The first pre-production Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank has been deployed to Germany for 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 @BritishArmy. #OneTeamOneMission #CR3 @DefenceES pic.twitter.com/090luwgbWp
— RBSL (@RH_BAES_Land) February 19, 2024
During the trials, the prototypes will be tested under operational conditions to validate their performance and 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.
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.
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.”
Is it still 148 in total ? the article seems to suggest one prototype and another 140 to follow…… Hope they all get the Black Paint Job ….. they do look rather menacing in black.
Its 148 theres 8 prototypes all being put through trials then the other 140 will follow once trials are completed.
Well it does seem that it’s only safe to operate tanks at night these days. 😈
3 years until the first CH3s are in service and 6 years until completed delivery of the 148.
And disposal of Chal 2 by 2030
My money is on 2025 after the next defence review
That as well if the MOD can’t find buyers for them apart from Ukraine or gifted too them
We have a history of selling old tanks to Jordan, but they are receiving ex-UAE Leclercs by way of replacement. After CR3 conversion, how many good-ish CR2s will be left to sell or gift? Not too many, I suspect.
I’ve wonder if the Jordanian C1 could be candidates for upgrades should we need numbers in hurry. The C3 turret was supposed to be versatile so it could be fitted to other NATO tanks, not sure how portable the other upgrades would be to a C1. I appreciate its not an ideal upgrade, but where else are there 400 tanks UK could access easily and at short notice. And if you can shoehorn in the same powerpack/transmission, turret, APS, radios, targeting system etc you create a high level of common parts. And whilst the armor is behind the C3 its… Read more »
There are certainly worse ideas, but it would be expensive and time consuming returning even a portion of those 40-year-old tanks.
Better to spend the money and effort accelerating Challenger 3, expanding the order to at least 200 (and preferably the full 400+ fleet, or whatever is left of it), and identifying what will come after.
The question of whether heavy armour still has a place on the battlefields of the future needs to be answered before we start pushing for a new BAOR. Would drones and a heavy gun for Boxer or Ajax make more sense? Who knows
With you Callum. 200 seems like a good pool for such a major asset for 4 tank groups plus a smaller reserve. I know nothing on this it’s just a gut feel and seems a shame that they let the numbers deteriorate to just 148.
It was more of an outside the box thinking based on rearming quickly. Personally I think building or upgrading 100s upon 100s of tanks which may sit in storage is not the best plan. But if you’ve done the ground work to upgrade or build from new, tested the design, identified who will build, who all the suppliers are etc Then your in good position to ramp up production. And arguably in better position than having 400 tanks with no plan to produce more. This is not a new concept in the 1930s we identified factories that would switch to… Read more »
The Jordanian CR1 conundrum was discussed at great length on what is now X – according to those in the know it is likely that enquiries were made about the status of the fleet but nothing came of it.The exact reason wasn’t given but it was narrowed down to either the Jordanian Govt not willing to play ball and release them for refurb, or the poor material state of them meaning it would not be cost effective.TBH it may have been a combination of the two but the facts will come out in time.
I’d be surprised if the Jordanians didn’t want to gift them, we gifted them in the first instance. Probably there was better options throughout Europe. It was unlikely to be just UK paying to bring these back into service and with various other tanks more readily available better to focus attention elsewhere.
I was the MoD Equipment Support Manager for CR1 after it had been wirthdrawn from service and folowed my predecesssor by finishing off the disposals – most went to Jordan as you know. You are talking about a vehicle that was devloped from the Chieftain with design work done in the 1970s, built c.1982-1990, in-service with UK 1983-2001, sold to Jordan and in service with them 1999-2022. Jordan has replaced them with ex-UAE Leclerc and ex-Italian Centauro whelled tank destroyers. So now take a tank that has done service over 40 years and been pensioned off by first and now… Read more »
Lots of good sense Graham. I suppose the UK can’t ask for their gifted Ch2s back, to bolster numbers and have them replaced by Leopards or others? Or the UK order a Leopard tank batch (40) for themselves? It’ll be a mixed fleet but interoperability with lots of European allies.
What!? That would be terrible for the Ukrainians – they are getting very good use out of their 13 CR2s as ‘sniper tanks’ – they absolutely love them. It would be the biggest diplomatic fail you could imagine to ask for them back Why would we want 13 CR2s to be returned? What for? What has suddenly happened since we judged we could spare them. Are our needs greater than Ukraine’s? We have 213 active list CR2s [plus a good number (maybe 100-117) on the inactive list (probably in bad condition)]. We need to give 148 tanks to RBSL in… Read more »
It was just a hypothetical but as you say it isn’t really justifiable and not a good like either so it’s okay to cancel my silly suggestion ..lol. Have to admit your Ch2 numbers do suggest that pool is quite a bit bigger than the 148 Ch3’s so there’s room for more Ch3’s if the need arises and the monies are there.
Are some people thinking we will only upgrade 148 tanks because there are only 148 CR2s? Surely not. We have 213 CR2s on the active list (was 227 – that figure published for the last 14 years – but gave 14 to Ukraine early last year) and more on the inactive list. Up to recently 43 of the 386 tanks originally purchased have been scrapped (sometime in the 2010-2014 period, for reasons unknown), but MoD recently declared that a handful more (4 or 5?) have been scrapped. Not sure if more have been scrapped over the period 2014 -2023 but… Read more »
I’m not suggesting we actually upgrade 400 c1s now. But instead like we did in the 1930 have a plan to up arm quickly should hostilities commence. As you say its expensive to have 400 tanks ready to roll. But if you have reached a point where we have proven path to get a tank into production or upgrade then you massively shorten the time to get it rolling off the production lines. War is won by being able to out produce your enemy and right now my concern is we have no plan to be able to rearm at… Read more »
We certainly need a rearmament plan. To take just the tank example for now: We could start by upgrading many more than 148 CR2 tanks to the CR3 model. We have 213 tanks on the active list and maybe 100+ on the inactive list (which will be in poor shape with many parts lost to cannibalisation) but they should be assessed for suitability and maybe we could make 2 tanks out of 3 ie get a further 60 or 70 to an acceptable presentation state for upgrade to CR3. Thus we might be able to push another 120 or 130… Read more »
I guess the biggest issue is hull stress, anything that a can be unbolted can be replaced(in theory). But cracks in the hulls need to be properly assessed, this would require stripping the Hull then putting it through a non destructive tests NDT to detect cracks and fractures. Then assess if these can be repaired. If there’s known stress failure points, then these could be reworked without testing. Are all the C2s stored in an environment where corrosion isn’t an issue. There’s one further source if C2s, Oman has 38 I believe. I assume we’re offering a C3 upgrade but… Read more »
I don’t know if Babcock who now operate the former 18 Base Wksp REME/ABRO Bovington site do Base Overhauls or similar on the entire UK tAFV fleet – I would hope they did. In the days when this was done by in-house personnel, then every square inch of the stripped out hull was carefully looked at especially the welds using NDT. Re-welding was done if required. This was all standard procedure. Are all CR2s in CHE? – I doubt it. You must assume Defence is well-resourced! Some CHE exists at BATUS, Ashchurch and at least one of the two depots… Read more »
I’m not assuming there’s additional resources but like airframes you only fly airworth airframes. I would hope the Army has a minimum standard. The good news fro. What you’re saying is we should have a very good appreciation of where the C2 hulls get stressed.
