The government has said it continues to explore export opportunities for Challenger 3, following questions over how the emerging European MARTE main battle tank programme could shape future defence exports.
In a written parliamentary question, Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked what assessment had been made of the potential impact of the MARTE project on future export prospects for the British Army’s Challenger 3 tank.
Responding on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said Challenger 3 remained “the centrepiece of the British Army’s armoured modernisation programme” and would deliver “a step change in lethality, survivability and digital integration”. He added: “The Department continues to explore export opportunities for Challenger 3 and its capabilities under the Land Industrial Strategy.”
MARTE, short for Main ARmoured Tank of Europe, is a European Defence Fund backed initiative aimed at designing a next-generation main battle tank system for participating European states. The project is coordinated by MARTE ARGE GbR, a joint venture between KNDS Deutschland and Rheinmetall Landsysteme.
Launched in July 2025, MARTE brings together a consortium of 51 entities from 11 EU member states, alongside Norway, and has been awarded approximately €20 million in European Defence Fund support. Participating defence ministries include those of Germany, Belgium, Spain, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Sweden.
The programme is intended to conduct design and study work for a future European MBT system, incorporating new technologies and lessons drawn from contemporary conflicts, with an emphasis on long-term interoperability and strategic autonomy. While Challenger 3 is being developed as a modernised upgrade of the UK’s existing armoured fleet, MARTE represents a parallel effort to define what a future European tank could look like beyond current platforms.
As the Challenger 3 is based on existing hulls from the Challenger 2 fleet, most of which will be required for the C3 program, how is he proposing where the required extra hulls for exports will come from?
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing, I know we originally exported chally 2 to oman, MAYBE he means the chance to upgrade those, but yes, seems like a very very dumb question
Yes, it’s a questions asked by and answered by idiots. It shows how low bar the MP’s and ministers are.
Allan, Oman bought just 38 CR2s and also have an armoured regiment of M60A3. Seems like they are replacing both types with South Korean K2 Black Panther MBT, so they would not be interested in buying CR3.
Beat me to it.
Simply spin, giving an indication of an opportunity that simply does not exist.
The jigs for the hulls still exist,Rhienmettal have said they can build more if required.
If that is the case and now we have the smoothbore gun for commonality then why not pitch it as an alternative if the Germans start throwing their weight around with the other consortia? Surely it was the gun that was holding back exports. As it is it will be a hard sell to the French and Polish.
Let’s not kid ourselves, Chally 3 is a warmed over 35 year old tank design.
Its a developmental dead end in reality and absolutely nobody would be interested in its reanimated corpse.
The reality is we are out of the tank business because we have reduced our MBT capability to a niche 148 tanks.
No real domestic requirement, means no tank design and manufacturing capability.
Blame UK governments over the last 30 years.
It really isn’t is it? Ok the hulls are rebuilt but then so are most updated leopards and Abraham tanks! It’s a completely new turret unlike the other mentioned tanks which have the same turret with the internal gubbins updated and extra armour bolted on!
Rhienmettal have also claimed the turret can be dropped into other existing hulls.
Not enough?yes,but the option is there for more and as Jonathan has repeatedly pointed out at £5.5m it’s a steal for a modern tank👍
If it was going to be modern , it should have an engine of 1500hp not 1200 hp, as it’s heavy as is, let alone with all the new armour.
It should also carry 40 plus 120mm rounds, not as reported at 31 ( though when originally mooted it was 22)
It will have fine optics but with only enough APS purchased for one regiment, it really is a poor relation.
How many HMTs do we have left?
It’s a NATO effort, showing pretence.
Possibly it will result in some work share from the Germans when they pick a new tank, that’s the only advantage that I can see.
Mmm,
M1A2v3 combat weight 80t
Leo2A8 combat weight 70t
CR3 combat weight 75-80t
CV9A engine upgraded from CV 6A IS capable of 1500bhp but restricted to 1200bhp for economy,CR3 is just as mobile X country as any other tank due to the updated suspension!
Is the APS order fixed? I’m sure more can be ordered in due course.
So to all intents and purposes with a rebuilt hull to new standard and a brand new turret with all the latest technology seems to me to be able to call itself modern👍
I’m listening to what is being said by the Ukrainian people actually using these tanks, they like the survivability of Challenger 2 but they also say the best thing about it is the gun ! They also say they prefer the Leopard overall even to the Abraham’s so we should be listening to this.148 Challenger 3s would not be enough to defend the UK in the event of invasion it certainly wouldn’t be enough to defend Europe ! Perhaps we should be buying leopards to compliment the challengers ?
So the CH3 fleet could be sold off without entering British Army service? This could only mean one thing: a sizeable order for an off-the-shelf MBT. If this scenario is to hold any water, the new Leopard A8 would most likely be the vehicle of choice. A british assemby plant would be required as Telford would be building CH3. This plant would need to be built and in operation in four years, putting inital trials around 2030/31. Not too far off the CH3 target, and the UK would gain an all-new MBT manufacturing facility to produce enough to satisfy immediate needs and war reserve. The A8 would be a wise choice; however, it has yet to complete trials for German army service.
Oh that would work well🙄
£800 M fixed contract for 148 CR3s
£4.5b for 148 leo2a8s
Sshh don’t tell the treasury they might go for it!
Maurice, why do you think the British Army’s 148 CR3s will be sold to another country without even ending up with the BA? Very strange thing to say. This talk of export potential is surely to consider either to build more CR3 turrets and sell them overseas for customers to mate with their own hulld, if turret rings fit….or to manufacture CR2 hulls from scratch, as everyone says that the old jigs still exist then build into CR3s over and above the BA order for export.
Maurice,
You said: “Maybe the MOD have finally recognised a potential deal opportunity and save money towards a possible purchase of 200+ Leopard A8?”
So this respected journo thinks that MoD spends £800m on having 148 CR3s created from donor CR2s, not for the British Army but for some other country who wants that number of CR3 spec tanks. They pay, say, £900m to MoD.
Then MoD buys 200+ Leo2 A8 for £5200m+, but add on the cost of driving simulators, crew simulators, driver training vehicles, training aids, publications, Special Tools & Test Equipment….Maybe the total is £5500+m?
Who would have the brass neck to ask Rachel for the extra £billions of money? She would insist that another army programme was cancelled to cover or offset. Which would it be?
Graham, the Army Technology site is the site to read the article. The A8 is my idea. Buying such a tank would allow the UK to purchase in numbers that fit the requirement, where CH3 is limited in the medium to long term. The UK’s decision to build MBTs was a misguided move, and there is little chance of seeing a home-developed and built tank again. If we are going to buy the best, then the Leopard A8 must be very high on the list.
“defend the UK in the event of invasion”
😂🤣😂
“In the event of invasion”
If the UK is being invaded then we’d have lost all our pre-war armour long before it got to that.
