Elbit Systems UK has been selected by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) to provide the Elbit Laser Warning System (ELAWS) as part of the Challenger 3 (CR3) Programme.
Elbit Systems UK will supply 150 ELAWS providing UK MOD personnel with accurate warnings to support effective and timely responses to laser-guided threats.
“The ELAWS is a widely operational and proven system, with products in the family currently being delivered into other Armoured Fighting Vehicle programmes for UK MOD and also for other international customers.
Providing 360° threat coverage, ELAWS is capable of detecting, categorising and accurately pinpointing laser sources such as range finders, Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, target designators and infrared illuminators. It can also seamlessly integrate with a wide array of countermeasures.”
Throughout the CR3 Programme, Elbit Systems UK will work closely with RBSL to fully deliver the requirements of MOD and the Armed Forces, building on the work conducted during the previous Programme Assessment phases.
“This contract represents a significant step, not only in the development of UK defence capabilities and investment in the supply chain, but also in the fostering of UK skills through the transfer of cutting-edge technology.”
Martin Fausset, CEO of Elbit Systems UK said:
“We have a proven track record of supporting advanced capabilities for our Armed Forces, and expertise in providing high technology protection systems for armoured vehicles. We are committed to ensuring that UK Armed Forces personnel are suitably equipped and protected from a constantly evolving range of threats, and we will continue to support all phases of this programme from a number of our sites across the UK.”
On Israeli Merkava tanks, incoming threats are indirecly detected by the Elbit-made E-LAWS laser warning sensors. In case of the Merkava III tanks, these are usually mounted atop a mast on the turret; however there are also some cases where the E-LAWS modules are bolted to the turret sides. These laser warning sensors are also used on other vehicles inlcuding the TAM 2C upgrade for the Argentine Army.
So with the number of old tanks getting a new coat of paint we will order a couple of sets I guess?
Yep, one set to be shared between the two surviving Armoured Regiments, to be decided by a game of rock paper scissors every Monday morning….
Hardly a coat of paint though is it in reality. Cynicism is understandable but there has to be a level of rational thought and evidence behind it or one simply becomes cynical about cynicism and it becomes meaningless even when deserved.
Actually reading the article reveals its 150 sets…
Indeed, it is better to read the article first instead of going to cynicism outright.
Crikey. So THATS what happened to Nigel!!!
The increase in defence spending will very likely see more of the fleet in storage upgraded too. We can hope lessons are being learned.
The article says 150.
Edit. was meant to be a reply to Angus.
Can’t believe we are still only upgrading 150 after seeing the volume of tanks lost in Ukraine.
I know a lot of that is down to their horrendous doctrine, logistics & training but it does show how quickly a large volume of tanks can be lost if out manoeuvred/outmatched.
150 would literally be a silver bullet for use only on the flanks etc.
And of them only 60 or so will have active defence and offer realistic survivability.
Absolute joke. All armoured vehicles in a direct combat role should have protection. The fact they are armoured in the first place tells you they are expected to come under fire.
Of course you are aware of the option to actually buy more sets aren’t you!
First, let’s get to only 150!! Only nought applies to the ‘the Welsh play’.
We are only gettting 148 CR3s.
Why only 150? I thought the government were taking lessons from Ukraine seriously? Why would they want such a pitifully pathetic number of tanks?
Especially compared to the numbers Poland are in the process of ordering.
Poland and Germany need to provide the vast majority of heavy armour in Europe. Deploying heavy armour from the UK is a nightmare. We are better investing our money into deployable capabilities that include ISTAR, long range precision fire and UAVs, all of which is expensive but crucial if we want to reduce the number of soldiers returning home in body bags.
Poland are now the European land power, did you see how many Apaches they’ve just ordered on top of the tanks? Very impressive stuff.
That’s because they (the Poles) share a land border with Russia, Kalingrad enclave and Belarus. Not exactly a chuffing great bunch of neighbours they have got there. It is just a pity HMG doesn’t take national security as seriously as the Poles. I think the British armed forces are so under strength it is just a matter of time until they are defeated in the field by someone like China, Russia or another peer adversary.
RN needs to be precisely twice its current size, ditto RAF and Army.
The problem is down to Tory Regime economics and the dire cost of Brexit ( the Leave Campaign Leadership are guilty of so much with their false promises and lies ) the Tory Defence reviews have been an absolute nightmare for the entire overall Defence of both the UK and our Overseas requirements.