I’m not desperate to get more C2, my thinking is along the same lines as previous comments. We have a ready to go upgrade for C2s so if we have access to them we can get nearly 40 C3 tanks quickly if we needed to.
Thanks. The Minimum Acceptable Presentation Standard (MAPS) is nothing to do with routine operation of the tanks – it is a standard specifically relating to suitability of a donor vehicle for a major upgrade such as conversion to CR3. For example it would not matter if certain assemblies, sub-assemblies or components are missing or do not work if those are to be replaced by new items in the upgrade. Theoretically a tank could possibly be missing its entire turret! [Although I have not seen the MAPS document for this work, of course] In routine operation of CR2 very different criteria… Read more »
Thanks. That makes sense.
On the numbers I’m not bothered if we get only 148 if we have a plan. When things start to turn ugly to upgrade the rest rapidly then acquire more to upgrade or build new.
Of course its not that simple Russia in WW2 built a lot of tanks but couldn’t use them because it had not built trucks to transport men, ammunition fuel, food etc. American and British ended up supplying these a long with huge volumes of other items and equipment, only then could the Russian army advance.
Additional question if I may. If RBSL could fit the C3 turret, Trophy, a new power pack and transmission to the C1 just where would that tank rate in your opinion. Let’s assume the c1 has just rolled off the productionl line. Its a bit of fantasy tank fleet question.
As our American friends might say it sounds like it might be a bit like putting lipstick on a pig. There is such a huge difference between CR1 and CR2, relatively little commonality, and CR2 is the base for CR3. It would take a lot of effort to properly work out how your hybrid would pan out. Assuming that your mix is doable, it is easier to assess whether there are any weaknesses by retaining the CR1 hull albeit upgraded by better (CR3 standard) power pack and transmission. The biggest issue would be below-par hull armour but that could be… Read more »
Thanks for that. Gives a good perspective it doesn’t sound like a good option. Like you say the details are where it would likely fall over. We’ve seen some very cobbled together armoured vehicles from Ukraine and Russia. If we don’t get our act together we’ll likely end up doing the same.
Your approach certainly caused pause for thought. By having a very small equipment inventory and mostly unmodernised – then radical solutions need to be explored that could be implemented quickly if WW3 loomed.
A warfighting division with just 112 tanks is barely credible, especially as the Attrition Reserve (15-25?) will be so small.
Just read a Dive story with pictures how Jordan placed 2 chieftain tanks in the Red Sea for a diving experience they look the business
A good place for those old warhorses.
Better than under a cutters torch ,Hatches open full of marine life GM
Forces News tonight Chal 3 put through its paces quite interesting Farouk
Tommo,
I had a look on their youtube website, couldn’t find it.
Forces Net on Forces News Chal 3 off to Germany for final trials one thing mentioned in the write up is the weight of the Chal 3 could it be a hindrance write up has a few Phots of the Chal 3 Farouk
Thanks, just had a butchers .
Your welcome
But Farouk, that would mean we had a massive tank capability gap for 5 years. Surely the politicos are not that dumb? (sarcastic comment, obvs). Especially as General War is possible/likely/highly likely?
Yes. Of course , next defence review with more cuts.
140 I would stop being “really excited” and start reading some history books… They probably don’t know what books are but hell it’s just a bloody dream…. From the army to the navy and the RAF, God help us.
Ermmmm, What ? …. Where did you read that I was “Really Excited” ? how strange…..🤔🤔
You would have more luck asking father Christmas than god!
Despite IR Refresh 2023 and its associated Defence Command Paper which were commissioned to identify lessons from the war in Ukraine, Shapps saying that we are in a pre-war era, many European countries leaders saying we are 3/10/20 years from General War with Russia, General Sanders having consistently said the army is too small…. MoD remains committed to just 148 CR3s – two regiments in the field force.
“Events in Ukraine have underscored the need for credible warfighting capabilities.” 🤣🤣🤣
Problem is Ukraine has also shown that ‘credible war fighting’ could be very different in the future. We need to prepare for the next war not the last. I doubt anyone though Russia Red Sea fleet would be taking such losses from Done for instance or FPV drone would be knocking out heavy armor on mass.
Hi folks hope all is well.
As ever I ask you experts to advise me.
How did the number 148 MBTs ever arise? Obviously we have no land boarder to protect and defend. However, is the number based upon how many have been used in past conflicts, or the likely hood the UK will not have to deploy large numbers as in the case of the former BAOR. Nonetheless, 148 does appear to be a low number. Maybe Ukraine has woken up the government and MOD to review and increase the number.
Cheers
George
Of the 227 CH2 I believe only around 154 of them were deemed serviceable due to cost of repair being ‘too prohibitive’. 148 number was driven by the Treasury/MOD budget allocation alone, as opposed to any serious review into number required for specific tasks.
I don’t know what they mean by ‘too prohibitive’, other countries like the US and Germany would manage to get the job done. Maybe what they mean is the closure of the Vickers factory has left us without the means to refurbish stressed hulls?
I don’t understand the MODs way of thinking, If you have an asset as good as CH2, surely it is worthwhile to continuously upgrade rather than scrap them. It is criminal that 159 were so quickly disposed of.
That’s why As90 is going there’s been no upgrades or refurbishment since it came into service it’s criminal really what’s happening to our armour
True. The Braveheart upgrade for AS90 would have been excellent, but it was dropped because some South African ammunition was not up to scratch! Well, buy some ammo from elsewhere!
Even the mighty and modern K9 cannot fire 3 rounds in 10 seconds as AS90 could.