Then in the past (1940)I believe some were held back for homeland defense ! I’m sure probably in 1940 not many people believed that Germany would wipe the floor with us and the French and although I don’t believe their was much chance of invasion it could have happened ! Also in the event of one of our commonwealth friends being invaded surely we should be ready to support them.
Wow you’re both pompous and stupid.
At no point did I say the U.K. does not need armour. But you go ahead wasting your time arguing against things that people didn’t say. Seriously, is the only way you can ‘win’ arguments is by such strawman arguments? Clearly you have a sad little life of underachievement when you feel so desperate ‘to win’.
@Tony
Not really. The British Army had two armoured Divisions in 1940 (Well three if you include the one in Egypt) but they where not ready to deploy with the BEF. So the BEF deployed with just an Army Tank Brigade. After the German Invasion in may the Army basically stripped 2nd Armoured of it’s Tanks and put them into 1st Armoured Division and shipped it to the continent. By the time 1st Armoured arrived in France the Dunkirk Evacuations where done and we where facing the reality that France was going to fall.
It’s a bit of a different situation to having to fight our way from Estonia back to the Channel ports with only 3 Regiments of 44 tanks.
@Spock Huh. Pot Kettle black much? Grow up and get over your little temper tanturm.
Tony, we invented the tank in the middle of WW1 for expeditionary warfare and they have been used for that ever since.
Probably there has only been one year, 1940, in the 110 years of the tank’s existence, when tanks were seriously considered and prepared for use for Military Home Defence.
Our 148 CR3s, of which not all will be in the field army, would not be the only tanks involved in the defence of Europe – there are 31 other countries in NATO, most of whom have got tanks!
Graham, it’s not me who is suggesting the sale of CH3, it’s a very well-respected international journal that has posed the possibility. Maybe the MOD have finally recognised a potential deal opportunity and save money towards a possible purchase of 200+ Leopard A8?
So we believe upgraded suspension makes up for a 300 hp deficit. Why don’t the Germans and US just use this wonder suspension and save on the fuel.
It will be a good tank, it is needed , that is the question. Will It sell ( the turret), wishful thinking.
Believe it or not the hydro gas suspension does give a better and smoother ride x country enabling CR2/3 to achieve the same speeds as other tanks! It’s a fact not wishful thinking!
Obviously the Army are content with 1200 and if the situation arises that they want 1500 the governor can be opened up.
CR3 won’t sell as an export but was it even meant to? It is a modern tank for us at a fraction of the cost of buying a completely new fleet for the number(not enough) that at the moment have been ordered!
This has been covered in other CR3 threads on this site in great detail so if you have the inclination you can have a butchers 👍
Interestingly the new South Korean tank proposal if it comes to pass uses yes hydro gas suspension for mobility purposes. On the other hand it is a new generation platform with separate crew compartment 130mm gun and potential for 3 man crew as it has an auto loader and thus is quite low too. Challenger 3 will be a good tank but it’s the end of the line n design whereas the new generation tanks are simply far more capable. Not a chance Challenger would be sold abroad, it wouldn’t really be a great choice if we were a front line State in my opinion view especially as there would need to be an ongoing production line and further upgradability potential, ie maximum flexibility. In my view we should be part of a study into a new gen tank be it in addition to as time passes or the replacement of Challenger 3, be that with Europe or South Korea.
As for technically being able to produce new ones, that’s a bonus for us as World events truly decline into chaos, but having the jigs one presumes is only part of the issue. I remember when BL started producing new MGBs from the original jigs, they could only sell them as very expensive high end products a million miles away from the original model’s purpose, old 1960s tech dressed up as a select high end offering, maybe it’s different with tanks.
The turbos and radiators were uprated for more power plus some other modifications, the ECU could be remapped quickly for the extra power. However life of the the transmission, running gear and fuel consumption be effected.
Yep, it’s a dead end, because absolutely nobody would buy it, it’s that simple really, no domestic requirement, no product to offer.
You simply can’t compete in a sector that your own country has zero interest in, we have reduced MBT’s to an almost pointless niche capability, with a single deployable regiment, I would be surprised (all out war with Ivan aside) if these tanks ever see active service.
The Germans, Americans and South Koreans have the market covered.
I think the only reason we still have that niche capability, is because the top brass just couldn’t quite bring themselves to let it go completely.
My best guess would be that if we don’t increase defence spending ‘substantially’ by 2030, Chally 3 will be gone, along with MBT capability by 2040, if not before.
There’s also no scaling. If we sell say 100 CR3’s, that’s basically it, because we’d have no more hulls to upgrade. If I’m shopping for a tank, I’m going with Leopard 2A8 so that if I want more I just ask Rheinmetall to make a few more hulls.
Totally agree Dern…
John, why are you saying that the CR3 fleet will consist of a single deployable regiment? Because a very old story said that only 60 Trophy APS had beeen ordered? Daniele has said many tines that KRH will be retained a our 3rd armoured regiment. Thus it is likely that we would have three Type 44 regiments in the 3 (UK) Div Orbat.
As for doubting that CR3 tanks would ever see active service in their 10-15 year service life, I wonder what sort of crystal ball you are using? We have deployed tanks many times over the years in kinetic and other types of operation, more so than many other equipment types.
And none of those wars you cited were wars that we HAD to fight. In none of them were we defending British territory alone, without allies. In all cases they were expeditionary wars, where we fielded relatively small numbers of tanks.
Whereas Poland, sharing a long land border with Russia NEEDS a f@ckload of tanks to survive any attack.
As I said, had bothered to read the rest of the comment thread, we need tanks. But not as many as, eg Poland. Whereas Poland needs warships, but not as many as the UK.
Different countries need different force-mixes, it’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
Morning Graham, opinions will always vary mate…
Unless there is a big turn around and we reverse the contraction in our MBT fleet, then the equivalent of a single Armoured regiment ( it doesn’t matter how you move the chess pieces around) only one will only ever be deployed.
In the case of General War, then yes, ‘everything’ will deploy.
We haven’t deployed Armour since 2003, if the same type of situation occurred again, our American friends would probably say, thanks, but no thanks, as we couldn’t deploy enough MBT’s to make it a worthwhile contribution.
So, in my humble opinion, I doubt they will ever see active service, outside of ( a depressingly increasing chance) of war in Europe.
We have reduced MBT’s to a niche capability now, 148 is ‘way’ below critical mass.
If the next government doesn’t seriously increase defence spending and dramatically overhaul the Army to a fighting fit state for the 21st century, then we will sadly see further inevitable decline in the Army, as its reduced to a light predominantly small intervention force.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a future ‘very’ light Army (if we carry on in the same direction), predominantly equipped with long range weapons (missiles and drones) and MBT’s ditched all together.
148 to nothing, is the next inevitable step…
I hope im wrong, but I see nothing but a continuous retreat away from the ability to deploy in mass.
I saw one price quoted that said if we wanted more than 148, each C3 would cost around £12 million. Whether that is extra work on rough hulls, or new hulls, I do not know.
T-72 and T-90 are older, yet they are still being refurbished and produced, and exported.
