The British Army’s Challenger 3 (CR3) Programme has achieved a significant landmark with the 120mm smoothbore gun test firings successfully completed.
This successful testing of the 120mm L55A1 weapon system took place in April.
“The new 120mm L55A1CR3 weapon system will provide the British Army with the capability to meet all current and future battlefield challenges,” stated Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).
Two of these 120mm smoothbore L55A1 weapons had already entered production in 2021, earlier than planned, at Rheinmetall’s Unterluess facility. The smoothbore guns were examined and confirmed before being sent to RBSL in Telford. Here, they were integrated with the new ‘digital’ turret.
In another significant development in August 2023, the first steel structure, or CR3 citadel, for the Prototype 1 (P1) arrived in Telford.
This CR3 citadel, vital for the tank’s turret, will be upgraded for usage in the Challenger 3, enhancing the British Army’s capabilities for years to come. Emphasising its importance, RBSL mentioned that this citadel delivery, made in partnership with Pearson Engineering, marked a substantial progress point in the Challenger 3 programme.
Gareth Ayre from RBSL expressed, “Completing the first turret structure of CR3 is a significant milestone in the delivery of this next generation main battle tank… This is a fantastic achievement from both a manufacture and partnership perspective from everyone involved and a major boost for UK prosperity.”
🇬🇧 Major milestone for the #Challenger3 Programme! The first CR3 citadel for Prototype 1 recently arrived in Telford. This steel structure will form the base of the future Challenger 3 turret, #BritishArmy #RBSL #DSEI23 pic.twitter.com/lfQbylc0r5
— George Allison (@geoallison) September 12, 2023
2023 is turning out to be a good year for the Challenger 3 Programme. Apart from the aforementioned advancements, the Critical Design Review (CDR) for CR3 was approved ahead of schedule.
The British Army’s longstanding association with RBSL, the UK-based joint venture between Rheinmetall and BAE Systems, has yielded several combat vehicles in the past. Alongside the CR3 Programme, RBSL is a significant producer of the Boxer Armoured Vehicle under the UK MOD’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle programme.
RBSL had announced in May 2021 about securing an £800m contract to upgrade 148 Challenger 3 (CR3) Main Battle Tanks for the British Army. This enhanced vehicle promises to be a digital, network-enabled Main Battle Tank with advanced lethality, surveillance, and target acquisition features.
Good news, now order another 60.
Farewell, then to the L30A1 rifled gun, described recently by a Ukraine tanker as making the Challenger II “a sniper among tanks”
It’s good news that this upgrade is proceeding successfully at pace. Its a shame that only 148 will be upgraded though. The British Army will appreciate Wallace’ efforts to maintain an armoured capability.
Let’s hope the K9 replacement for the AS90 SPG will also proceed as fast
HMG have used events like DSEI before with program announcements, so we might get some juicy ones here.
Any idea what, mate? A K9 order would be great
No idea. I’m just going be previous events that they often use to announce stuff.
Otherwise known as Grandstand!
👍fingers crossed
Ahem 1st (UK) Division taking 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team under its command and becoming a land component command of a joint and multi-domain sovereign Global Response Force (GRF) by 2024, as “an agile tool of foreign policy able to deliver rapid global effects and be first to the fight. This is a return to fielding a second battle-winning division HQ.” 3rd (UK) Division being enhanced to warfight under the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) – the UK’s NATO Corps – while the Army’s Special Operations Forces will be offered to NATO for the first time. https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/09/army-chief-sets-out-plan-for-next-generation-of-war-fighters/?utm_source=BritishArmy_Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_Subject=DSEICGSSpeech&utm_campaign=Purpose Sounds like… Read more »
Oh FFS! Lets try this without the links shall we? 1st (UK) Division taking 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team under its command and becoming a land component command of a joint and multi-domain sovereign Global Response Force (GRF) by 2024, as “an agile tool of foreign policy able to deliver rapid global effects and be first to the fight. This is a return to fielding a second battle-winning division HQ.” 3rd (UK) Division being enhanced to warfight under the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) – the UK’s NATO Corps – while the Army’s Special Operations Forces will be offered… Read more »
Hi mate. Just in and seen this.