The RN has been reduced to a bare minimum in order to service our various commitments, looking at other Blue Water Navies, it really brings into question whether the decision to build and equip two QE Class Carriers may well have been a mistake and the building several new smaller Ark Royal type Class may have been a far better choice, thus allowing far greater flexibility .
The ridiculous cuts in Army numbers is beyond comprehension..full stop !
The RAF has been cut to the bone and it needs a complete review of F35 numbers as a matter of urgency.
Above all the MOD needs a mass overhaul, as its Oversight of so many projects is an absolute disgrace !!
Why are you only mentioning Tory cuts Keith?
You’ll find most of the cuts to the RN and RAF occurred in the period 97 to 2010 under the Labour government.
Some balance, that all parties since the end of the Cold War have been utterly crap on defence, is valid.
Let us not argue about whom cut what & when, Let us all agree – in a legally binding sense- that the forces have been cut too much in the last 20-25 years due to the so called peace dividend creating the opportunity for politicians to take advantage of the general publics non-plussed nature towards a credible defence!
*Cribbed from The Holy Grail – no copyright fringe intended.
Absolutely spot on. Which is my intention whenever I reply in this manner to posts about “Tory cuts”
No argument from me, I state facts.
Which is why I said –
“Some balance, that all parties since the end of the Cold War have been utterly crap on defence, is valid.”
Any posts about “Labour cuts” should be met the same way.
But comments like Keiths “Tory defence reviews” while conveniently ignoring SDSR 97, New Chapter to SDSR 2004 and all the cuts from then up til 2010, conveniently ignoring or possibly ignorant of Labours valuable contribution to the dismantling of our military, I won’t sit silently by allowing that nonsense to go unchallenged.
I don’t care who has cut what or where. I care our boys & girls are going into harms way without the kit needed.
The UK really is not ready to face the news of defe other casualties akin to day one of the Somme.
It would bring the house of cards tumbling down.
It could be argued being in the e.u is the reason why we cut our armed forces so small everyone knows we were moving towards a euro army and our MPs would be fully onboard if it meant saving some money being out the e.u has made us independent and the cost is negligible
That goes against the ERG and Brexit loving Tory Brigade argument, in that “Global Britain ” would demand ” more ” defence spending, not ” less “. The decision to reduce forces from Germany had already been taken ( an entirely wrong decision Defence wise, but an ” accountant’s ” decision !
Our support for NATO has or was never in doubt, despite Trump’s hesitancy ( and Macron’s ) if anything, it was stronger, Politically.
What’s that 1 for each C3 with 2 spare lol.
Well hopefully it’s a start, didn’t they already mention that boxer and Ajax(if actually gets ordered) would come with some form of active protection? Or did I dream that one up.
Because we are reducing to 2 regular armoured Regiments.
I’d prefer 3 as present, even then, as the army is currently set up we’d not need many more than 200 Tanks.
And it is the army that decided this set up, not the government. General Carter him self decided to convert the 3rd Armoured Regiment ( the KRH ) Into an Armoured Cavalry formation with….Ajax!
Perhaps Sanders will reverse it, he’s open to another tweek of the review apparently regards the ORBAT.
Just a tweek? I look forward to additional CH3 announcements, 1000+ more Boxers, cancellation of Ajax, and the RA actually getting what they need.
Yes, you’re right Rob, quite an understatement on my part.
I myself still try to believe in Ajax. Boxers, we know more are coming, it has been mentioned by the manufacturers, and I believe we will see the variants we require.
The RA? My priority alongside CS CSS elements. The “simple” things 2010 stupidly threw away, like railway capability, only retained by small elements ( AR STRE )
Extra tanks to maintain 3 regs nice, I’d actually choose the lot with Trophy APS and all deployable as opposed to more. Or equipping the RWY with its own complements.
When we had loads of tanks I believe that every one of them was based in the BAOR or in Canada. The aim of the BAOR ones was to hold up the 1,000s of Soviet tanks streaming over the West German border from East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Those 1,000s of tanks are now friendlies and pointed the other way. British Army doctrine isn’t about massed tank battles in Europe anymore. That’s looking like the Europeans game now. We will always be a flanking or reinforcing force in a European war. Why do we need hundreds of tanks sat in the U.K. that we need to move across water to get to Europe. 150 seems a good number to defend the U.K. if anyone tries to invade or move tanks onto our island.
