical capabilities able to learn lessons from observing conflicts remotely, but you also need to have the ability to quickly change tactics if things go sideways. In my time… Read more »
Great post CR. I remember working with some of those deployable MoD civilian analysts (OR types, but they had a new fancy name) on an exercise once. I am in a military history group and it is incredible to look at WW2 era Op Orders – so detailed and so proscriptive. Even in the Falklands Conflict battles were templated – Lt Col ‘H’ Jones had a detailed 7-Phase plan to attack and seize positions at Goose Green. I think it all went ‘pear shaped’ after Phase 1. It was good when the army switched to Auftragstaktik in the late 80s… Read more »
Thanks Graham, Your historic perspective is very interesting. I had not realised that senior officers were still using such long ‘screw drivers’ as late as the early 1980’s. However, I am aware that during the Balkan’s War in the 1990’s there was a tendency for the long screw drivers to be brought out again because the Rules of Engagement were so tight. There was a story doing the rounds where a USAF General, sitting in a AWAC aircraft, was directing a US fighter onto a target. After lots of toing and froing the pilot was heard to say something along… Read more »
Just looked this up. Mission Command came into the British Army as a result of General Nigel Bagnall’s work in the late 70s and early 80s, firstly as ‘good practice’ then as endorsed doctrine. Design for Military Operations: British Military Doctrine was a key document (published in Paperback – 31 Dec. 1989).
I like your dit. I think a few US SOF operations have been micro-managed by senior officers in the Pentagon. Also didn’t Jimmy Carter get over-involved in the details of running of the operation to recover US hostages in Iran? Op EAGLE CLAW, 1980.
everything is developmental but sometimes it’s evolutionary change ( essentially fighting the last war but learning from it) and sometimes it’s revolutionary change ( WW1, WW2).. consider a revolutionary change, the development of the concept of line infantry post 1648 ( an army made up of musket and bayonet armed infantry) was revolutionary and would easily defeat a musket and pike armies that gradually fell out of use as armies evolved to line infantry armies. There was then nothing but evolution of the concept of line infantry armies until the end of the 19th century..infact the tactics, weapons and outcomes… Read more »
Thanks. WW1 (revolutionary changes) was the start of industrialised warfare and much new technology was introduced – MGs, submarines, aircraft, tanks, lorries. WW2 took this industrialisation and technology a stage further and introduced ballistic missiles, jet aircraft, radar. Armies was far more mechanised than they had been. Several wars from the 1960s onwards saw more revolutionary changes – military electronics, guided weapons, helicopters, mature and effective jet aircraft, including bombers. We are perhaps on the brink of more revoutionary change – low cost weapons (drones), AI, robotics and unmanned equipment. Some think that armies can become smaller and smaller as… Read more »
It does seem to be the big cross to bare for military leaders that they live in an age where every war seems to generate a revolutionary change…you have to wonder how much longer humanity can manage to keep up constant revolutionary change…when you think for most of human history you would get a revolution every 10,000 years or so, then 1000s of years, down to hundreds of years..finally in the 20th and 21st century down to revolutionary change with decades or a decade..to the extent that what came before seems meaningless with a generation.
We could be pragmatic and reframe the glaring issue of numbers (148) being built, as just a cunning ploy, a well thought out, and brilliantly foresighted plan by the decision makers, as an opportunity to now develop a new, modern, lighter and more automated tank, maybe based on say, the Ajax(? It’s the platform we have) chassis & hull? A bit like what the US army is looking at now that it appears to be moving away from yet another upgraded Abram’s that will be tipping the scales at over 75 tonnes. A much lighter, faster, better protecting for the… Read more »
Based on the Ajax and the GDUK experience I would not base a new lighter (CR4?) tank on Ajax.
The US has- the mobile protected firepower Booker is based on the ASCOD platform. Most of the Ajax problems stemmed from the poor quality of Spanish built hulls.
That is the key for M10 – based on ASCOD2 IFV, not on its development project, Ajax.