Because Russia has a requirement for Tanks, the UK doesn’t, we have effectively written ourselves out of the play by reducing domestic requirements to almost nothing.
They also have the ability to sell very cheap too, we certainly don’t, it’s apples and gilded pineapples.
is this about selling tne new bits of C3 like the new rheinmetall turret, smoothbore 120mm gun, and other advanced electronics and sub-systems. exporting specific sovereign technologies developed for the C3, like the new modular armor system designed by DSTL or the digital turret architecture, to be used on other nations’ armored vehicles Or to existing Challenger 2 operators like Oman and Ukraine.
If the UK can convince Oman or Ukraine to buy the same upgrade kits, the per unit cost drops, keeps the factory in Telford busy for longer, preventing the skills and machinery from disappearing once the 148th tank rolls off the line.
Selling this turret and gun tech to allies, they create a shared pool of parts and ammo making sure that in 2035, there is still a global supply chain making the parts the British Army needs.
They might be pitching to C2 users that uk.inc can turn their old, obsolete tanks into world-class killers … the export is the ‘upgrade service’.
—
Your comment above doesn’t have a reply tab at this point ??? so posting this here.
I think it was the Rover Group who released the MG using tooling from the original MGB around 92’.
I lived in Marcham back in the 70’s, about 8 miles west of Abingdon, and used to hitch-hike into town and if I was lucky, would get a lift with Tony Pond (legend) in a works rally TR7; they quickly tested any tweeks around the local area, was quite exciting going through the roundabout as it went under the A34 Abingdon bypass at full tilt, sometimes he would do two or three laps of the roundabout, before spitting back out to Abingdon. Much, much more fun than the bus ride …
“Russia has a requirement for Tanks, the UK doesn’t,”
Because Russia is a land-power with borders, the U.K. is a sea-power as it’s an island.
And tbf the UK absolutely has a requirement for tanks.
Yes, but as great as say Poland or Germany, who likewise don’t have as great a need for warships. It’s all about appropriate balance rather than ‘all or nothing’ extremes.
Here’s the thing; If I’m putting my German hat on, I can argue that Germany needs tanks less than the UK does. Germany’s strategic situation is incredibly secure. It is surrounded by friendly powers, has very few geostrategic risks in and of itself, and constitutionally can’t do overseas wars unless involved in an article V situation. I can sit down and argue that Germany doesn’t need any armour for it’s national defence and should sit down and focus on providing security to the alliance through economic clout, rather than some Panzer Divisions. If Germany ever needs armour it will be in a NATO situation where Poland and France can provide it.
It’s the exact same argument UK commentators use, even more so because there are conceivable scenarios where the UK gets involved in a limited war without NATO and might want to deploy armour, while Germany is not going to war on it’s own under any conceivable circumstance.
But it both cases I consider it a bad argument as “Needing to deploy armour in an expeditionary role to defend the alliance” is a very valid requirement.
With my German hat on, they clearly need more tanks than the UK. Germany’s strategic situation is not very secure, with Kalingrad just 360km from its border and Belarus just 500km. If Russian and Belarus forces head West there’s only the Polish military standing them and the German border.
Then imagine Poland’s far-right party (PiS) which has previously held power becomes the government, and just like the far-right parties in other European countries becomes friendly towards Russia…
Or maybe PiS gets a new leader than has a Trumpian-style attitude towards his neighbours lands…
You might argue these situations are improbable, but everyone would have said the same a few years ago about America’s current descent into a failed state. Allies and treaties are great, but the only thing that you can be 100% sure-of to defend your land-border is your land-forces, and they need tanks.
As for you theory about the UK getting involved in a war outside of NATO, remind me how Chieftains were deployed to the Falkands…
Spock, you doubt the UK getting involved in a war outside of NATO (with subtext that involve tanks)? Start at 1950 – Korean War; Suez (Op Musketeer); multiple PSO ops in FRY – Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo; Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2 (aka Iraq invasion).
We did not send tanks to Afghanistan but other nations did and we could have done. Tanks are currently deployed on Op Cabrit in Estonia.
“Kaliningrad is just 360km away and Belarus is 500km away.” And neither of those share a border with Germany. Just like the UK Germany is not going to get involved in a land war in Europe unless it’s part of a coalition, in which case others, closer to the threat can provide the armoured mass.
Again, like the UK, Germany will only use armour in an expeditionary capability, and if you argue the UK does not “need Armour” then the same logic can be used to say that Germany does not need armour (and yes, sorry it’s borders are very secure, again let me reiterate, unlike the UK Germany does not have any chance of getting into a War that isn’t an Article V situation).
Now for that silly final comment: Graham already kind of schooled you on the UK deploying Tanks on out of Area, non NATO commitments, we’ve done it a number of times. But for the Falklands specifically (one of the few wars we fought outside of NATO where we didn’t deploy tanks) maybe you want to remember what the British Army was doing with it’s armour at the time? The BAOR had a reason d’etre in Germany and the Government, unlike in the 90’s and 2000’s was very keen to keep it’s tanks there. Maybe you want to consider the reason that the Guards and Paras where sent was because the Paras where the strategic reserve and the Guards where the only other unit that wasn’t committed?
Finally you go into some really weird counter factuals to act like long standing alliances within Europe will collapse (in which case what are we even doing here but never mind that). Okay in that case the UK needs armour because Scotland might go Indy and become pro Russia. Same logic.
We need tanks for the same reason Germany does; collective defence of the Alliance. It is a national requirement that we contribute to defending the Eastern Front, and as one of the major European Powers that means Armoured Formations.
The ability to build new hulls is not the greatest obstacle to surmount.
It’s the lack of willingness by the MOD/treasury to invest in a bigger tank fleet.
Ahh “Purple Born” lol, It’s Greek
Anyway, hello and welcome brand new person😁
CR3 exports? Hello, how about some more for the British Army too? Some for reserves? Put the country first a bit. Any possibility of buying back the Omani CR2s for upgrading to CR3? Maybe re-export some of those? Plus more for Ukraine?
I heard somewhere we still have the jigs for the Matilda. About as likely for exports.
We are not upgrading all the hulls we have in inventory, exports would be a way to get rid off the remaining CR2’s we don’t upgrade.
Appears to be a German sponsored effort, France, Poland, UK not participating.
They don’t really interact at all and it’s a stupid question. To be honest as PPS to the shadow minister of defence Ben Obese-Jecty seems to spend a lot of his time asking really odd questions about challenger 3.
Challenger3 is a cheap as chips late 2020s upgrade to make a 3rd generation MBT a 4th generation MBT the European programme is to look at a 5th generation tank for the late 2030s and early 40s…
MARTE Is a possible replacement for challenger 3 not a competitor.. and that is even if challenger 3 was an export program.. it’s not it’s a program to give the British Army a forth generation MBT at about 5.5 million a tank.. compared to a new forth generation tank that comes in at 20 million a pop.. it’s a buy 1 get 3 for free offer… not an export opportunity.