Yes I was at the rsa when brave heart was there . There is enough As90 still to equip 2 units you would think an upgrade would have been cheaper than a dozen trucks with turrets on that can’t even use nato propellant and has no manual operation if the automatic systems fail it’s a joke
There was money earmarked for the Braveheart upgrade and the Contract had been awarded in 1999, ie over 20 years ago. I understand it was cancelled because the South African ammunition mooted did not match the new IM remit – but surely we could have got IM ammunition from elsewhere? “BAE Systems was awarded a contract to upgrade 96 of the British Army’s 179 AS90s with a 155mm / 52-calibre extended-range ordnance / modular charge system (ERO/MCS). The upgraded AS90s were expected to enter service in 2003, but the programme was halted while a system study was being conducted”. The… Read more »
It would be interesting to see how archer can remove individual increments to adjust the propellant charge in its magazine system I work at the school of artillery you won’t find many in favor archer and would rather upgrade As90 or purchase K9
Fair point. I doubt a highly automated system can adjust bagged charge increments. Its not a perfect sytem. We should have upgraded AS90 to Braveheart spec years ago – it was a very cheap job – just needed to find the right IM to go with it.
With further incremental upgrades it would be as good if not better than K9 – even the original AS90 has a quicker burst fire rate.
A quick glance at MOD procurement policy shows remarkable uniformity. Along the lines of:- we’re enamoured by the Rolls Royce, but cannot afford the associated running, servicing and inevitable repair costs. So we wait a bit i.e. gap, before being enamoured by the next…….’Think’:- Mr Toad. 🐸📯📯
About 2 years ago all the Challengers were transported to Vickers Elwick site now Pearson Eng. for an indepth inspection and they were better qualified than anybody as they probably had skilled personnel with original build experience from the 90,s and the Titan and engineering vehicles from the 2000,s. That doesn’t meen though that they didn’t have an arbitrary figure in mind though and were just going through the motions. As you’ll know Pearson are building the turrets and are now part of Raphael so will be well placed to integrate Trophy. Also they provide the army’s mine clearing equipment… Read more »
Does the estimate of 154 serviceable CR2s include or exclude the 14 provided to UKR? Would explain the 140 statement in the article. Alternatively there could be 8 prototype/trial CR3s. 🤔
I have the figure of 157 tanks (not 154) being available for operations, as reported to the UK Defence Committtee on 8 March 2023 (link to follow). That is a very, very good figure, especially for an old unmodernised vehicle. When I was in REME we aimed for 70% of key equipment to be available at all times, rising to 90% after 24hrs concerted work with spares being available. Given the date of the Committtee meeting then the 14 tanks for Ukraine would have not been included as they had already been sent and the report was about tanks for… Read more »
Morning Graham, back during the heady days of BAOR, I believe we rather hoped the Warsaw pact would be gentleman enough to give us three months notice of war, so we could scramble about calling up reservists, repairing Armour and getting the logistics taps turned back on, in order to get match fit….
Thanks John. The Russians effectively gave us all plenty of notice they were planning to invade Ukraine – about 11 months notice! Wiki: “In March and April 2021, prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces began massing thousands of personnel and military equipment near Russia’s border with Ukraine and in Crimea, representing the largest mobilisation since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.[37][38] This precipitated an international crisis due to concerns over a potential invasion. Satellite imagery showed movements of armour, missiles, and heavy weaponry towards the border.[39][40] The troops were partially withdrawn by June 2021,[41] though the infrastructure was left in place. A second build-up began in October 2021, this time with more… Read more »
A fair point but we did have four armoured divisions in place (three after 2 Div was moved to UK in 1982), and we had all recced our initial OPLOCs. All kit at least at 70% availability. Ammunition well forward in depots etc. Restrictions on numbers allowed back to UK on leave/courses. Many major exercises held – CPX, CFX, FTX – with TA units. Readiness tested by ORTs (Ex Active Edge) ie crash out exercises. NEO plans made to move dependants home etc. We don’t have all the elements mentioned above today. I don’t think Russia could invade a NATO… Read more »
900 Cheftains, how many we serviceable? I remember the L60 and H30 cyclinder liners could anything so simple be made some complicated
I could not guess how many of those 900 Chieftains were servicable at various times from 1966 (ISD) – but it helped that the tank was regularly base overhauled and also upgraded (not the same thing). The L60 Powerpack was certainly an issue especially in the early days. A pity that multifuel was forced by NATO at which point RR withdrew from the process, and we ended up with a Leyland unit, developed from a bus engine I believe. You are right about the cylinder linings being an issue – they were pressure fitted and coolant leaks within the cylinder… Read more »
I remember the company who used to.make the L60 cylinders. I visited them a couple of times they constantly had orders for them. The liner itself was a good piece if engineering but complex with spines and ports machine into it. Next to RR or Volvo liner it looked over engineered though. Like you say the nature of the unit being multi fuel unit.
GM,
Thanks for the info. Based upon your previous responses/past experience, should presume that the balance of CR2s (213-148=65), will be scrapped after completion of CR3 conversion contract, regardless of condition?
Not necessarily, they might be donated to museums, or put in storage facilities (a few old CR2 hulls are currently rusting in storage), or they’ll be expended as targets, or used as training aids.
We don’t keep kit for long after it has been formally declared ‘Obsolete’. We don’t have the space or the money required to do that.[It’s incredible how many people think we must have lots of Chieftains or CR1s sitting in a shed at Ashurch ready for WW3!]. Obsolete kit gets disposed of ASAP, regardless of condition. Disposal priorities are 1st – try to sell (usually at auction); 2nd – gift the equipment; 3rd – scrap (last option, worse choice, as it generally costs you to scrap something). [I disposed of the CR1 tank fleet as just one part of a… Read more »
Apologies, but wouldn’t any sentient being realize the value of attrition/war reserve stocks of high value equipment? Could it really be that expensive to provide environmentally controlled storage and minimal maintenance for high value equipment? The Yanks and the Orcs have embraced that concept.
We have always had Attrition Reserve stocks (used to be called War Maintenance Reserve, WMR) of in-service high value equipment. In the army area that exists for AFVs and artillery, but I am not sure about other equipment, such as soft-skinned vehicles, small arms etc. As I said we do not hold Obsolete equipment (equipment that has been formally declared ‘Obsolete’) – that kit is disposed of ASAP by sale, gifting or scrapping in that order (scarapping is a last resort, done only if sale or gifting does not fully do the job). Hence (taking just a tank example) that… Read more »
Morning Graham, is there any news on if these Ch2s have seen any action and success? Were they able to retrieve the damaged Ch2? Wonder if the UK would ever buy any light tanks, like Ascod based UK Brooker or uparm a Ajax or Boxer with Cockerill 105/120?