Reading that, nothing as yet that we did not know.
“3 Div enhanced” Do we know if 7 is going there?
Confirmation of rumors rather than new information. I’d read 7 as not going to 3, because if that happens there will not be much of 1 UK XX to be a deployable division.
Yeah, makes sense I guess. Reading just now….6 UK Div might fold, even ASOB also into 1 UK
Mmmmm…. wouldn’t bet the farm on that last point.
Hang on, I’ll find what he says.
“By re-structuring 6th Div elements within Field Army we can elevate Land Special Operations Forces and “info ops” outputs to component level”
Translation?
Well it’s raising them up at least a level going by those words. I’m not willing to comment on where until the actual announcement is made, hope you understand.
👍
Hmm, eyebrows raised. https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/ “LAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE Over the coming months we will transition into the Land Special Operations Force. By restructuring 6th (United Kingdom) Division elements within the Field Army, we can elevate Land Special Operations and Specialist Capabilities, including Information Operations outputs to the component level. This enables smarter task-organisation – the power of combinations, and exploits the Field Army’s broad connectivity and access to multi-domain capabilities. This meets twin aims: the Chief of Defence Staff direction that single services conduct special operations and the British Army’s commitment to NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Force, Special Operations Task Force… Read more »
First effort into moderation so link removed. This passage was on the British Army’s 6 Div page. ““LAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE Over the coming months we will transition into the Land Special Operations Force. By restructuring 6th (United Kingdom) Division elements within the Field Army, we can elevate Land Special Operations and Specialist Capabilities, including Information Operations outputs to the component level. This enables smarter task-organisation – the power of combinations, and exploits the Field Army’s broad connectivity and access to multi-domain capabilities. This meets twin aims: the Chief of Defence Staff direction that single services conduct special operations and the… Read more »
And if I’m reading the impending tea leaves correctly I’m encouraged at where this is going as LSOF, 6, sits next to the GRF, 1.
So, with great regret I’m going to burst a bubble here: The Video is from early 2022, possibly even 2021. It’s got nothing to do with the future orbat (or lack of) for 6 UK Div, but reflects the current role and structure of the division as it sees itself (and maybe over hypes 77X). You are right about the google text though, using highly advanced cyber warfare capabilities I have retrieved the source and found that the oldest surviving version of the webpage hosts those exact words (I loaded up the way back when Machine and looked at what… Read more »
It certainly does overhype 77, though I see that formations components have been renamed for the 3rd or 4th time and 6 MIB has had a revamp.
6 MIB. I see that seems to have gone Hybrid as planned. Any idea what the 2 Reg Coys are? Assume they’ve come from 2 MIB?
Yes, LSOF goes well with GRF to my mind.
Nope, no idea what the coys in 6MI are I’m afraid.
In other news Nicholas Drummond posted an image of the Rangers stand at DSEI, and f**k me, is there a more myopic band of grouchy tw*ts than on British Military Twitter.
Amoung the complaints where that that Royal Irish Rangers might get upset (even though they’ve not existed since 1992), and that “The British never used the term Rangers they stole it from us [the Americans].” despite the fact that the British Army has had a unit with the word “Rangers” in it’s title continously since 1776.
Also they are all too lazy and feckless to do a basic google search.
OK thanks, I’m on the case there.
I follow him, lets have a look on “X”
Yep found the thread. It is explained clearly on there ( including maybe by your good self? ) the history of the term “ranger” and its links to British colonial war and units.
And I see 77 Bde’s orbat has been renamed yet again!
Further down, “new UAS Group” in the JAC, renamed from JHC.
We know a 2nd EW Reg has formed to compliment 14, ( 21 RS ) this is mentioned and they’re putting people into the NCF. This area still very hazy, by design.