Asking questions is how you learn and occasionally you ask a really good one and everyone learns. So although I know Mr Obese-Jecty asks some odd questions, Challenger questions being merely the tip of a strange-looking iceberg, I don’t have a problem with it. How much it would cost the build a Challenger 3 from scratch? Until Jacko’s comment above about Rheinmetall, I assumed that was unreasonable. Bringer of Facts calls it pure fantasy, which was where my head was at. Now I’m just wondering. We all know fewer than 150 tanks doesn’t seem like enough, and if we need to gear up for war, it would be better to have a uniform tank fleet. A new Leopard tank cost over £25m (Leopard 2A8 is expected to come in at €29 million), and MARTE will be far more expensive than the £20m you mention, so maybe the question is worth asking.
Jon a reasonable question is can the challenge 3 compete in an export market with present 4th generation offers… if he had said that it’s an exploration.. as it was its a nonsense question.. like asking will tempest affect the export opportunities of typhoon.. or can tempest compete with a potential 7th generation Xwing fighter with lasers and shields.. again the 20 million pounds is the figure for a 4th generation tank ( ball park) there is simply no point contemplating the cost of a 5th generation MBT that is not yet even a concept…
Mass wise the UK has plenty of old challenger 2 hulls if it wanted to up the fleet to 250+ and if we are in a situation we needed more than 250 hulls then we would in reality be buying any old 3rd generation tanks we could scrap up and put in the field ( the US has 5000 of them sitting around rotting I’m sure they would flog some ).
Army Technology site is speculating that the government wants to sell the Armys 148 C3s. Assuming that’s bollocks and we aren’t doing a fire sale, I imagine whether C3 could compete would depend on whom you were trying to sell it to and what the price was. Not every country wants or needs a top of the line MBT, and Challenger has a formidable reputation for survivability. Tank generation is a sales gimmick in much the same way fighter jet ones are, probably more so. And then there’s timing. So, yes I think it could compete.
I don’t think we do have plenty of convertable hulls. I’ve heard tales of people scouring the landscape for more.
No it’s not, Army Technology is just reporting the same question asked by a stupid MP as this article is reporting on. It’s a case of ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
BTW, it’s worth checking out Slovakia’s decision to see that all countries don’t have the same requirements. They have throttled back from a MBT purchase to light tanks instead and are looking at CV90120s or Turkish Otokar Tulpars, essentially a heavy IFV. The price is definitely a factor.
Indeed I suspect that the new generation may rebalance protection, older generation MBTs are fundamentally designed to take a hit on the front aspect..
One has to consider that that Slovakia has taken on a rather more ‘Russia agnostic’ attitude too than its last Govt.
A new challenger 3 will be no cheaper than any other all up brand new 4 generation tank ( infact probably more so as it will be smaller production run)…
We leverage the hulls we have to make a cost effective upgrade of our MBT fleet and if we were wise we would ground up joint a 5 generation programme to replace chally 3 in the 2040s.
Totally agree.
Yes, I see whatever C name the next tank adopts to be a European Tank manufactured under licensce like the Swedish Stridsvagn variant of the Leopard 2.
Surely there is the need for consolidation at European level because of parallel programmes and need for efficiencies and economies of scale (and not only on MBRs). On future (5th?) gen in addition to MARTE (German led with multiple countries involved) there is the French-German MGCS and the FMBTech (technology only, French-led with multiple countries involved). Then there are multiple “bridge” (3rd/4th?) upgrade projects like the Challenger 3, the German Leopard 2A8, the French Leclerc XLR. The more advanced (4th?) Rheinmetall KF51 being developed into Italian and Hungarian versions. And more, including imports from the US and South Korea.
Yes it’s the reason it’s a stupid question because they will exist in different timeframes.. we should max out our challenger 3 conversions and also join a 5th generation program.
Geez, do these MPs have a clue?
Exactly what would we be exporting?
The MOD seems to have little interest in maintaining the small tank force we have now.
Building new hulls for CH3 ? … pure fantasy
No, very few do.
They only care about defence related jobs in their constituencies, not the overall size, capability, and effectiveness of the armed forces.
Apart from the far left within Labour who would just close the lot of course.
To be fair, at least Obese Jecty was a soldier himself and does ask a lot of questions.
Well he is the PPS shadow for defence so it’s his job.. but I wish it was not such a silly question.
I was going to ask my Labour MP to ask a few questions in parliament, what the possibilities are regarding manufacturing of and exporting Vulcan B2 bombers?
Also, should there be a vast international demand, what possibilities are there for re-establishing British Leyland and mass production of the Austin Allegro?
Two equally pointless questions for the parliament to debate.
It is interesting that you raise the question of remanufacturing the Vulcan? It had a smaller payload (21,000lbs vs 35,000lbs), couldn’t fly as high or go as far as the Victor, yet it had a remarkably small radar cross section (RCS) for its size, that allowed it to allude radar right up to its out of service date. The immediate question would be, what would you use the Vulcan for? The era of carpet bombing a target with dumb bombs is long over in a peer conflict, and probably sub-peer as well, due to the proliferation of surface to air defence systems. However, much like the venerable B52, a Vulcan would be more than adequate as a stand-off platform carrying cruise missiles etc.
The Vulcan’s basic shape gives it the low RCS, the large delta leading and trailing edges due to their length help mitigate low frequency radar that rely on resonance effects. The overall blended body helps with higher frequency radars. But it could be so much better. The primary modifications to enable the Vulcan to be operationally capable today would be:
1. Fitting radar absorbent material (RAM) tiles in the engine intakes along with screens to hide the engine faces, this will help massively against frontal detection.
2. Remove the rear vertical fin and either replace it with angled wing tip mounted fins, or by incorporating digital fly by wire, do without the fin completely. Where differential engine thrust and air brakes control the aircraft’s yaw.
3. Replace the circular forward fuselage profile, with a blended diamond profile. This prevents radar waves/signals travelling around the circular fuselage skin, to be re-radiated back to the receiver.
4. Modify the centre fuselage to be entirely blended with the main wings, with no steps.
5. As per the nose section, replace the rounded tail section, with a flattened diamond section.
6. Redesigning the cockpit, so its part of the forward fuselage rather than stuck on top. Coat the windows with a gold based film, to prevent radar entering and re-radiating from the cockpit. The original crew of 5 could easily be reduced to 2. But still include a bunk, galley and toilet area.
7. The engine exhaust area can be improved, either by fitting a large screen under the two variable exhaust nozzles. Which will hide the highest part of the IR signature. But if designed correctly can also be used to blend cold air into the exhaust stream to further reduce the IR signature. Or, replace the 1D variable nozzle with a flattened rectangular 2D nozzle. The 2D nozzle would also help flight control.
8. Although this is small modification, it is important to reduce radar returns from doors and access panels. Which is to give doors and access panel edges a saw tooth pattern. Conducting tape over panels gaps would also help. I would add that air and liquid vents would also need a redesign consideration.
