According to the Ministry of Defence, the Challenger 3 battle tank programme has achieved a noteworthy feat by being ahead of schedule and within budget.
The successful completion of the Critical Design Review (CDR) stage by the Challenger 3 delivery teams, in collaboration with MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) team, has been accomplished faster than anticipated.
This achievement signifies that the tank design has been approved and that Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL), the company awarded the £800m contract in 2021, can commence production of the Challenger 3 prototypes.
“Another significant milestone has been achieved by the Challenger 3 Delivery Team within budget and ahead of schedule – we are moving closer to delivering one of the most capable and lethal tanks in Europe.
Challenger 3 teams from DE&S’ Land Equipment Operating Centre and the British Army, together with our industry partners Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) have been working to progress the CR3 programme at pace, and we can now announce that we have approved the Critical Design Review (CDR) ahead of schedule. This follows the Initial Design Review (IDR) held in March 2022 and is the culmination of an enormous amount of collaborative work. This CDR means that the design for the tanks has been agreed and that RBSL can now start building the CR3 prototypes.
The work was carried out under an £800M contract which was awarded to RBSL in 2021 to deliver 148 upgraded, fully digitalised battle tanks to the British Army. Supply-chain sub-contracts have now been awarded to UK supply chain companies, contributing to the government’s levelling up agenda. Following two key design reviews, work to modernise and expand RBSL’s production facility in Telford – which will also manufacture Boxer vehicles – is now almost complete.”
In a news release, they add that the fully digitalised tanks will benefit from the following:
- a new 120mm smoothbore gun which uses the most advanced globally available ammunition
- a new suite of sights providing tank commanders with enhanced day and night targeting abilities
- a new armour solution
- an active protection system
- a turret that can be fitted to the tanks of allies and global partners
- Significantly improved mobility through an upgraded engine and new hydrogas suspension
I notice the same Thales sights as on AJAX, commonality of operation and spares support, besides which it’s the best available to the MOD.
I gather they are still arguing over the digitaly programmable 120mm smoothbore ammunition. The Army wants one solution, DE&S insists on another and RBSL proposed a third.
Once you realise that the MoD has stuck its oar in you can guarantee a cock-up is in the offing. The issue should be resolved ASAP before it starts to delay the project
I thought it was going to use the nato standard ammunition. Basically the whole point of getting the smooth bore gun was the availability of ammo with allies.
If they are going for bespoke ammo they would be aswell fitting the 130mm gun with auto loader.
I don’t know much about the ammo so could be picking this up wrong.
The new Ch3 turret willl be fitted with an L55A1 120 mm/L55 smoothbore main gun. This is a modernized version of the German Rheinmetall Rh-120 tank gun, which is used on the German Leopard 2A6, 2A7 and Turkish Altay. It is claimed to be more lethal than the L30E4 120 mm rifled gun of the Ch2. Interestingly, Britain was the only user of rifled tank ammunition among NATO countries. The new smoothbore gun willl use the most advanced globally available ammunition. Furthermore, the ammunition can be digitallly pre-programmed to achieve more devastating effects on the targets, but there are apparently… Read more »
Wasn’t the whole point of using the rifled cannon just so the brits could still use HESH rounds effectively, by spinning the shell as it travels down the barrel to be more accurate? if so can the smooth bore cannon still be effective at firing HESH
As I understand it, there are basically two different produced programmable rounds, one American, the other is German. Believe one of the issues is that the German manufactured round hasn’t been fully tested whereas the American one is already proven. Believe that a choice between the two needs to be made as it will affect the targeting computer software.
Wouldn’t know what the price difference between the two are either?
The US round seems to be the sensible choice here – assuming cost is similar.
Already tested, should be produced in decent quantities for economies of scale, and likely little issue exporting them if we ever need to.
Horses for courses I imagine, obviously as a German company is producing the turret, they will want to provide their preferred ammo solution.
Not sure why the army and DE&S are having a p**sing contest over the selection!! Still, as long as we get it done it shouldn’t really matter, cost not withstanding.
Israel do to, like APAM.
Is there an element within the MoD set on thwarting our development of world leading equipment? There seems to be a long history of incompetence and deviance within the department.