154 out of 227 being available for use (68%) is a fairly good figure for old kit. When I was in REME our target was to ensure that 70% of key equipment were available, rising to 90% after a solid 24hrs work with spares being available. The CR3 programme does not require donor tanks to be absolutley perfect in every respect but they do have to meet an acceptable presentation standard. I understand that tanks go through something akin to a mini-base overhaul before being presented to the RBSL CR3 build line. Correct that the very small 148 figure would… Read more »
Just curious Graham, considering the thick armoured hull of a Challenger 2, surely unless it was hit by an MBT numerous times, or accidentally dropped out the back of a C17 / driven over a cliff etc, it would be perfectly capable of rebuild?
The hull doesn’t twist, corrode or have crumple zones. They simply endure.
The Americans are still factory rebuilding and upgrading early 1980’s vintage M1A1’s to the latest spec after all.
Am I missing something, or is there a reason a Chally 2 would be incapable of rebuild?
Hi John, Back in the day, for as long as I can remember AFVs (including MBTS, obvs) had a periodic Base Overhaul (BOH) done by 18 Base Wksp REME at Bovington or 23 Base Wksp REME in Germany. Roughly every 7 years but it depended on mileage as well. Tanks were received at the Bse Wksp with all loose CES (incl jerricans, shovels etc) and documentation. CES was checked and stored. Everything was stripped off the vehicle and sent down refurb lines – or was replaced. Hull was pressure washed, all welds checked for cracks and rewelded if required. Vehicle… Read more »
GM,
Hmmm…rather the case of ‘pay me now, or pay me later,’ or alternatively, ‘penny wise, pound foolish.’ Do you presume the genius responsible for the change received a promotion and/or bonus? 🤔😉
There is an absolute obsession with contracting out services (standard arrangment or a PFI) that used to be done in-house and very well. Once, on this site, I listed all the ones I knew about and others added to the list. The first contractorised operation that I recall being officers’ and WOs & sergeants messes becoming contractor operated – must have been about 30 – 35 years ago. We all moaned about it based on the numerous disadvantages we saw as ‘customers’. Its not just soft backroom support areas either – army recruiting is in the hands of contractors, provision… Read more »
Two armoured infantry brigades is all we will have under future soldier, each tank regiment has 56 tanks and the rest are spares. Given the entire program is only costing £800 million I really think we should be looking at procuring well over 200 even if we just keep them sitting about spare. Ukraine shows how quickly you can loose tanks and how crews normally walk away from loosing a Challenger tank unscathed. Replacing main battle tanks is nearly impossible, all of NATO has struggled to get 300 to Ukraine. Much the same argument for typhoons in my opinion, you… Read more »
The rest (36 tanks) are not all ‘spares’. Some will be for the Trg Org (RAC and REME) which will be in near-daily use, some for the Repair Pool and some for the Attrition Reserve.
Fully agree we need more than 148. We had 386 CR2s ordered and delivered for the post-Cold War world.
What, if any would be the relevance of the proposal to order a Boxer ‘tank killer’ version?
I had not heard that proposal. Tank killers or Tank Destroyers (TD) have some merit. They augment MBTs when they are in short supply and cost a lot less to buy and operate than tanks. They can be useful for flank protection. Most now think of a TD as being a tank cannon on a wheeled chassis, as would be the case with a Boxer TD, but they can be ATGWs on tracked chassis (as was CVR(T) STRIKER) or wheeled chassis. Given that we will only have 2 armoured regiments then Boxer TDs would be useful to augment this meagre… Read more »
Thx. I’ve lost the link where I found the reference, which was at the end of a list of proposed new Boxer variants. Sounds like it would be a practical way of augmenting our tank numbers, and if it used ATGWs might be relatively quick to implement.
CVR(T) STRIKER was a great piece of kit – a Tank Destroyer with 5 long range Swingfires in launcher bins on the roof and 5 reloads inside. Was withdrawn years ago and never replaced. Criminal!
Looked it up on wiki; as you say, smart piece of kit. Obsoleted by man portable Javelin I guess. Looking at Ukraine I would say we would want to replace it. There is a bigger choice of missiles these days; and platforms too – Boxer or Ares maybe, even Bulldog 🙂
Except that we didn’t mount 5+5 of the longer range Javelin on a small, nimble, tracked, armoured chassis!
The platforms you mention are inferior to the CVR(T) platform on the grounds of size, weight, signature, supportability and cost.
Tank regt 1: 56
Tank regt 2: 56
Field Training Sqn: 20
Trials and Phase 2 recruit training: 16
War reserve stock: 0
Reserve tank regt: 0
= 148
Tank regts have 3 sqns of 18 (4 troops of 4 + 2 at Sqn HQ) plus 2 at RHQ.
On paper, 148 being converted to Chally 3 standard leaves 65 Chally 2s in reserve. But apparently only 17 or so of these are serviceable.
Otherwise known as insanity….going down to 2 regiments is foolish, removing any attritional reserve is profundity insane or criminally negligent…..what is worse is we will not even be able to build any replacements…so if for some reason we say lost 20 or so we could not even maintain the 2 regiments and would be forces to move to 1 regiment or buy a different MBT as a replacement….insane.
Agreed. Ask General Carter, HE planned this.
I think UK should face the fact that the voters culture don’t care much for defence and in such circumstances what matters is the minimum the nuclear deterrent and Royal Navy/AF.
The 2 brigades are more political then military support.
Basically Brigade 2 being the replacement of Brigade 1.
Not sure where you get some of those figures. What and where is the ‘Field Training Sqn’?
An unserviceable tank may well be able to be presented to RBSL for conversion to CR3 – depends what the issue is.
Field training sqn is in Suffield (BATUS), assume now moving/moved to Sennelager. It has/had 20 Challys, so a full squadron and two in the garage.
You asked before about the trials and training unit at Bovington. It had 22 tanks when we had 3 Chally regts, gather it is 16 now.
Does it include REME, attrition, etc? – haven’t a clue. I would assume they are included in the 154 serviceable figure, it becomes a bit academic if they aren’t serviceable or MOD is unwilling to spend the necessary to make them so.
Yes, BATUS tanks have gone to Germany, helped to enable the Cabrit commitment.