9. Another modification over the original is minimizing panel gaps, and the gaps around flight controls. It would be interesting to see if we could incorporating morphing materials, but that would likely get really expensive quickly.
10. A modification I would add is additional under wing bays. Which would be used as part of the aircraft’s “defensive” armament. The bays would hold within visual range and beyond visual range air to air missiles.
11. The original non-afterburning Olympus engines that produced 21,000 lbs (93 kN) of thrust will need replacing, as I don’t believe RR support them any more. The Typhoon’s EJ200 is a bit weedy for this size of aircraft. Even the proposed EJ230 for the Gripen with 16,000lbs (72kN) of dry thrust, is a bit small. Sadly the Olympus 301 used by the last variants of Vulcan was a beast. Comparable off the shelf engines today, would be the P&W F119 with 26,000lbs (120kN) or the F135 with 28,000lbs (120kN) of dry thrust. If reheat is acceptable, then the EJ230 would be usable with 23,000lbs (102kN) of thrust. However, the engines that GCAP are getting, are supposed to be significantly bigger than the EJ200/230 engine, more inline with the F35’s F135 engine. With four of these strapped to the jet, it would be more than adequate.
12. One area I would like to change is the wing profile and dimensions. The wing’s profile was designed in the late 1940’s, early 1950’s. The leading edge kink and vortex generators were a method of mitigating high speed buffeting. With a more modern high speed cruising wing along with introducing leading edge flaps. The wing could be made a lot more fuel efficient at cruising speed, but also provide sufficient slow speed lift for take-offs and landings. The leading edge flaps could help with the buffeting as well. If the wing span is kept as is, the wing’s thickness could be changed along with its camber profile, so that it can operate in the transonic zone more efficiently, i.e. M0.85 to M1.2. Additionally there was the proposed big wing Vulcan option, which significantly increased the wing span. Thereby more fuel could be carried and allowing it operate at higher altitudes. However, by using a turbofan over a turbojet, the engine’s fuel requirement will be less for a given amount of thrust. So we could get away without the big wing.
13. Avionics wise, you could use off the shelf parts from Typhoon, including wide area displays, the Striker 2 helmet, IRST 2 and Radar 2. Also included would be the Praetorian defensive aid suite, as well a laser based infrared counter measures (LIRCM) and Britecloud expendable decoys. Not to mention incorporating the Litening 5 targeting system or an embedded electro-optical system like the F35’s EOTS.
14. The final modification would be to the outside skin. There are two options, the first and perhaps easiest is to cover the skin in a multi-band RAM paint. The second is to use embedded RAM composite skin panels. The paint option would also be the cheapest, but its ability to absorb high power radar has a significantly lower threshold than the embedded RAM panels. But as the aircraft will predominantly be launching its weapons from outside an enemy’s territory. Will it really need the panels, as paint at the expected launch distance should be sufficient.
15. The bomb bay shape internally on the Vulcan is not great, the Victor had a deeper bay. This could be looked at for modification. A deeper bay would allow for either larger weapons to be carried or a lot more smaller ones. It could be possible to introduce a mid-body upper fuselage hump. Which if designed correctly would still meet the area ruling requirements, additionally it could be used to store additional fuel. But it would then allow for a deeper weapons bay. Similarly a lower “belly” bulge could also help aerodynamically, whilst allowing for more internal bay volume.
The 15 modifications listed above, would significantly enhance not only the aircraft’s overall performance, but also dramatically reduce its radar cross section. I would guesstimate, it would a have a RCS that is a lot lower than the B1B, though quite a few steps behind the B1 and B21. If it used embedded RAM panels, it could get closer to the B1 and B21. But then is this aircraft expected to penetrate peer air defences?
Performance wise, with new higher thrust but more fuel efficient engines, a more efficient wing and cleaned up aerodynamics. The improved Vulcan should travel a lot further, whilst potentially being able to fly higher and faster. The deeper redesigned weapons bay, means more stand-off weapons can be carried internally. Thereby maintaining its low observability. Whilst the off the shelf Typhoon avionics will allow it to get to its weapons launch area without too much interference from an enemy. Additionally the defensive weapons bays. Would then allow it to scare off or attack any threats that do get in its way.
The overall cost of the aircraft, will be quite steep, unless we introduce a lot of manufacturing automation and processes. But will it be cheaper than producing GCAP? Would not only the RAF, but other Air Forces be interested in a more affordable strategic bomber?
Davey,
Or, alternatively, perhaps the RAF could simply submit a FMS order for a Squadron/Wing of B-21s? Sorry, simply couldn’t resist…🤔😉😁🇬🇧
Cheeky!
Excellent, thanks. I am continually amazed at how useful and interesting your many contributions are, DaveyB!
Though I have to admit that I have no idea if you’re right in what you say…
Cheers.
The size and shape of the Vulcan would lend itself to being upgraded and modified, as I said above. If there was funding available, producing the aircraft would be next hurdle.
Would you keep to the original construction method, using duralumin or replace it with the lighter and stronger lithium-aluminum alloys? As these newer alloys can be made significantly stronger , but also weigh a lot less. Similarly the Vulcan was held together with thousands of rivets. Would you look at replacing a large portion of them by bonding materials together. As this will cut down on the weight but also increase the joint strength. Not forgetting that today, we would use a fair bit of computer and manufacturing. Perhaps also including 3D printing of parts.
In essence, you could build a modern version of the Vulcan that weighed less, but could handle a significantly higher all up weight. Just have find a Billionaire to invest in the venture, know anyone who’d be interested?
I can honestly say one of my classmates is an MP, and she was the stupidest person in it 🤦🏻♂️
The UK is an island. We do not need Tanks anymore. Concentrate on Naval and Air Assets and return the Army to an Island Defence Force maybe at a strength of 30,000.
Much better for our safety.
Controversial but as we can only afford 2 of our 3 Services, it is the Army we can afford to cut.
Watch Generals splutter on their cornflakes…..
We need the army for the same purpose we always have.. to deliver support to our allies of choice and if possible tip the balance. So we need 1 heavy division at least.. and for that you want 3 tank regiments.
Defence starts with the home base. We have wasted so much treasure abroad it is an embarrassment. Also note it was 1066 since this island was last invaded and in 1940 it was Air Power that saved us. I rest my case.
Unless of course we want to spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence which we never will.
No not for us never has never will.. our defence has always been based on the premise., fight somewhere else.. generally we have only ever fought at home when essentially our defence policy collapsed in a heap ( WW2 )… ask Ukraine if it would prefer if it was fighting Russia somewhere else.
So you use WW2..the simple fact was we had bombed out cities in WW2 that would have never happened or if we had defeated Germany on land in Central Europe.. you cannot simply let the world happen around you.. yes our navy is utterly and completely fundamental to how we win wars.. but if we had not used that navy to project an army Europe would be speaking French.