We cannot really pass judgement til the unit ORBAT changes, if any, are outlined.
Interesting choice of words “Group” not “Battalion” or “Regiment.” Maybe a 1* or sub 1* unit that has command over all the Army and RAF UAS.
Just reading that it is based on 5 AAC that will leave Aldergrove
But yes, a group, smaller than a Bde. Bit like the CEMAG and Med Groups.
“British Army Soldier academy” “NCO academy” aren’t these just rebrands of existing.?
CGS also states “AD to double”
Assume meaning Sky Sabre and more or bigger batteries.
There is such a group already though, the ISR Group, which took bits of the 1 ISR Bde when that was split up into the 2 DIEGs, the CEMAG, and the ISR Gp.
Hope this isn’t just another rebrand of existing packaged as “new”
You’d assume as a group would have 5 AAC, 32 and 47 RA in it. All in JAC.
Without a new headcount increase there will be no truley “new” units, it’ll all be about re-adjusting what current units do and realigning them to get a better force balance, we both know this.
Agreed. Just moving bodies about. Still needed though as I was not happy with FS balance myself.
Also, 137 ( Java ) Battery has reformed today at Baker Bks. Part if 12 RA on Stormer. Report on Forces Net.
Is K9 confirmed?
No, there has been no more news. The Koreans were offering substantial UK build which makes it attractive.
It’s not confirmed yet. But a UK team has visited Korea and had a look at the production facilities. Apparently they have made a generous offer to build them here – but I guess it will depend on the size of the order.
I would like to see a lot more of the excellent BAE Archer system, but the 8×8 version not the 6×6 that we have ordered
A pity we have lost the ability (seemingly) to build SPGs, but we do need to buy more army kit ‘off the shelf’, as the need to recapitalise the heavy army quickly is very urgent.
Still not convinced it was necessary to change the gun. The smoothbore may have somewhat better armour penetration but for non kinetic rounds, the L30 is more effective at longer range.
More to do with Ammunition Supply and choice rather than capability.
So Ben Wallace’s promise to revisit tank numbers based on the war in Ukraine came to nought then…. I’m sure he did due diligence but the results were no doubt swept under the carpet.
Maybe they are waiting for the results that the squadron Challys achieve in Ukr. Sadly one of them was lost recently but the crew escaped and the turret did not blow off.
They seem to be addressing some of the key takes from Ukraine so far. That the RA is in shit state and needs uplifting. That AD is vital and is indeed getting an uplift, with six AD programs in total. That Drones are the big thing now and need both countering and building, in numbers. Tanks are still needed, but not in great numbers as the people and supports for them do not currently exist. I’d be happy with just maintaining the KRH ( the 3rd current Armoured Regiment ) who were meant to convert to Ajax years ago. So… Read more »
So is that it regards the gun forever ?
Will all future tanks use the smooth bore gun due to the paucity of manufacturers of modern ammunition for rifled guns?
I understand the rifled gun is superior for accuracy over any substantial distance but it is really just the availabilty of ammo that has put an end to it or are their other technical considerations .
Is it Betamax vs. VHS all over again ?
Interesting that the US looked at the Russo-Ukraine war and decided to scrap its upgrade plans with the Abrams M-1 SepIV and will build a much lighter, hybrid tank. Undoubtedly the General Dynamics AbramsX prototype will be the basis.
Weren’t they building a lighter tank anyway?
The M10 Booker, yes, it’s a CVRT replacement but with a big gun. But SEPv4 is bring canned in favour of the M1E3, basically instead of doing an incremental upgrade that will put the m1 at 80+t, they are doing a full tear down and rebuild, looking to eliminate weight were possible. But it’ll still be an Abrams, we just don’t know what kind of Abrams. (Lots of guff reporting on this).