Sounds like an out break of common sense.
Long may it continue.
I notice on all the literary for the C3 it’s not mentioned that they aren’t equipping each tank with Trophy APS. That would be too much like telling the truth.
Madness and maddening.
In order to achieve ISD the public will probably see a hand full of fully kitted vehicles that will not be reflected in the main fleet. That said, the landscape has changed due to the war in Ukraine and I believe the army will get a greater proportion of tanks with Trophy APs. The Army’s needs are now under increased observation by both the Defence Select Committee and the media at large. CH3 will be a brilliant weapon and apart from the small numbers will serve the Army well for many years.
Can a tank with Trophy APS cover a nearby tank? Might the proportion of tanks needing APS have been wargamed?
Who would fancy being in the tank that’s not got Trophy on it? Col. of the R. Hussars “sorry chaps, you boys will be in the tanks that can be killed with ATGM’s. The Defence Secretary would like to thank you all for your service and to tell you that you are all valued members of the Regiment. Although it appears that some are more valued more than others”.
Just 60. But I expect that will change. We are many years behind Israel in fitting APS.
Quite right there really is no reason more kits can be bought if wanted! They are hardly going to produce 60 bespoke turrets just to take APS and not wire up the rest! The bespoke tanks wouldn’t be available all the time so all of them will have to be done.
All 148 turrets will be fitted for Trophy, I am sure.
That is true but in all honesty Israeli tanks operate in a constant threat environment.
Like a war zone then BigH?🤣😅🤣 This is my point all environments a tank is going into armed and loaded are “contested” environments
It is almost tragically comic, what is the point of deploying a tank if isn’t in a contested environment?
60 or so with Trophy if I remember right. I hope the others are at least …drumroll…“fitted for but now with” so they can add more kits easily. But yes madness. And only 148 and by god knows when. I hope we start chally 4 work now with the next iteration of what is being offered by Rheinemetal.
I would like to think that that is the case, as fitting Trophy APS will require cooling pipe work and extra wiring runs. Not really something that should be done after the whole turret is manufactured. Hopefully like you say, ‘fitted for but not just now with!’
I read recently CR3 will start to come into service around 2027.
Such a sensible spend and so stupid not to do it or, at least purchase more kits fof fitting when needed. This will set you off too…i read somewhere by Tobias Ellwood that the Army only have 60 Starstreak left in their inventory. if true, that’s seriously poor stock control there! Someone needs to pull there finger out. Considering there’s no UK GBAD and Sky Sabre has gone a bit limp there should be a few 100 of Starstreak on hand as safety stock!
I would doubt it’s 60. It’s probably 60 systems on vehicles or 60 triple mounts.
Also LMM missile being used as well as starstreak.
Yes, there are 4 batteries ( 1 forming ) with Stormer and another ( plus reserve batteries and RM, with LMM )
Used to be 148 I recall in 2 Regiments on HVM Stormer, plus 3 TA with LMM.
All culled and reduced to 1 Reg with both types.
No idea on the number of missiles.
Mr Ellwood mentioned “60”, but sure hope it’s more like 60 x more Could be the media being mischievous too … no?!
Yes, I forgot about the LMM. Hope they’re looking at an ER Starstreak. Thought it was a shame that it was never incorporated into the RAM mount or a British equivalent like on SeaStreak.
If only 60 is the maximum number to deployed at once then that’s all that is needed really.
This 60 refers to the number of challenger 3 tanks that will be maximum amount deployed.
Where the post further up is on about 60 starstreak missiles.
60 is a popular number today
Yeah 60 is the new 30!
We deployed about 220 tanks on GW1 and 120 tanks on GW2. Surely we should be prepared to deploy both armoured regiments at the same time?
Every armored front line fighting vehicle should have APS. Not just a lucky handful of C3’s. Screw the cost, with so few of everything we cannot afford losses that are potentially avoidable. That applies to the human crew’s as much as the hardware.
Precisely US Army, Dutch Army and obviously Israel are putting Ironfist in their IFV/ITV
Hopefully they are waiting for the EO Trophy that will be able to work without a radar that advertises to the world where the tank is located.