No it wasn’t, we have been invaded at least twice since – including the 1st Barons War of 1216 & the so called ‘bloodless revolution’ of 1688 , and your assertion we don’t need an Army is as foolish as it is predicated on an ill informed synopsis of the Army’s raison d’etre.
Apart from that…
1688 is very relevant here because the army chose not to fight, and that is why the invasion worked.
Not sure they chose not to fight or that many of them just sided with William- or even ,indeed, if there’s a difference there? Even so James ran away…I believe the phrase “bloodless revolution” was a bit of a misnomer as there were some skirmishes, and in recent revisions that description has been dropped?
To be fair Jonathan, the Army today is only truly capable in its neche roles of 1st and 2nd tier SF and deployment at Brigade level and smaller.
Deployment of a capable war fighting division is quite frankly laughable.
We lack the necessary equipment across a whole spectrum of capabilities and the war in Ukraine shows us very starkey, that we are in ‘no way’ equipped to fight a modern, high intensity war.
The current government sits on its hands ( much like the last), so nothing will change until we have a change of govenment that is prepared to actually fund the armed forces to the required levels and wholesale re-equip and restructure the army for the 21st century realities of warfare.
I wouldn’t hold my breath!
We could scrap a division.. it would not be a great division but it would be one. My big issue is that we have promised 2 divisions as a corps level reserve and I don’t believe we can fulfill that.
Absolutely, there are sufficient personnel to physically put together a division, but what would be the point, a poorly equipped division will be ripped to pieces by a well equipped opponent.
If we are talking about a division built around a single deployed Armoured Regiment, with minimum Air defence and Artillery effectors, what do you expect it to actually achieve???
What task would or could NATO assign?
But we are not going to fight a well equipped opponent.. our most likely enemy is the hight of give them a gun and throw them forward.
So we are happy to send poorly equipped troops, because our potential enemy is equipped even worse?
If you mean the Russians, well they have huge numbers of attack drones, missiles and more artillery tubes than we have soldiers…
We would still be diced and sliced.
Nope I’m just point out what we can deploy… At max push.. 2 regiments of armour and 2 armoured infantry battalions within a heavy brigade, a deep reconnaissance strike brigade and a light mech brigade backed up by light role infantry battalions… that is not that bad a division..it’s not the best or what we want, but it’s not 3 old men armed with butter knives either.
In a war of national survival perhaps, but not in an optional Gulf war type situation, we are only equipping one Tank regiment with Trophy, that means a single Armoured Regiment deployed and that sets your size effectively.
We are equipped to deploy at Brigade level and smaller due to decades of neglect.
The war fighting ‘division’ is for the birds sadly. Its Political fantasy fleets, until there is proper sustained re-investment and wholesale re-equipment of the Army.
Yes I was talking an organic NATO lead war in Europe not a war of choice in some random place.. a brigade would be best effort in that case
I think it’s complacent to assume that this island will never be invaded again.
Plus, we have a commitment to NATO, so it’s not just about looking after our own interests
Not just Generals spluttering Jonty, because it is a bit of a daft proposal. As we can see from Ukraine, Azerbaijan etc, modern war is primarily an air-land battle. If we have to repel Russia in Eastern Europe, the battle will be fought with troops, tanks and manned/unmanned airpower.
We will have to play our part, as will all our ENATO allies, to give us sufficient mass. Our share of the action, as specified by NATO, is two full heavy divisions and an army corps HQ. We will naturally need tanks and a lot more of them than we are ordering.
It is tiring being repeatedly told by naval types and amateurs that we don’t really need much of an army, we should really build up the navy instead! The reality is that the Russian navy poses a very limited threat to ENATO and would be outnumbered and outclassed by the British, French and Italian navies together, let alone the other ENATO nations.
We all know that Britain can project very limited naval power outside the NATO area, we do not have the submarines or surface vessels to do much. We can barely provide the ships and sub for the Carrier Strike Group in peacetime and that position is very unlikely to change much in the forseeable future, with the switch of focus to the NATO area.
We are now at best a middle-weight power and no longer have an overseas empire to police, the RN needs to limit its ambitions to the geopolitical and financial realities of today.
We also don’t need several dozen understrength “historic ” infantry regiments, but like with ranks, toffs with double barrelled names need a route from public school to senior roles in leadership.
The army is so small as it is the structures make no sense.
I think we need to be able to build big stuff, and there is always potential that we need it but the mass is going to be so small, more punch could be given with lighter vehicles and Brimstone or equivalent
We should reassess what we do as a nation and why.
How much does the Caribbean region earn the UK and does it justify having a RN vessel there?
We would be a joke tagging along to help fight China ( they would bug our Comms anyway) so why bother?
If there is any expansion in spending it should go on RN and RAF.and RM, the vehicles needed are ones that could operate in Norway and capture somewhere like Svalbard.
Airdefence, ASW surface fleet , SSN, long range BM and cruise missiles are needed more than tanks.
“How much does the Caribbean region earn the UK and does it justify having a RN vessel there?”
You do realise that you’re promoting a Trumpians approach, there? Purely transactional relationships.
Which “Understength Historic Infantry Regiments” do you have an issue with David? Names please.
There is also the argument that it is better to fight there than fight here. Wherever you fight, civilians are going to take a hit. If you fight there, it’s their civilians, if you fight here, it’s our civilians. So are your kids/mum here or there?
That’s how we’ve always fought, and the Yanks have learned it too. Fight expeditionary warfare abroad so it’s not your cities that are devastated by land battles.
Jonty, remind yourself which nation invented the tank…and why. We invented it purely for expeditionary operations to aid allies who fight together. We are in NATO and jointly deter and defend across the Euro-Atlantic region. We don’t just defend the UK Home Base. If we did, why would we have aircraft carriers and their escorts? Why would we have tanker aircraft and A400M?
KMW have been given an order for 123 new build Leopard 2 A8tanks for the German Army. Other countries have also placed orders. These are the first new build versions since 1992. Until now everything has been an upgrade of pre 1992 built hulls.
If KWM can retain the capability to restart production after 30+ years why couldn’t BAE?
The MBT has reached design maturity. There is no need for a brand new design. Upgrades- gun, power pack, sensors APS- are cheaper.
The battlefield and threats are changing.. a 1-3 generation MBT was designed to be protected from direct fire from the front.. a new 5th generation MBT may need a very different balance of protection and even offensive capabilities..
Because the POWERS THAT BAES, Sold the site that UK had that could build Hulls. Newcastle VDS had a charmdd life anyway, since Leeds built more CR2 than Newcadtle did. And frankly, the factory looked more like a museum with machines predating WW2 much in evidence. The workforce at Leeds had every reason to expect to survive, they owned an enormous site with railhead, crosscountry track and everything there. Newcastle was restricted, owned by the city, and had to ship vehicle 15 moles to give the a test run. But politics ruled.
Anyway theres little chance of manufacturing here, Telford is busy, but its really a glorified Qwikfit garage these days
Peter, those Leopard upgrade orders kept German tank factories in business, as did building many Leopards for export over decades. Our MoD did not order any AFVs for 20 years and did not put in-service AFVs into tank factories for upgrades. So BAES shut down their two tank factories. You can’t crank up what no longer exists.