There’s two trains of thought that I know of, one using a redesigned purpose built turret as per Chally 3. Which would include the lighter XM360 main gun, along with a fully integrated combat management system, that incorporates all the previous thermal optics, CROWS and Trophy modifications. Using dedicated common wiring and sa standard network (data-link) architecture. But still keeps a three man turret crew. One major item that will be removed is the hydraulic turret actuation system. Being replaced by electric motors and again saves weight. The second is a new turret that includes an autoloader, which then does… Read more »
Yeah I’ve heard all three of those threads, and I can see the logic behind each of them, I think we’ll just have to wait 5-7 years to here what the DoD and US Army decide they want exactly.
80 US short tons of 907kg, not 80 real tons, I think. The M1 was originally 54 real tons, or 60 short tons.
Interesting that the US Army don’t want to call the M10 Booker a light tank, by all accounts. Thanks – good info.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/MGM-51_Shillelagh2.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/greg_smith/m551/images/m551_01_of_60.jpg
I think they still have a hangover from this sweet ride (which I unironically have a softspot for)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/MGM-51_Shillelagh2.jpg
I think they still have a hangover from this sweet ride (which I unironcially have a soft spot for). But the US is funny with names isn’t it? We can’t have Frigates we need to call them “Littoral Combat Ships.”
Agggh, Shillelagh, a real Titan of the Vietnam war.
Regarding names, I still find it bemusing that the BA now call a rifle a ‘weapon system’ – very fancy! Don’t get me on ‘fires’ rather than ‘arty’!
I mean they’re building the Abrams E3, which will still be an Abrams by every account.
Something lighter is needed also. There is a great opportunity here.
A serious look needs to be taken at what armour is actually needed and how a big gun could be used on a lighter platform.
There was a FRES/Ajax Fire support variant that was cancelled.
Hi Daniele, as mentioned above, the M10 Booker is a modified AJAX hull sporting an ABRAMS derived turret and 105mm gun. This is VERY similar to the GD Griffon prototype.
Ah, morning Ian, just the man..
Thank you, I was aware of the Griffon but not the M10 Booker.
Hi, oddly, it sports one less roadwheel per side than the AJAX, so the hull must be shortened.
The real question is, if the M10 is a Modified AJAX, when do we buy a couple of squadrons of them so that our AJAX formations have 105mm gunfire support? 😀
If only Dern, if only👍
Boxer with a main gun / turret variant still looks appealing I think.
CV90 is also a no brainer especially with the volumes announced in the Ukraine partnership.
I know wheels vs tracks always comes in to question but Boxer with main gun to augment CH3 surely it is worth considering?
Daniele knows exactly what vehicle I’m going to bring up.
🇮🇹
😍 That vehicle just looks the part, and the price. I will never understand what is in Andovers heads…though I try re ORBATS.
Always been a fan of the Japanese type 16 and Italian Centauro. Both wheeled platforms so better road mobility for faster deployment.
So I’d go for a Boxer with a 105 – 120mm main gun.
I’m not so sure it will be a good idea to use the Boxer as a mobile direct fires platform. I am basing this off the US Army’s experience with their Stryker mobile gun system (MGS). A lot of the issues that vehicle had were due to the gun’s recoil, which required a strengthened hull. But it also led to issues with the autoloader. Some of these issues could be due to using a high pressure gun with a hull/turret that was too light. Some could also be due to the narrowness of the Stryker, which I believe is nearly… Read more »
https://www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8/Centauro-II_Cecchignola_1.jpg
Just saying not all wheeled Mobile gun systems had the problems that Striker MGS did… and some of them have bigger guns. 🙂
The main difference between the Stryker and Centuro, is that the Centuro is a purpose made “tank destroyer”. Whereas the MGS is a wheeled battle taxi with an automated gun and unmanned turret added to it.
Eeeeeeeh, kind of but also kind of not. Centauro and Freccia have a very incestuous relationship with the two of them constantly basing the newest version on each other.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Iveco-DV-contract-Freccia-MLU_01.jpg
Boxer must have a beefy stabilised cannon (in aturret of course) if it is truly to replace Warrior for the Armoured Infantry (AI).