Ajax is a shitshow in many ways, even if the final vehicle works on great.
We still need to replace Grandads APCs before thinking about any more MBTs.
Those FV430s should be replaced by Boxer.
We hope, but based on the build rate and incoming cuts it’s not looking optimistic.
Not all FV430 need replacing by Boxer. A lot could be replaced by a cheaper MRAP style vehicle.
Yep, could do. Boxer is so expensive.
Not sure we have had an official announcement on the FV430 replacement – most just assume it is Boxer variants.
Well Challenger 3 low in numbers but let’s hope it’s has good has it’s predecessors . See that German have produced a new Panther tank ,not sure how it compares to the Leopards or the new Challonger 3 ? Will a Tiger 🐅 Tank make a return ? 😀
George A, They are pre-production tanks, not prototypes.
In my opinion only of course & my thoughts on subject. Fighting conventional offensive/defensive warfare has not changed, technology has for good and bad. On the Battlefield etc, ones nation still needs Mechanised infantry to follow the tanks in APC to take & hold ground. Also need light infantry using helicopters & (walking lol) to do deep patrolling and advance to contact. Modern warfare needs boots on the ground & lots of Boots. From Infantry to Marine Commandos & From Paras to Artillery also RN Sailors, Submariners and all the support Regiments regular and reserve a fighting/ defensive force needs… Read more »
Cut and paste to Healy,Starmer and Reeves please👍
Absolutely 👍 like Jacko says send post to Healy, Starmer & Reeves 🇬🇧
Good point that there is still a need for lots of boots on the ground in modern warfare, despite ‘technology’. In Afghanistan we had a brigade group in Helmand province, when we needed an Infantry division. In BAOR days we once defended a 65km length of the Inner German Border with a Corps, so a forward Division would cover 32km, a brigade about 16km and a BG about 8km. I know times change and a BG today could probably cover a lot more than a 8km frontage when in defence, but probably not that much more. In Built Up Areas,… Read more »
Hi Graham, sounds like a doctrine course I went on a few years ago. Where the main emphasis was preventing the freedom of movement. Which when backed up with intelligence is the only way to minimize terrorism and asymmetric warfare.
Afghan was a case in point. You would be enforcing an AO. Where the Taliban would melt away to another district. You sound then follow them and the cycle repeats. We needed more boots on the ground to prevent them from leaving the area.This only really worked when the US surged additional troops in to Helmand.
Yes, I was in Bastion when the US forces arrived to build Camp Leatherneck ahead of the main Obama surge. Quite humiliating that the US had to massively augment our sparse numbers in the Province we were responsible for.
I remember Bastion pre and post the US arrival, what a difference. I think it quadrupled in size, but then so did Kandahar. With the arrival of the US division, it made a significant positive impact on operations against the Taliban.
Thanks mate. What were you doing in Bastion and when? I was COS Camp Bastion Nov 08-May 09.
If I’m looking at my diary correctly I was on my way back to the UK from Telic in May 08. Then the beginning of December 08 was off to Afghan with JSFAW. Did both Herrick and the other one in the following years, so have the two types of Afghan gong. I will admit I did more with the non-Herrick lot right up to 2016.
This may be a stupid question but would the Trophy system have any utility against drones or is it only intended for high velocity projectiles?
It doesn’t have Anti-Drone capability as yet, but the APS Manufacturers are looking at it,and seeing as they are Israeli Companies they won’t be too slow in doing so.
Would the Israelis be inclined to sell to the UK now that we have started to ban the supply of equipment to them ?
The Trophy APS for CR3 is supplied by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems which is an Israeli Company,the current issues would not affect this contract.
Politics often affect contracts.