Thanks Daniele
For the benefit of other readers, CABRIT is the operations name for the British troops in Estonia, currently a battle group of c 700-900 troops (an armoured infantry batallion of close to 600.plus a Scimitar or Jackal recon squadron and other small combat support or combat service units, the latter being transport, supply, REME recovery/repair and medics).
Thanks mate. I had not heard the term Fd Trg Sqn before to describe the BATUS tanks, but then I did not ever serve there and I have been out of the mob for 15 years. Whilst ‘the User’ makes a case for the equipments they need, invariably that is cut down by politicans/HMT. The number of tanks that are procured are categorised as for: the Field Force (ie the armoured regts); the Trg Org; the Repair Pool; the Attrition Reserve – the latter two being held in Ashchurch. Army HQ may want to play musical chairs with the Field… Read more »
Regiments going down to 50 I believe, but I can’t remember who told me that now…..
They will no doubt claim
“it’s radically more capable than Chally 2 and more reliable, so we only need 50 per regiment”
“Modern synthetic training negates the need for conventional training to a large degree, so the 36 combined training fleet can be reduced to 20”.
Leaving 28 in reserve.
That’s the sort of PR spin bullshit we can expect to make the numbers make sense.
Regiments once went down to T44 and T38!
Lack of strategic planning basically.
During BAOR we had something like 600, because we had an idea what we were doing.
Then the peace dividend kicked in with spreadsheet management.
Good to see we are actually doing something, but 148 is the derivative if what was left of the original C2 that could be upgraded.
It would be nice, given we always learn the lessons – ahem – that we would build a few more, given recent learning opportunities.
Because the A2020R review reorged the army to 2 Armoured Regiments down from the 3 currently.
If we only plan 2 Regiments, we don’t need 500 Tanks. And we only have 2 Armoured Brigades to put them in.
We don’t need 500 Tanks, but we SHOULD be retaining around 200 as currently to keep a 3rd regiment in a 3rd Armoured Brigade.
That is what is undermining 3 UK Division.
Hi Daniele,
I well remember that once we had some square (2,2) brigades in the standing Orbat ie brigades comprising 2 armoured regiments and 2 AI or Mech battalions.
No rule says you only have 1 armoured regt per brigade – 7x was a 2,1 brigade in the first Gulf War.
Apologies, I am sure you know that!
Historically it has been unusual for an armoured div to have fewer than 200 tanks, then there are the other tanks needed for Trg Org, RP, Attrition Reserve- perhaps we should have 227 CR3s!
Morning Graham. Yes, in BAOR some Armoured Brigades had 2 Armoured Regiments, others only 1.
Indeed, we need extra for the rear echelons you mention.
Which is why I mentioned around 200. The 227 now would be fine for the current army size we can man and equip with the money available.
That 3rd Reg needs to be retained and with the delay to Ajax I’ve not given up hope.
I would be more optimistic if IR23 and DCP had taken on board that we need more tanks.
I would put the requirement at closer to 400. 3 regular regts is, as you say, really the minimum. Put one in Germany one in Estonia and one in the UK – as we should be doing – and it becomes prettyy clear how thin our tank numbers are. That’s 168 operation tanks. The case for equipping the reserve tank regt with tanks (they are currently individual reinforcements.for the regulars) is obvious. 44 would be enough in peacetime , to be reinforced by a regular squadron in wartime to bring the regiment up to strength. That’s another 56. We should… Read more »
Our not having a land border has never been much of a factor. We invented the tank for expeditionary warfare (WW1, their use overseas in France) not for defence of the homeland. We require a significant number of tanks for deployment to the continent for NATO defence – and for ‘wars of choice’ with Allies (usually USA ie Gulf War 1 and 2). A careful review of the requirement for a post-Cold War army led us to order just 386 tanks in the early 90s (down from the 435 CR1 order of the late 70s/early 80s). We deployed 220 tanks… Read more »
Ironically Graham, the Options for Change review was apparently to size the Armed forces for a post cold war future….
We have of course gone ‘dramatically’ below the options for change numbers, right across the board, so much so that recovering to the numbers hypothesised in that review, is now utterly beyond us and a pipe dream.
Oh, and we have a new Cold War and a world situation that’s arguably more dangerous and volatile than the early 1980’s… And getting more unstable by the week.
But, not to worry, our politicians have a grand plan I am sure…..😂😂
I can visualise the dull interchange Starmer/ Sunak, coming off a plane at Heathrow, waving a piece of paper proclaiming “peace in our time” ……
Ironic is the word. ‘Options’ reduced the armed forces dramatically – the reg army lost 40,000 men and the TA about 20,000. Plenty doubted the wisdom of such big cuts at the time but the logic of reducing forces when the monolithic threat from the Warsaw Pact had evaporated, seemed inescapbale. The world was going to forever be a safe place! Then within weeks of the Options review (Summer 1990), we start to deploy about 200 tanks, 43,000 troops and thousands of other AFVs (plus the air force) on the Desert Shield part of Gulf War 1 (warfighting in this… Read more »
Spot on Graham, options for change was far from a carefully considered defence review, it was just a series of savage cuts, pure and simple…. I had a mate in the Army at the time, he said the only upside of it was an opportunity to get shot of deadwood in the Battalion. Each Company suggesting names of folks who had generally been a right pain in the arse over the years, recommended for the Royal order of the boot…. The RAF in particular, suddenly found itself in possession of a fleet of single role aircraft utterly focused on strike… Read more »
The Options for Change defence review did look carefully at the new geo-strategic world, given the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, the emergence of democratic West-leaning countries in eastern Europe and concluded unsurprisingy that significant reductions in our forces were required. Total manpower was cut by approximately 18 per cent to around 255,000 (leaving the following strengths – 120,000 army; 60,000 navy; 75,000 air force). Troop strength in Germany was halved but not totally axed: a single armoured division was kept in Germany. The RAC reduced from 18 regiments to 10. The Guards went from 8 battalions… Read more »
Absolutely Graham, my main issue with Options for change was that it simply didn’t take into account the equipment needed on post cold war period. At least the Navy and Army had adaptive assets. As said, the RAF totally lacked a capable swing role fighter in shape of the F16/18. They had comparatively large fleets of single role strike aircraft, or a dedicated bomber interceptor, in the shape of the Tornado F3. A Bae proposal to Japan on the 1990’s of a multi role platform based on the Tornado F3, creating a European Strike Eagle type aircraft, would have been… Read more »
I think some would disagree that the RAF was exceptionally badly hit by Options for Change (the defence review of summer 1990 to reset the forces post-Cold War) – as I saai mostly they lost very old equipment (and associated manpower) and did some rebasing, but still kept 2 bases in Germany. They had a whopping great 4 types of fast jet – Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom and Tornado (GR1 and F3 ADV). Under Options, they lost the oldest platform – Phantom (a 1950s design) the older ones which had been in service with the RAF for 22 years! I am… Read more »
“…ensuring it benefits from the best of British engineering and manufacturing, whilst…” we always have to fly the flag on these matters I can understand the motivation but in reality a great deal of the upgrades are of foreign origin and/or supply so to me it always feels a little excrutiating to hear that need to push the line that it’s British excellence at work. Always keen for UK tech to be promoted, too often it isn’t, but far too often too, you have to search for what’s real and what’s simply for effect so you start doubting everything. In… Read more »
It’s quite insulting how many German and US company’s paint British flags on vehicles. It’s even worse that our military and media let them get away with it.