Good news but I am not surprised that this was a success. A trial on integrating the Rheinmetall smoothbore L55 cannon was successfuly done for the Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme (CLIP) in Jan 2006 – nearly 18 years ago – on the not-dissimilar Challenger 2. Wiki: “A single Challenger 2 was fitted with the Rheinmetall smoothbore L55 and underwent trials in January 2006.[76] The smoothbore gun was the same length as the L30A1 and was fitted with the rifled gun’s cradle, thermal sleeve, bore evacuator and muzzle reference system. Early trials apparently revealed that the German tungsten DM53 round was more… Read more »
The main issue is that the one piece rounds are 750mm long. The Challenger 2 doesn’t have a magazine bustle. So storage if the rounds was a bit of a disaster. From memory they could only store around 8 rounds
The Wiki piece said that ammo handling and storage arrangements were changed for the 2006 trial. Do you mean 8 rounds in total even with amended handling and storage arrangements?
No wonder we did not adopt 120mm smoothbore then.
Yes, rounds in total. But bear in mind there was next to no modifications to the hull or turret to incorporate one piece round stowage. The stowage for the 8 rounds was a temporary fix just for the trial. There wasn’t any money available for a turret redesign just for the trial of one modified tank. However, it did prove the Chally could use a higher pressure gun without requiring structural modifications to handle the additional recoil forces. But, if the L55 gun was to be brought in to service, then the turrets would need a complete redesign along with… Read more »
Thanks Davey. That all rings quite a few bells. Of course CR3 is so much more than fitting a smoothbore cannon, but I take your point.
I despair at the minimal upgrades done for CR1 (in its day) and CR2 – compared to the Chieftain era; the same is true for many other British AFVs, sadly. Wouldn’t be allowed to happen in the other two services!
OT, but British Army armour so related.
https://www.pearson-eng.com/news/pearson-engineering-joins-uk-boxer-team-with-mission-module-contract/
Thanks. The article manages to avoid saying which types of MM that Pearson will produce. All of them or just those with a Sapper flavour?
The key question!!
A minimum order of 300 is needed, 150 is a ridiculous number.
Where are the 300 coming from? Where is double the crews, support vehicles, IFVs, recovery vehicles, road and train transports, extra ammo and so on.
I think there is a reason the army is only going for 148 and it’s because they can’t field any more with the organisation plans. Some of those will also be reserves.
Forces are structured wrong and a bit small.
Sadly the Army could easily have 3 Challenger Regiments in it’s current orbat. Just have 2 Armoured Brigades and a Cavalry Group… but I’ve waxed lyrical about this many times.
It should have 3. The army needs to work on its purpose and what it needs to accomplish.
As we see in Ukraine numbers are very important. Even if they aren’t all equipped with top tier kit.
Trying to make everyone SF level of kit is great but is super expensive.
It has 3. Sadly, that is still scheduled to reduce to 2.
I think if posters read “The British Army Review” Summer 2023 they may get more of a handle of what we are trying to do and the amount of new tech and kit that is either ordered or coming.
I found the DRSB section especially interesting.
https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/british-army-review/
Exactly. People need to consider this stuff needed to field a piece of combat equipment.
Micki,
Why do you say 300? The army accepted (perhaps grudgingly) a figure of 227 CR2s on the active list following the austerity cuts of 2010.
I agree that 148 is a ridiculous number that allows the fielding of just 112 tanks in the Field Army.
True then, true now 😉
“We know exactly what we want. We want a fast, highly mobile, fully armored, lightweight vehicle. It must be able to swim, cross any terrain, and climb 30 degree hills. It must be air-transportable. It must have a simple but powerful engine, requiring little or no maintenance. The operating range should be several hundred miles. We would also like it to be invisible”.
General Bruce C. Clarke.