What do I know though. I’m uninformed.
👍🏻
Crazy thing is hundreds of boxers with brimstone would destroy anyone’s armoured division so as you say the army might be right this time with C3.
I’d say 150 MBT probably is the minimum number needed to provide a expeditionary force of reasonable size eg reinforced armoured brigade. However as the 2nd largest defence budget in NATO you would actually hope we could muster more than 150 modernised C3 tanks (currently only 68 fitted with APS)
Id hope for all C2s to be upgraded and all C3s to get Trophy as well as any other armoured vehicle entering combat.
Interestingly our Scimitars and Scorpions gifted to Ukraine are proving very very popular and effective in combat, small enough and nimble enough to evade drones. Easily hidden in built up areas yet heavily enough armed to turn Russian armoured vehicles to pulp. Whilst also driving around really effectively across boggy, wet, muddy ground that wheeled IFVs and APCs are getting stuck in. Something in the light but armed recon role after all. Ajax is a 43 ton disaster. Scrap it, get a refund and move on.
Hi Mr bell an armoured divisions will have 2 regiments of Tanks, with 52 challenger for around 112 tanks. So the 150 will give us plenty to deploy a full armoured division.
very true, infact the whole aim of the BAOR was pretty depressing really, it was one massive sacrifice, an army we knew we would not get back if the Warsaw Pact ever crossed the IGB, I was a massive undertaking in peace time with a sole purpose. The Warsaw Pack no longer exists and a good portion of its fighting strength are now allies. In truth Finland and Poland would chew up and spit out the Russian army without anyone’s help, with the whole of NATO there is no true threat from Russia apart from its nuclear weapons, even its submarine fleet would end up destroyed if it tried NATO ASW.
More that anything we need an army the can deploy one very high quality division, with all the fires and support as that’s all we will realistically be able to deploy and logistically support. We are an island that means we are never ever fighting a full fat armoured land campaign on our own, we just need to provide a meaningful powerful division to our allies and have a couple of brigades ( marine and air deployable) for other support operations, anything else is a waste.
150 top Tier Updated challenge 3s should be plenty for most things, personally I would have converted them all ( as it’s not a lot of money really) and shoved the spare 50 or so in a warehouse, as we cannot build any more and, it’s always possible we could loose some, even in an accident, like a point class foundering in high seas ( bulk carriers sink every year…so losing a point full of tanks is possible).
Yep, on the same page here. The RN, RAF, and Intelligence should be where the UK spends most of its money.
Lets get a decent Division enabled properly, it is doable if only the army would stop spaffing billions on failed vehicle programes.
“We are an island that means we are never ever fighting a full fat armoured land campaign on our own.”
June 1940, to November 1943, Britian took part in Tank battles on it own (for all Intent and purposes). It’s always something that can happen again.
our forces aren’t not there to fight a war of 80 years ago. The North Africa campaign happened because we still at that time had a land based empire. We no longer have a land based empire and so would literally never be fighting a large scale land based armoured campaign on our own. It’s not physically or geopolitically possible that we would be fighting a land based large scale armoured conflict on our own. Unless we somehow again become an imperial power with a need to hold a continental land area. Otherwise all we will ever do is support another nation.
what we do have is two needs:
1)lots of small islands and areas of influence, for these we need Mobile forces such as airmobile and marines.
2)acting as part of a NATO intervention or supporting an allies in a land based campaign. For this a single very high quality division is what is needed.
3) easily deployable units that could proved a token in any Pacific war.
pre 1945 we had a need for ground forces as we have an empire and held the balance of power in Europe and needed that European army of intervention,
between 1946 till the end of the Cold War, we supported a massive army of sacrifice to try and stop a massed Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe…..those to needs have gone.
HUndreds of tanks? It will be 148 CR3. We have used our tanks in combat far more than our ships in the last 30 years. Not all our tanks are in the UK – some are in BATUS still and some in depot in Germany. How do you know we will never fight a tank battle in Europe?
We don’t need tanks to defend the UK.
I said 150. So I was 2 out.
I said “why do we need hundreds?” – as people are suggesting we need.
I know for a fact we won’t fight a tank battle in Europe – the reason – we have hardly any tanks. Self fulfilling prophecy you see.
it is indeed 😃…We could- I suppose- take it a stage (well several) further and say we only want to have forces based in the UK as we only want to defend our Isles…we could cut loads of other stuff then as well …😉
How do you know for a fact that we won’t ever fight a tank battle in Europe?