Especially when they turn their nose up at armoured vehicles from a British company that seems to be good enough for everyone else.
Good point. We wouldn’t have the CR3 programme if not for the involvement of Rheinmetall, arguably.
Good excellent, now can we build a few hundred more please.
Like every Chally 2 converted to a 3.
I think its been identified in the chat above they have -“only 154 being cost effective to upgrade”.
Now you could question the algorithms used to identify ‘cost efective’ as surely if there are 227 hulls available then potentially ALL of them could be upgraded – but obviously ‘capacity/capability/force’ isn’t a metric they considered.
As it is my understanding and happy to be corrected. As the Ch 3 just uses the basic hull. The power pack. Drive, suspension and turret are all replaced. I find it difficult to believe every tank cannot be upgraded and given the leap in manufacturing tech. If necessary That new CH2 hulls cannot be fabricated from scratch.
A patently obvious lesson from ukraine is that 148 is no where near enough,
Correct on all you have said and Rhienmettal have said hulls can be built if they are wanted! It’s just been reported that since 2010 £24b has been spent on ALL migrants coming into this country WTF could we have done with that?
I thought this site was about military matters.
No it’s not. The editor/founder of this site permits topics about Scotland and its political future – check the current index. So the analogy by Jacko is perfectly legitimate.
Money spent because the government can’t process asylum applications , Legitimate it may be but I happen to disagree with it and their have been far more cash wasted by this government, eg HS2 to appease the Nimbies, garden Bridges, Thames airport, Covid PPE procurement
Well said!
Built a Bridge across the Chanel to make it less risky ?
14 of that 227 were given to Ukraine, so we now have 213.
bugger…that will scupper all plans 😃
We have 213 on the active list and others on the inactive list.
The only machine learning they use is two hamsters in a wheel and an abacus
I’m not worried about artificial intelligence…natural stupidity beats it all the time…
I read that 157 were available for operations (back in March 2023), which is normal jogging. Does not mean that c.70 were fit for the knackers yard or unsuitable for upgrade.
Just a quick question… why does this vehicle need to go to Germany for ‘trials’?
Thats where Nuremberg is…
😂…. I see what you did there….. I think it was agreed in Potsdam 😎!!!!!!
Pretty sure Top Gear never got that far, they only held a Nürnberg Rally.
.sorry was in a hurry …didnt notice typo…somewhat spoilt my joke ..but gave you a comeback so all was not lost 😀
Which typo?
You nutball 😂
That where the big training areas are. Salisbury Plain is tiny and heavily used by the rest of the army.
No where near enough tanks… we are on the verge of WW3 and they still cut the military
Nice buy we need more than 140
So, just to be clear, beyond this the UK has no plans for a British-only designed and produced replacement MBT (i.e. CH4 – and please don’t say Rheinmetall is British).
Given that in the past the UK has arguably come up with the best tank design in the world, the current threats and unreliableness of other countries and licensing agreements for export, is this a sensible stance by any UK Government?
I wish they would invest in a CH4 programme. One of the issues is that we don’t have the capability anymore to manufacture heavy armour in the UK. BAE bought Alvis Aickers, closed the factory and shipped the hardware to their swedish facilities decades ago. We don’t have barrel making capabilities in the UK, hence germany supplying the turret/gun. And we don’t have a factory capable of making the hulls. So all of this would have to be built up from scratch. These days spinning up a new factory and production line would cost billions, and make the unit-cost of… Read more »
True. I agree. However, I would argue that the UK needs a new organisation (separate from the MoD) that is tasked with the responsibility for preserving, nurturing, and developing certain key strategic assets, capabilities, and resources. Included in this would be the ability to design and produce a MBT and other heavy armour and retain IP control. Such an organisation would also help implement common design components to help keep costs down. Sort of similar to the Ministry of Aircraft Production in WWII, but be across a number of sectors (energy, cyber, computing, materials etc.) Yes this would cost initially… Read more »
I think we will be relying on the Shah of Iran to make a re-appearance….. then we can start to design the future MBT’s….. For those of you way too young to know…… the original CH1 was actually built as an Export model for Iran……. Also, It might be of interest that the Invincible Class had an interest from Iran for 3 hulls too……. Also, We and the Americans sold Ships and aircraft to them too…… F14 Tomcats and Vickers Frigates to name a couple…….. Not everyone in Iran is anti West….. there are many who are living under religious… Read more »
I think many Iranians might welcome the Shah back given that the 1979 revolution resulted in a theocratic dictatorship.
Sure. I am not anti “Persians” at all. I went to poly with shed loads of Iranians just as the Islamic revolution hit. Lovely people (and food). Suddenly they stopped wearing their military uniforms, and a whole bunch of “nutter” Iranian students tried to take over the student union shouting “death to America.” You could see the madness in their eyes.
By the way I am not suggesting the free and easy export of arms. I am against Typhoons to Saudi for example.
We are observors on the Franco-German future tank project. There will be some back room research being done at dstl and maybe QinetiQ. Not sure we are doing anything else on ‘CR4’.
That was also my understanding.
I would rather see something British-designed and locally manufactured, even if the company itself is not British, I agree that in the event of a major war supply chain distance matters.
To me it is also about UK industrial base and wider benefits to the economy if the world situation means that we need armed forces and need them to have right equipment for the job.
In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world we won’t have enough tanks to last more than a few weeks in a major conflict. It’s hilarious how they can make those drum beating quotes with a straight face and any sincerity!