I will add that Trophy did initially take out both suicide and bomber drones used by Hamas. Trophy’s radar can track these drones when they get fairly close. More so the bomber drones carrying PG-7 or grenades. The issue Trophy had and what Hamas eventually realized. Is that Trophy’s Claymore like spread of Tungsten cubes has a finite effective range. So after loosing loads of drones the operators were flying them higher, to drop the ordinance directly on top of the tank, IFV or AFV. As the swiveling turret can’t quite point directly upwards. Pretty certain Rafael and the Israeli… Read more »
Can’t imagine the driver gets a great view from those wing mirrors that look like they came from a land rover.
TBF would a 18/19 yr old driving a 70t tank even be bothered what’s behind him😀
Or even what’s in front 😉
They wouldn’t be fitted on Ops.
Assuming it survives the coming defence cuts.
It’s a very chunky looking turret especially compared to the leopard 2, I’m guessing it’s mostly die to the new armour.
It is mostly due to the need for spaced armour, which is then backed by the composite matrix. You need a certain spacing distance between the very hard outer shell armour and the inner matrix. To help defeat armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS). But it works equally well at defeating HEAT jets and HESH..
I’ve often wondered if tanks can’t be made from carbon fibre?
The weight saving would be bloody huge and they could get help from British F1 teams to design a better body for more protection and speed.
Instead of a 60 ton tank you’d have a 15 ton tank that would need a fraction of the fuel and a much smaller engine. You could maybe even get away with using a bog standard lorry engine as some of those are pretty beefy.
Thoughts?
Carbon Fibre degrades quickly in certain conditions, which is why it has not replaced concrete or steel as a building material.
There are moves to use glass fibre in concrete to both strengthen and lighten it. Must admit don’t know anything about carbon fibre as a potential alternative to steel in fighting vehicles other than to say its use in rocketry has advantages for booster design however it is no where as resistant to extreme heat as stainless steel for example or even certain specialist aluminium alloys thus not contemplated for reusable vehicles, so I would expect a carbon fibre shell though stronger and lighter would be more susceptible to warheads that can exploit that weakness. Battle damage I presume would… Read more »
It also fatigues over time and becomes brittle due to exposure to UV. For longevity it has to be painted with a UV blocker.
This has been looked at and trialled with the ACAVP Prototype – Think Defence has a good write up about it.Needless to say it didn’t progress any further.
It is rumored that the Chobham armour matrix contains Kevlar elements. The main issue with using carbon fibre as the main chassis form. Is that it cannot cope with plastic deformation like say steel can. Which means that when it’s penetrated, the area around the hole delaminates. This area of delamination has no structural strength. This makes repairing the area difficult. As you have to find the whole area that has delaminated and cut it all out. Then fab in new patches. The new patches will need to be thicker as you have to accommodate and cover the join. The… Read more »
Is it still the case that only 60 will get Trophy?
Might only get 60 tanks, after the upcoming review.
Yup! – sad but very true Sam. This review should have us all worried; drastic cuts are coming I fear….. but aren’t we at the point now where there is precious little remaining to cut?
Source? Needless scaremongering otherwise.
Based upon recent domestic defense history, very feasible rather than scaremongering.
Not saying it will be the MBTs, but a swathe of major cuts are coming.
So no source, just scaremongering.
Great to see the new and improved Tank…made it just in time to be scraped/cancelled…and guys I would love to see a larger fully funded Armed forces, but it NOT going to happen no matter who is in office..
I’m wondering why these CR3s have APS but don’t seem to have a 7.62/12.5 mm C-UAS mount up top considering the proliferation of drones these days? Seems a bit risky. Isn’t there a SMASH type system for these tanks amd only 250 odd needed?
Just seen Spartan above asked the same question a few hours earlier. And I meant 150 odd not 250…LOL
There does seem to be a pintle mount for a 7.62 GPMG above the Loaders hatch.
We do not have a history of fitting tanks (or any vehicles) with anti-air systems to deal with other aerial systems, ie fast jets, attack helicopters.
The MoD has a counter-drone strategy [UK Defence Drone Strategy launched in Feb 2024 to deliver a unified approach to uncrewed systems across all three military services, supported by £4.5 billion of investment]….but that does not necessarily mean we will fit a specialist anti-drone system to tanks.