Anyway, we don’t just have equipment for fighting in Europe – our army is globally deployable. We last deployed armour in quantity around Kuwait (Gulf War 1) and in Iraq (Gulf War 2).
Does not mean I am ranting about tank battles – just saying we have tanks and have actually used them in combat more often than the RAF has used its Typhoons or the Navy has used its ships and submarines.
148 tanks means just 2 armoured regiments with 56 tanks each – that is a very small number.
We are only getting 148 CR3s.
“Dons Mk4 steel lid”…I guess the age of the tank is over. The “mass” required is of a new kind. Drones for want of a better term. Now I accept many here are traditional in view. Like aircraft carriers where you could have more useful SSN’s. And a few other bits. I remind people of 1991 often, the FFL left flank was almost at Bagdad. They were ordered to stop by Norman. Small, fast and effective is the way. The “old ways” of war are literally being unravelled before our eyes, but we seem unable to accept it. I never tire of watching the cheap Ukrainian drones causing mayhem. Whilst the expensive organic airpower is nowhere to be seen. Of course there are more examples and evidence, but folk like to see big boys toys 😉
Don’t say rational logical things you’ll upset the traditionalist, more is always better doesn’t matter whether it makes sense or not UKDJs know better!
Made me smile that thanks.
Not rational to scrap all MBTs because of a new way of delivering an anti-tank munition.
I agree.
I believe tanks are still needed, but not in the numbers we had before. The army is not set up for it, the units don’t exist for it, and the RA and ISTAR are the battle winners in my view.
The evidence just piles up weekly now. No way would I get into a steel death trap. I guess robot wars are not too far into the future.
Would you rather be in a LandRover, truck, APC, IFV on the battlefield? Everything is vulnerable, particularly if it is poorly tactically handled.
Perhaps 150 tanks plus something like loyal wing man concept but for land, manned system directs the unmanned.
Which is exactly what two CGS have now alluded to and which is in the army future force 2035 concept.
Though given the army record I’m aware that is the usual jam tomorrow and mere talk at this stage.
👍🏻
You’re gonna need a bigger lid. If tanks have had their day because a large drone can take them out then several things follow. Why did we not scrap tanks when ATGWs of the late 50s could take them out? Why do we not scrap less well protected vehicles (IFVs, APCs, trucks…) as drones can take them out too.
Why don’t we scrap all naval ships because there exists anti-ship missiles. Lets get rid of subs too as there are ASW assets held by the opposition. Then we should get rid of all RAF aircraft and helos because anti-air weapons exist. You don’t need to be a traditionalist to see the ludicrous logic at play.
The first anti-tank weapon was fielded in 1917 – it is not a new thing that anti-tank weapons exist.
…and why do the Drone fans not see any disadvanatages – drones can be shot down, jammed, have limited loiter time, carry limited numbers of missiles, and are not so cheap when you factor in controllers, their vehicles and equipment and support personnel.
Being a traditional revisionist, I believe an agile, yet stoic riposte is required. I wouldn’t say the tank is dead per se. But the age of large formations most likely are. Formations which are hard to hide or have a telegraphed destination, have been shown to be very vulnerable in this age of data networking and rapid response. As we have said so many times before the “kill chain” is the key. Ukraine have definitely shown the way, which I believe is based on the NATO training they’ve had since 2014. Whereby lots of dispersed heavy hitting forces, with high mobility and good situational awareness, can target larger forces by coordinated strikes, fed information by drone etc.
It has also shown that if your air defence network cannot keep up with the forward edge of the battle. Those troops and vehicles can be easily taken out without air protection. But the conflict in Ukraine has also shown, that if your air defence radars haven’t kept pace with technology, they can be easily targeted by anti-radiation missiles. If you are not using a low probability of intercept AESA radar, you cannot provide constant support to your manoeuvring ground elements.
A lot of people are saying unmanned drones are the answer. But Russia has also shown, that when they actually get the air defence network properly integrated. Drones just like manned aircraft become very vulnerable. Unless you have modern anti-radiation missiles. Where it then becomes a game of cat and mouse.