So in light of how Labour have taken the knee to its Islamic voting block (these has been a rise of people leaving Labour for future independent Islamic candidates ) I wonder how the next Labour Government will appease it Islamic and lefty voters regards Israeli equipment in British Army service . In the article above Challenger 3 is (supposed to be) fitted with Trophy There’s the litening pod, The Uk has been the first to adopt the Litening 5 Spike NLOS aka Extractor Watchkeeper based on the Hermes 450 Virtus webbing The numerous software packages in use The Dismounted Joint… Read more »
There is no problem we will just call for a cease fire and all will be well👍
Jacko, The thing to note is note about the calls for a ceasefire, is where the pro islamist activists demand we go afterwards. We already see their handiwork in the targeting of anybody who doesn’t support their mindset, be they companies (McDs, Coke Cola, Tescos, Marks and Sparks) MPs where they think nothing of targeting the homes of MPs, Arms companies with nothing to do with Israel . The reaction from Government the Police and authority in general is dont upset them and simply let them do as they please. In other words the rule of the Mob is the… Read more »
👍scary times ahead
Hopefully you will end up in prison shortly afterwards as you deserve. While we are chatting: After the Hamas attacks in Oct you claimed a Lesbian and Gay group had endorsed the attacks; I checked and found nothing; I challenged you for a source and you shut up for a few days; After the question and your silence had sat there for a few days others complained and it was all taken down; For the sixth or seventh time what was your source and why have you kept it secret for four months? I ask because I suspect you made… Read more »
Are you out of your mind? there are a lot of examples.
Maybe you should learn to search…
His claim was posted three days after the attack and was quite explicit about a LBGT group endorsing the initial attack. I checked and there was nothing.
Since then various LBGT groups have called for ceasefires but a, that was subsequent to his claim and b, a different thing.
I checked thoroughly, I think he made it up. That’s why for four months he has refused to give a source or reason for keeping shtum.
Was that the Article that had 70 posts removed ? ….. I didn’t see what was posted but in the morning, 70 comments had been deleted leaving just 30……
There have been several posts like that on here. They tend to be ones where the usual extreme right posters have made various dodgy comments, the debate has become heated, the mods close it down, either on their own initiative or because of complaints.
I do not think it was one of those. The question stood for almost a week with no reply during which he was active on the site. Then someone complained, perhaps a friend covering for him, and the thread was deleted.
Does adoption of smooth bore mean the demise of HESH?
I,m no expert so could someone tell me how a smooth bore barrel is an improvement on a rifled one .
There’s some interesting stuff on YouTube re this
Broadly it comes down to ammunition and supply chain.
Rifled is good for certain things but has limitations in ammunition it can use.
Smooth bore still has excellent accuracy, doesn’t wear as much and can handle 120mm from many, many sources.
It probably makes sense overall to change given the UK production capability for replacement barrels, ammo etc.
I’d rather we just had 500 of them
Barrels last longer.
Greater variety of ammunition and commonality with many allies
Better armour penetration with a longer compatible penetrator.
But
Lower accuracy at long range when using explosive ammunition.
and No HESH in a smooth bore and the British army loved HESH.
It depends what rounds you fire from it..smoothbore is better for Fin stabilised discarding sabot as the round does not need to engage with rifling and therefore has less friction…which equals higher velocity and more accuracy as well as less barrel wear….the problem is that it cannot fire HESH and the British army had a long standing love of HESH ( high explosive squash head)…really because the HESH was a kill anything round…but modern MBT composites armour is very resistant to HESH so the British army moved to fin stabilise discarding sabot for MBTs and HESH for everything else (… Read more »
I found a very detailed analysis online comparing the armour penetration of various tank guns and their accuracy at different ranges. From memory, the L30 was only slightly inferior to the Rheinmetall smoothbore at armour penetration out to 2000 metres. At longer ranges, the rifled gun was more accurate and effective against a wide variety of targets. The main problem of the L30 was the limit on the length of the penetrator that could be used with the separate bagged charge. Using a DU penetrator, the L20 could achieve very similar effects to the longer tungsten carbide rod in the… Read more »
I’ll also add, The Chally 3 needs the Rheinmetall 120mm L55 smoothbore over the Chally 2’s L30A1 rifled gun, to maintain the effectiveness of the main tank killing round, the armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) or Fin for short. The L30A1 uses two part ammunition, i.e. the round and the propellent bag. Three part if you include the vent tube initiator. Herein lies the problem. To penetrate modern composite armour you require the Fin’s dart to overmatch the armour in both length and density, with a lot of kinetic momentum to drive it forwards. The dart is manufactured… Read more »
So ‘we’ could still use HESH with a smooth bore then? I assume it’s just not cost effective to make them if we are the only ones that use em?
What changes will need to be made to how we ‘fight’using tanks without HESH…would we lose any capability?
Hi Griz, sadly HESH development stopped in the early 90’s. It is simply outclassed, due to modern tank gun HE shell’s using programmable fuzing. HESH is predominantly a block of plastic explosive (PE), enclosed in a thin metal or plastic shell. When fired it has to have a low muzzle velocity. Otherwise when it hits the target, it may bounce off. Or the shell fractures too quickly and the PE fractures and splits off. To be effective the PE must firstly stick to the target, but also form a circular “cowpat”. Which means when it detonates the explosive shockwave is… Read more »
It’s good that this is going ahead as we really need a tank with an active protection system…but we are buying 100 to few…simply put we need around 250 MBTs, anything less is just BS. We have to have 3 Type 56 regiments…going to two is bonkers…that’s 168 MBTs add on 10% for maintenance pool ( 16 MBTs ) and 10% for training establishments 10% (16) and then an attritional reserve of 100% replacement or one regiment ( 56 MBTs)…that gives you 256….that’s what we need any programme that does not deliver that is flawed.
seriously flawed…or just flawed 😉
Agreed.
So reading below when Options for Change stated 386 (ish) what happened to generate the difference between 386 and the 256 you mention above…was it merely a reduction of tanks per brigade or were there more brigades back then…or both …or was it something else that changed to cause the resultant numbers reduction….or was it just simply budget?