I will add, this program is also investigating the feasibility of using a vehicle’s RWS as an anti-UAV weapon. I’d imagine using it to take out a drone is not the issue. But detecting the drone in the first place is.
Obsolescent in current configuration. Can not survive in a war with 360º threats.
Everything that we put on the battlefield has 360º threats.
Now, in the past was much more difficult, your troops had to be actually behind the enemy. With FPV drone you just drive it around.
All well and good just needs already installed APS (non of the bullshit ‘fitted for but not with) along with an RWS that has anti drone capability. And last but not least more of them! 140 doesn’t even account for attrition losses. And I imagine serviceability will be, well better than the CR2s
We are getting 148 and that does include an Attrition Reserve, albeit not a big enough one.
Fair enough but as you said your self the attrition reserve is small, if let’s say 8 are going to be training tanks, then that ofc leaves 140 for actual combat or training exercises, and out of 140 how many will actually be available let’s say..100 that means you can only afford to loose maybe 10? Either to enemy action or mechanical issues. (Opinions are welcome)
Hi Carsten, We are getting 148 CR3s – 140 production vehicles and 8 pre-production that will be amended to production standard after trials etc. I understand from Dern that the army now has Type 58 (rather than Type 56) regiments, so under Future Soldier (two armd regts) there is 116 tanks assigned to the Field Force. Which leaves 32 tanks to be shared between the Training Organisation (REME and RAC), the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve. Not yet declared is what is to be done for Driver Training Tanks (DTT) – I think any CR3 DTTs would have been… Read more »
Anybody know what the green light in the box in front of the driver is for? C2 doesn’t have this. Also the armour seems higher either side of the driver’s hatch than what one sees on C2.
The Box in front of the Driver is a CCTV system,there have been extra Armour Modules placed either side of the recess.
LSAS; Local Situational Awareness System. Cameras. Similar to AJAX
Israel could and some suggest that the Trophy system supplied by Israel for the protection of these tanks could be demanded to be returned in response for the kowtowing by Lammy to his Islamic constituents to which the Labour Party is beholding to, notwithstanding his denial when it absolutely clear that this is the case and the community to which Labour is dependent upon.
Worse than that is what Lammy said about Trump calling him Nazi. Trump wins and there will be something to pay.
Great improvements and a world beating tank for the British Army , problem is there just arent enough of them and they cant be built overnight to replace ones lost in conflict especially as we no longer have the facilities to manufacture our own
Hi Darryl,
I did read elsewhere and for the life of me I can’t remember where, but apparently new C2 hulls can still be made if needed for C3.
Probably cost an arm and a leg mind you but apparently it can be done if the political will was there – which means never.
Rhienmettal said the jigs were still in existence👍
Going to need not just the hull but all the wheels and suspension for battle damage unless they have a heap of them in a shed somewhere. At some point when we know how a modern tank should be configered we need to build something new that works. I suggest we do it as a NATO consortium.
Yes, I have heard that from someone on this site. I find that incredible. The production line closed in 2002.
They want to set up a factory in Ukraine to make Panther tanks. Maybe the Ukrainians would prefer CR3s?
We have 213 CR2s on the active list (ie they are on the MoD’s ‘books’, have a role and a purpose and maintenance is funded) and maybe another 70 on the inactive list.
So should be able to build more than 148 CR3s if the will and the money was there. I am not saying 283 (213+70) as some donor vehicles may be unsuitable for conversion for a variety of reasons.
Great. Now just make the government do the only possible sensible outcome and upgrade all 200 tanks to C3 standard and fit them all with APS sets from the word go.
Anything less is just strategic incompetence and nonsense.
Is trophy the best choice? The US is moving on from it after recent experiences with drones.
Apart from IMI’s Iron Fist ( another Israeli product btw ) what are the alternatives ?.
Trophy is not designed to defeat drones. But it defeats conventional tank projectiles. Trophy needs to be re-engineered to additionally kill drones or another solution found.