But is the main battle tank requirement dead? No far from it. The doctrine to how it’s used and employed evolves to meet the threat. I have banged on about active protection systems (APS) in the past. But have also stated the shortcomings of the Russian APS. To date there is only one system that has proven both reliable and effective. That is the Rafael Trophy. First properly fielded in 2011 on the Merkava MBT. It came about due to significant tank losses and casualties Israel had against the Russian (supplied) and Syrian backed Hezbollah. Who fielded the newest ATGMs, but it was the humble RPG that had the most impact. This was due to the fighting in 2008 through Lebanese urban centres leading up to Beirut, where Hezbollah fighters were firing down on to the tanks from above.
Trophy was initially designed to protect the tank when fighting in urban centres, i.e., protect it for top attacks. It does this very successfully by marrying a X-band AESA radar with a passive infrared missile approach warning system (MAWS). Which when it decides an incoming threat is valid, directs one of two, two-axis turrets, that fires a fragmentary charge in the threat’s direction. The fragments are made up of tungsten cubes, which has sufficient kinetic energy to take out the threat’s fuzing, guidance sensor and can in some instances detonate the warhead prior to it getting in range of the vehicle.
Since the system was fielded in 2011, Israel have yet to lose a Merkava MBT when deployed as a static guard or during operations. It has successfully defended the vehicle against multiple coordinated attacks. It has also defeated the RPG-30, which fires a percussor missile to spoof APS.
Originally it only has a single reload per turret. Which meant a crewman had to get out and reload it. A couple of years ago Rafael teamed up with Leonardo. Leonardo redesigned the turret to have multiple reloads. Clearly, they won’t divulge how many reloads the turret now has for obvious reasons.
Why am I harping on about Trophy? Well, I have a friend who is in the Israeli Army and has been a tanker for at least the last 20 years. He has categorically stated, he would not be here without Trophy saving his skin during an incursion into Gaza. In fact, they now actively hunt anti-tank teams due to the rapid acquisition of the shooter’s position.
Will systems like Trophy make MBTs invulnerable, no! They can’t defeat mines or an APFSDS round (yet!). But they have operationally shown they can defeat ATGMs, be they direct or top attack. They can be used to sometimes defeat HEAT shells, but this requires more development. They have even shown they can defeat guided mortar and HE shells. But they only have a finite amount of reloads, before a tanker gets out to replenish the APS turret or they actually run out. So, in theory, yes you can swamp the defences of the APS. But in doing so you are going to expend a shed load of weapons to wear down the APS’s magazine. Plus, every time you fire at the tank. The radar and MAWS will pinpoint your firing point. To make matters worse, the system is now networked with other Trophy systems. So, if a lead tank detects a firer, the information is passed to the rest of the group.
My friend understandably has lots of faith in Trophy. But doesn’t understand why other countries haven’t adopted it sooner. As he says they have now remodelled their tactics to fully encompass what Trophy brings to the table. In terms of both defensive and offensive operations. By significantly expanding the commander’s and group’s situational awareness.
So, is the MBT a relic of a bygone age? No far from it, today’s military and the UK’s in particular have not experienced the benefits APS such as Trophy will deliver. As ever there is dogma to get past, the Army don’t embrace change all that well. Plus, at nearly £1M Trophy isn’t cheap. But I believe the Ukraine conflict will make sure a few Challys get it!
Excuse my ignorance but this is a completely different system to the Trophy system, right? Has any decision been taken on buying Trophy or similar for C3 (and other armoured vehicles)?
We are buying Trophy for Ch3, but only 60 sets at the moment. Trophy works with the ELAWS system, the former being the APS and the latter more target acquisition.
We need to buy more Trophy systems IMO, hundreds more to ensure deployed armoured vehicles have it.
Yes, ideally, I’d like to see the full defensive suite on all 148 C3s, on some/most Boxer (and Ajax if we finally get it to an acceptable state) but I guess, it’s another budgetary argument; a case of cutting our cloth accordingly, as some would say. It just riles me when it’s the lives of our son’s and daughters that are put at risk to save a few bob here or there.
Hi, AJAX is already fitted with this LWS.
Cheers
Thanks Ian, I didn’t know that. Again, my ignorance but I’m guessing the C3s and Ajax will be at the very tip of the sharp end of any assault so would be better to ensure these are kitted up to the eyeballs first, before Boxer, if we ever had to prioritise defensive systems this way, would you say?
More protection, the better!
Infantry Boxers go into the assault.
Not all 148 CR3s will be in the Field Force of course, just 112.