Hi mate. That requires some explanation and an understanding of the various ORBAT and Brigade changes back then…so. There were 3 Armoured and 3 Mechanized Brigades in the early 2000s. So 6 Armoured Regiments. In 1st,12th,19th Mech and 4th,7th,20th Armoured Brigades. 19 Mechanized Brigade became 19 Light Brigade in defence cuts, so that got rid of its Armoured Regiment. 4 Armoured Brigade in Germany became 4 Mechanized and returned to the UK. It, along with 1st and 12 Mechanized Brigades each had Armoured Squadrons withdrawn and those Squadrons replaced by Scimitars in what at the time were called “Medium Armoured… Read more »
So 3 Armoured brigades went down to 2 (4th Armoured became 4th Mechanized)
1 Mechanized (19th) became Light so lost its armoured regiment.
The other 3 mechanized (1st, 12th & then 4th) Lost Armoured Squadron).
Did Mechanized Brigades 1st , 4th & 12th) keep some CH2’s then?
Depends on the period. Pre 2010 there were 5 heavier Brigades. 1st,4th,12th Mech and in Germany, 7th and 20th Armoured. All had Armoured Regiments. So 5 total. After the ludicrous 2010 cuts the army reduced to 3 heavy Brigades – 1st,12th,20th, all in 3 UK Division and now termed “Armoured Infantry Brigades” All had an Armoured Regiment, so 3 total. This remained the situation until the 2015 A2020 Refine review which decided we needed Strike…the catch was/is, one of our Armoured Brigades would be converted and would not need Tanks. So 12 and 20 Bdes remain, with the 2 Tank… Read more »
Muddling of the terms ‘prototype’ and ‘pre-production’ tanks here.
I thought that too….. is the “Prototype” one of the 148 or separate ?
Can’t be 100% sure, but I guess that any prototypes or pre-production versions will be upgraded to production standard after trials and Acceptance and issued to the army as part of the 148.
Given how effective NLAW and Javelin were reported to be at killing heavily armoured Russian tanks in the early part of the Ukraine conflict, has any thought been given to how CH3 would protect itself from an Iranian, Russian or Chinese copy of such systems? Has this also carried over into Ajaz and Boxer design?
Good point, I suppose the boffins will be tweaking APS systems to cover a higher arc. and well as increasing the armour up top
We need at least 500 new challenger 3
That is 114 tanks more than ‘Options for Change’ said we need for the post Cold War world.
Look, the challenger maybe brilliant but at that number it would need to take out at least 20 other tanks and survive drone attacks in order for us to win. Hell we dont even have the ammo to take out 20 tanks per tank.
Are we talking CR2 or CR3? I guess CR3.
We will have 112 tanks in the two armoured regiments that Future Soldier give us. How do you estimate we need a 20:1 kill ratio? That they will be up against 2,240 enemy tanks? I hope there aren’t quite that many, just for the British armoured division to take on.
I had not heard that there will be a shortage of 120mm smoothbore ammo – why is that?
So that, in a T56 Regiment, would be 7 or 8 Regiments worth, if you include a reserve fleet for training, trials and attrition.
We currently have 3, reducing to 2, and there is a personnel shortage….fantasy land I’m afraid.
Lets just keep the 3 we have, with about 220 Tanks, and spend the money elsewhere.
Sadly there are NO votes in defence, only profits for large corporations and the ability to create local jobs. Ukraine has shown that you can be highly effective with relatively low tech weapons. The big problem is that the UK wants be in the Premier League with a Division 2 budget. The optics of sending 4 patrol boats to the NATO exercise while aircraft carriers are u/s along with a second Trident missile launch failure makes the UK look weak and incompetent. That is totally unfair to those serving . If you are going to speak softy and carry a… Read more »
Having 2 carriers with planes for just one is plain stupid, ridiculous when we had 3 and planes for all 3 and spares. We dont have a division 2 budget, our budget is way below those of any competent nation, yet we are supposedly the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, look at Poland, a fraction our economy buying 1000 tanks, Greece a fraction of that having more tanks refurbished than we possess. Part of our issue is that our companies are run by idiots, our politicians arent as experienced and knowledgeable as those idiots and our civil… Read more »
I get it, 148 does not seem to be a lot, but the design, structure and capabilities are all tied in to NATO stance. We will never go to war alone. We will play our part, whether it’s with tanks, drone squadrons, ships and boats and even those pesky f35 pilots. Our forces does not need to be large any longer. A war in Europe isn’t like a war in Ukraine. Boats on the ground will be minimal. We will need to defend the skys around us. I would spend more in air defence than land offensive these days.
CH3 is clearly a short to mid term fix for tank needs, based on existing stocks as a hold over. Creating a new tank takes a long time and the key issue is numbers. Making a domestic tank in the low 100s, with associated dev costs and mediocre economies of scale makes the project highly cost prohibitive. The Germans recently pulled out of the French program and joined the Italians/etc where there’s less stubbornness. The UK needs to join the Germans or French (French joint programs are hit and miss…). Alternatively we can go looking elsewhere, perhaps with a country… Read more »
Poland ordered 1000 extra tanks, Greece is renovating and upgrading 500, how are we satisfied with such a small number when our economy is so much bigger?
A better solution would be to give all the Challengers to the Ukraine and let them rebuild them. The Ukrainians have really good mechanical skills which sadly we no longer possess. They can refurbish at a fraction of the UK cost.
We then replace the Challenger with Leopard tanks which have – by default – become the NATO standard kit.
Poland shares a land border with Russia. Greece has an ongoing Cold War with Turkey.
Why has Poland not got 2 Carriers, F35s, 7 SSN and 4 SSBNs? Why? What are they playing at? Utter naff!
We have 2 carriers, mostly broken down and enough f35s to stock just 1 of them (leaving the other as an undefended target – and that is assuming the RAF dont need the f35s for something else as they are shared (to give the impression we have more than we do they can be given as the planes for the raf and planes for the navy). The enemies we have – russia for sure, china in the very near future would scoff at that handful of submarines, the chances of survival for the single at sea ssbn to the point… Read more »
Paragraphs exist and don’t require a MoD budget.
I am sure they do.
Really? Could’ve fooled me.
Bit of a silly question but are the tanks shells stored at right angles or parallel to the turrets walls? Wonder if they would look at a slightly bigger turret to accommodate more shells than the 31? Probably way too late in the process now. And even having an anti-UAV gun/laser mount on the top? Just asking.
So generally parrallel, or vertical, but most of the ammo in a Challenger II is in the rear bustle IIRC, so aside from a few ready rounds generally not on the walls at all. The bigger issue is that CR2 uses two piece (technically 3 piece) ammunition, while CR3 uses one piece ammunition, which is what necessitated the redesign of the turret in the first place.
Remember: More ammunition means you can shoot more but it also increases your risk of joining the Orbital Turret Launcher program.