If the UK and Europe are going to move forward without the American umbrella then we need to start looking at European joint ventures, the UK is good at designing Frigates and Destroyers as well as aircraft but not so good at building them at speed and the Germans are good at designing AFV’s and the Dutch and Norwegian’s are good at building smaller ships like OPVs so we need to come to a Europe wide system that works for us all at a price we can all afford and at the same time keeping the local workforce employed and paying taxes.
Here’s the radical bit. Faze out locally designed equipment so that the whole of Europe and the UK have a common logistical support for its equipment from rifles to ballistic missiles, ships to AFV’s, Fast jets to Helicopters. We all have the same equipment, this way we could keep the defence infrastructure busy for the next 100 years. The down side to this would be that the current batch of defence contractors would lose their “closed markets” but the tax payer would be the ultimate winner as this would drive down the price of equipment and logistical support.
I am going down to my newly build bomb shelter in the garden as I know this will generate quit a bit of incoming.
This is a German effort, the Poles and the French are not interested.
We would do better with the South Koreans.
If we want to go forward without America we have to learn pretty quickly how to co-operate with each other or learn Russian just as quickly.
What nonsense.
The Russians would have to cross most of Europe to get to us.
The Polish are buying Korean and US tanks -Oh No! We are doomed.
You are right it is nonsense, to say that Russia will have to cross Europe to attack the UK, it’s army defiantly will not be doing so for at least 5 to 10 years but Russia still have a fleet of subs and surface vessels that are armed with land attack missiles and unlike our subs they tend to go to sea a lot more. But I suppose we will all have to see if Nato can out last Trump as it is going to take the best part of 10 years before the UK and Europe will be able to step outside of the American umbrella that if we can put aside our infighting which in its self is a tall order.
So, how would we be speaking Russian?
Steven, the way to make that happen is a common European procurement system. I personally agree but that’s maybe step 2 or 3 in the process of a common European Defence Ministry, step 1 being a common command system. So we’re sadly a ways off it, but agreed, we should be aiming for that (or the EU should be, since I think the UK would never go for it unless dragged kicking and screaming).
I believe that you are right on so many levels but I also believe that we (the UK and Europe) are fast approaching a “sink or swim” moment were we have to put aside are petty squabbling and at least have a common defence policy as it is only affordable if we act together driving down the cost of R+D as well as the unit costs if we have large orders over multiple countries which also drives down the costs of the logistical support for that item.
Only history will tell if Trump has awakened a sleeping giant or has kicked into touch a bunch of free loaders. Either way there is no going back after Trump so we must get our shit together
I agree we are approaching a sink or swim moment (ironically I think the EU is more likely to swim post Brexit as having Oswald Mosley, aka Nigel Farage no longer as an MEP sabotaging at every opportunity is probably a benefit for them, even if it means we are more screwed) but I think a fully common defence policy and unified procurement system is way to centralised for anyone to agree to at the moment.
I think we are going to start seeing some EU Corps mirroring NATO ones, E.G. as NATO becomes less reliable I can see Multinational Corps North East becoming supplanted by a Euro Corps (it basically is already, in MNCNE’s 4 Divisions [1st Estonian, Multinational Division North, 1st Lithuanian and Multinational Division North East] only the 3 Battlegroups are non-EU forces [UK EFP in the Estonian 1st Division, Canadian EFP in MNDN and a American/British Squadron in MNDNE]), and maybe increased co-operation on some procurment projects, but a full on common defence policy is so far off, it would need a lot of centralisation in the EU.
I believe that Nato (with or without America) is changing, with the Fin’s taking a more leading role in the north and the Poles being more vocal about spending a lot more on defence than just about all of its Nato nabours, the German’s have finally woken up to the fact that as Europe’s strongest economy it has to take on-board that it needs to have a strong defence, there are how ever still quite a few members that are still free loading it with the UK being one of them at the moment.
I think there is a realisation in Europe both Nato and the EU have to move forward as one but with the EU being so top heavy it is almost impossible to agree on the colour of shit let alone a common defence policy, but may be forced to put aside there current way of doing busines if the EU is going to survive. The UK needs Europe as the US under Trump has become so unreliable, what has taken 80 years to build (Trust) Trump has destroyed it in his 1st year back in the seat.
For the UK to get out of it’s current “dyer Straits” we also have to do some sole searching, I do not think that Farage will get in as he is too close to Trump’s back-side and we are all waking up to the fact that the Guy in the WH is a rabid dog who will bite any one, So we are left with the 2 mainstream parties who between then have destroyed the UK’s ability to defend its self but must learn how to get along with Europe and themselves, if we are to survive.
That is why I believe that in a twisted way Trump is starting to wake up our (the UK and Europe) full potential by forcing us to work together, it is going to take a few years but it will happen, I just hope we can hold off Trump’s mate Putin first.
This will turn out as it always does when it comes to tanks! The French and the Germans have been trying to build a common tank but can’t agree because they both have different doctrine on using tanks as does everyone else! Will the smaller nations be able to afford any European tank,and who is going to build them?
How the hell can something that is not actually in production be exported? Its an upgrade to an existing hull! Who else has C2 hulls needing an upgrade?
The Turret is Brand New ,in Production and was designed ( alledgedly ) to be Compatable with other MBT Platforms,that is what is being offered for Export.
Is the vsel chally production area in mothballs or is there a stash of hulls somewhere otherwise where will the export come from
VSEL – are you in a Timewarp ? They never Built CR2 anyway,but they did Build AS90.
Who built chally 1
Vickers started developing chally 2 in the late eighties
Yes Vickers Defence Systems designed CR2,Alvis plc,Vickers plc and BAE Systems Land and Armaments Built it.VSEL were the Shipbuilding Arm of a Company that saw many changes of Ownerships over a relatively short space of time.
Might be a stretch too far considering all the money has been spent and we all know there if probably nothing new to come out of the DIP, but we should be looking to partner up with South Korea when it comes to tanks. Get a consortium together looking forward beyond the K2 and C3 for a new design akin to the GCAP program, Poland have got it right and look at the sheer numbers they have ordered. I would be weary of joining another large European project because of the arms controls and constant infighting over %.
Given the reports of CH2’s doing great things in Ukraine, maybe an Export version of CH3 would make a lot of sense. It does now have the same Gun and Ammo as the Leopard that seems to be selling well ?
isn’t it ‘doing great things’ mainly due to the rifled gun- which we have , of course, now ‘upgraded’ to a smooth bore to enable greater commonality with mass produced ‘shells’ – as the niche numbers of CH2 meant it wasn’t cost effective to produced ‘rifled shells’ ?…seems a bit counter intuitive to me TBH.
Yes, my question was Indeed a bit of a double meaning one based upon that very thing !