Totally agree that DAS should be fitted to all battle-winning equipments.
Trophy have a radar for missile/rpg detection.
ELAWS is to warn the tank if it is being “painted” by a laser. In Merkava if the fire control is setup by the tank commander that way it means the turret can automatically rotate to the direction of the laser source.
It can also launch fast smoke with anti IR/Laser properties.
Certainly there is a library of lasers types in the system with prioritizing by danger and other options, like an ESM does the same for radars.
For the future it will might also need a millimeter wave radar detector.
This capability is required for evey single armoured wagon, as Ukraine has reminded people that an armoured vehcicle is always an expensive target, no matter its role, and will require both passive and active defensive systems.
Whilst this is a welcome addition many of theta k destroyed I ukraine appear to be from drone dropped Weapon or very accurate artillery fire.
It is the Russian laser guided Krasnopol 152mm guided artillery shell that seems to be doing a lot of the damage and must be one of the prime objectives for this system. There doesn’t seem to be much point nless a Trophy or similar system is also fitted.
Ukraine has blown up far more Russian kit using drones and drone corrected arty and now suicide drones. I don’t think they have access to krasnopol round, an effective counter to drones is definitely required beyond what is already available
You can launch smoke/including IR and laser denial smoke after a laser detector warns of a threat.
But better be on the move already…
My concern about that Alex is consumption of submunitions like chaff, flares, IR and laser dazzling systems- they are going to be chomped through in a contest environment at a phenomenal rate.
Also reloads for these currently is external (correct me if I’m wrong) so once defensive submunitions used their dispensers are reloaded by a tank/IFV crew exiting the vehicle- that is something they cant do whilst in combat.
Hence why that Panther 2 design by Rheinmetall looked decent in that it had a submunitions VLS system that could be reloaded internally.
Mr.Bell, no doubt the number of ammunition will be staggering.
That was one of the WW1 lessons.
Note that Ukranians are literally blowing up NATO donated artillery tubes due to excessive use.
Plus fire a load of rounds towards the threat, I would imagine.
Yes, or just illuminate the target to make it spend its smoke, flares ammunition.
And that’s just for the women and young girls to let them know when the dirty Russian rapists, who JohninMK loves, appear on the horizon.
Chortle- that systems works rubbishly. The facts are Ukrainian military are independently accredited to have suffered around 300-400 MBT killed mostly T80 series tanks in action vs 1200+ Russian. Most of the Russian stuff was destroyed by UAVs, or top attack weapons NLAW or Javelin.
So you tell me what is more effective the Ruskie Krasnopol or a good old cheapo NLAW? Give me a NLAW and a concealed infantryman any day of the week against the crap Russian tanks that like to cook themselves with their piss poor handling and rubbish design. Why in gods name did Russia not adapt their shitty autoloaders after the gulf war proved they are death traps? Answer on a postcard from the Kremlin please JohninMK ski.
He won’t answer the subject matter but come up with some random bullshit, while playing it cool as to not offend Putin or the special military operation! He isn’t allowed to criticise anything done in Putins name, he is just a sad troll who had to take a online break until the Ukrainians had slowed down on their offensive! He couldn’t chops off until the situation on the ground had stabilised!
The autoloader issue probably couldn’t be solved without a total redesign which was pretty much unaffordable. Most Russian tanks are upgrades of up to forty year old designs. Note the low number of T14 in service
Oh dear a weak effort at turning around the initial post! It’s feck all to do with the 152mm guided arty shell as 95% of all Nazi ammo fired is dumb ammunition, fired by 100% dumb crews. Anyway how’s your war in Ukraine going? Not good if your nonce Nazi leader Putin is bringing in conscription and bribing more convicted rapists to become, er, uniformed rapists! So, any comments on the recent Russian recruitment efforts troll boy, and any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet?
A great bit of kit. Money should be found for a lot more of them.
I don’t care about comments saying we cannot afford 1000 Tanks, not in our TO&E, mission taskings, size of force etc. I care about hearing of a British/Commonwealth/NATO forces losing an engagement heavily, because we don’t have armour to take/hold ground. Yes, I understand Poland has a large land border and rather different priorities. Yet, look at what they have on order?
We are putting another coat of paint over the two other coats the politicians/MOD forked out for.
As far as many bits of kit or quantity, we are fast becoming a 3rd rate power.
Someone hasn’t been paying attention to their military history!
Good news!