But It also begs the question , Are we now missing out on valuable orders ? I thought that orders from other countries seemed to be a Labour stratagy at this time ?
There is no appetite for any increase to defence spending from this government who prefer to concentrate on social benefits and house building projects. Until we get a change of government the U.K. will remain at the back of the queue in buying substantial equipment for our Armed Forces.
It’s nothing to do with Labour – it’s Governments in general and that’s because most voters don’t really care about defence. The Tories were in power for a long time and presided over a decrease in defence spend and a massive reduction in capability.
For obvious reasons, the electorate as a whole prioritise pensions, schools, healthcare, pensions, roads etc etc. In addition, Right-wing voters have a greater preference for tax-cuts.
Defence is well below anything on the items I listed above.
Even if Tories and/or Reform managed to save money by cutting back spending through magic money-tree budget cuts (despite constant attempts since the 1980s to cut in-work benefits, these benefits have remained unchanged as a consistent % of GDP throughout), they will prioritise tax cuts, not defence.
Defence is just not a vote-winner. Blame the electorate – they prefer either public services or tax cuts, and sometimes both things at once!
There is a slim chance of a temporary pause to hostilities in Ukraine in the near future. Ukraine will then re-equip. Good idea to explore the possibility of selling all CR3 to Ukraine (and Ajax?).
The British Army must find two cutting edge armoured divisions to fulfil its NATO commitment as set out in the SDR.
Maybe a joint Ukraine/UK/Japan/A.N. Other future MBT program, built in Newcastle and elsewhere along with CV90, in the offing?
Oh! Apologies. Must have drifted off there for a moment…
There’s no chance of selling C3 to Ukraine. Firstly, we’re not building it so they would need to place a large enough order for us to re-start production, that would cost money they don’t have and take time they also may not have. If they do get money in the form of loans from the EU then this is likely to be on the understanding they buy from the EU, so Leopard 2. They would also be wise to buy something that a lot of other countries use as they may need to source spares from a variety of countries if things went south again. All it would take to cut C3 spares would be a government in the UK that was more favourable to Russia. That might happen. It may be that the C2 is the best tank in the war, it’s hard to tell and there aren’t that many there. However, logistics is more important than having the best gold-plated kit. A Leo 2 that works is more use than a C2 (or C3) that doesn’t.
My apologies. I wrote my previous post whilst fast asleep.
Nevertheless Ben Obese-Jecty has clearly got wind of the fact that the ministry is about to offload CR3 and Ajax to Ukraine whilst equipping the British Army, including BATUS, with M1A1 and Bradley from U.S. stocks as a stopgap before a new build joint development MBT and IFV are produced in Newcastle and elsewhere.
Oh no! Another inadvertent bit of shut eye…Forgive me…
Monro, you are controversial. Sell CR3 and Ajax to Ukraine? Then what would the BA do for tanks and recce vehicles? Your second post says that we would buy M1A1 (very old and rejected by our MoD years ago due to high maintenance and logistic support costs and difficulty in keeping their availability up) and Bradley. An old Bradley is no better than Warrior, so we may as well keep the latter as a stopgap. As for a future new MBT and IFV, BAE closed their tank factory in Newcastle in 2013. Future MBT is unlikely to be a purely BAE product – could be a RBSL design or the Franco-German tank licence-manufactured or a collaboration between RBSL and other industrial partners (in Japan, Korea, France??)
Ben O-J should have rejected the ludicrous story and not put it about.
I doubt UKR would want Ajax as it is not combat proven.
The BA has never been under remit to supply two armoured divs to NATO. NATO is aware that we have one armoured div and a lt/lt mech div and has not censured us for that.
Dreams are strange things. ‘Say something, even if it’s ‘Happy Christmas’ appears to be where we are with HMG’s response to the SDR.
The SDR makes two key points re Land Domain: Armoured protection for the British Army is vital in peer to peer conflict. A light division will simply not cut the mustard. Recce/strike is an increasingly important component of combined arms groupings.
The SDR also marks: ‘a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence: moving to warfighting readiness to deter threats and strengthen security in the Euro-Atlantic.’ So we need deterrence immediately via a verifiably credible Army Corps. That requires at least two divisions worth of MBTs, IFVs and the rest within the next three years. As CGS said June 2025: ‘The Corps-level of fighting is also the focus for accelerated modernisation, alongside hardening the edge at every echelon within.’
Deterrence is by no means the same as warfighting. ‘Good enough, achievable within timeframe’ rather than ‘excellence’ should be the short term aim. M1 Abrams and Bradley have both done well in Ukraine, the kind of war we might have to fight in three years time. A fleet of both vehicles could swiftly be positioned at BATUS for training. Warrior appears to have been earmarked for conversion to autonomous operation.
Who knows what will be decided for Ajax but extremely effective recce/strike is being conducted by Ukrainian forces driving ‘Technicals’ (NSTV).
So everything required for the British Army to provide a credible conventional deterrent within the next three years is readily achievable.
‘I’m reminded of Monty’s memoirs where he said I shall take away many impressions into the evening of life. But the one I shall treasure above all is the picture of the British soldier – staunch and tenacious in adversity, kind and gentle in victory – the figure to whom the nation has again and again, in the hour of adversity, owed its safety and its honour. That’s who we need and that’s who we want – the British soldier as the unrivalled force multiplier.’ CGS June 2025
‘Happy Christmas’
As part of a UK re-industrialization strategy, I think the UK needs Sovereign capability for design and manufacture of heavy armour. As part of that longer-term process, and any CH3 outcomes, I think the UK needs to ditch the likes of Rhienmettal and go for a Sovereign MBT design (CH4) that is fit for the 21st century, but building on the benefits of the Challenger series. Thereafter export potential to friendly countries for what would be the best tank in the world.
I think people forget that Challenge & CH 2 both perform well in both Gulf wars .I agree we do need to ‘re-industrialised but really can’t see it happening specially by this government . IF maybe we had a British government of the mind set of the 80s ( CH4 ) may of been a possibility .Has going in partisanship with other nations brings disagreements further delays etc .Take a look at Ajax or be it not a Tank.
As I mentioned to Spyinthesk.
Their not trying to sell a ‘whole’ C3 it’s about selling tne new bits of C3, like the new rheinmetall turret, smoothbore 120mm gun, and other advanced electronics and sub-systems. exporting specific sovereign technologies developed for the C3, like the new modular armor system designed by DSTL or the digital turret architecture, to be used on other nations’ armored vehicles Or to existing Challenger 2 operators like Oman and Ukraine.
If the UK can convince Oman or Ukraine to buy the same upgrade kits, the per unit cost drops, keeps the factory in Telford busy for longer, preventing the skills and machinery from disappearing once the 148th tank rolls off the line. By selling this turret and gun tech to allies, they create a shared pool of parts and ammo making sure that in 2035, there is still a global supply chain making the parts the British Army needs.
They might be pitching to C2 users that UKk.inc can turn their old, obsolete tanks into world-class killers … the export is the ‘upgrade service’.