Trophy already as a passive missile approach warning and tracking system (MAWS). This was an upgrade done around 5 to 7 years ago. The system is very similar to a MAWS fitted to an aircraft. Previous to the update, it did have to have the radar pinging away constantly. Where now it uses IR sensors, to passively monitor around the tank for a heat flash from a rocket motor ignition. If the tracking system works out that the missile/RPG is heading towards the tank, it will activate the radar. The radar has to be used, as it provides significantly better… Read more »
If the radar is used, it isn’t passive. Unlike the future EO based system under development.
Agreed, but by the time you need the radar it doesn’t matter. As you’ve just been targeted and fired at. The time difference between being in standby to transmitting is minuscule. As the radar is a solid state X-band AESA. There is very little information on the radar except for certain specifics. But depending on cost, it could be a low probability of intercept (LPI) radar. Which would make detection by an enemy difficult. The additional benefit of the radar is that it can be used in any weathers, including dust storms. Whereas a EO sensor won’t work. The radar… Read more »
Radar tells the world where you’re at.
Not necessarily so. It depends on the radar and a number of factors, such as peak output power, operating frequency, bandwidth and waveform. The physics is fairly complex, but in essence a continuous wave (CW) is harder to detect than a pulsed radar. Radar detection equipment comes in a number of forms. On aircraft in it’s basic form it’s a radar warning receiver (RWR). These in the main look at frequencies between 2 and 18GHz. Which is where the main search and tracking radars operate. They work by searching for repeating patterns. The earliest way to try to fool RWR… Read more »
Thank you for that interesting reply
Merkavas already have the EO option.
That’s a lot of money to spend on a tank with a ten year service life. For £800 million we could have had 60 brand new top of the line Leopard 2s. Let’s not kid ourselves, the other 88 tanks will never be fully upgraded. In the 2030s, would you honestly put British troops in a tank without Trophy APS? I wouldn’t.
10 year service life? Where do you get that from? We usually keep our tanks for 20-30 years, but should upgrade them every so often to keep them relevant.
Would you rather have 60 Leopards or 148 CR3s? Clue – 60 tanks isn’t enough.
60 Trophy APS has been bought for the CR3 fleet – I have little doubt that every one will be equipped, when BW gets his extra dosh.
It’s in the first paragraph of HMG’s statement and on the MoD’s Army website: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/challenger-3-tanks-reach-next-milestone and https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2021/05/challenger-3-upgrade/
The statement from HMG: “The Challenger 3 tanks are being upgraded by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) under an £800 million contract, which will deliver 148 Challenger 3 tanks and equip the British Army with this modern capability until 2040.” And: “Full Operating Capability for the tank is planned for 2030, with initial operating capability expected by 2027.”
Thanks. Somehow I missed that. Seems incredible that a 9 year and hyper-expensive modernisation programme will produce tanks that will be out of service just 10 years from FOC.
I can’t get my head around that!
My guess is that sometime in the mid 2030s the UK will have to decide on a replacement for the C3 and will have to choose between the next-gen K3 (South Korea / Poland), the ‘EuroTank’ (France / Germany) and the US Abrams replacement. But we need something in the meantime, so the C3 is there to incorporate the best of the Leopard, while also giving a portion of the work to UK industry.
If the tank after CR3 requires a lengthy development programme and that it remains the case that CR3 is due to go out of service in 2040, then we need to start work in 2030 as it takes 10 years to design, prototype, fix, accept, manufacture a tank ‘from scratch’. If the lunatics who run the asylum think we need only 148 of that next Gen tank, or heaven forbid, even less, this is not an economic proposition unless we absolutely know that export orders will be huge! If we buy a MOTS tank, which based on the above, seems… Read more »
Absolutely. I believe we already have ‘observer status’ on the ‘EuroTank’ project.
Yes, we do. Main Ground Combat System (MGCS). Other nations are onboard including Spain and Belgium. Italy was in but may withdraw as progress is slow.
Not with the Leopard 2 again, the Leo fan boys appear to think it is the only tank… how about the K2… its better…
I’m not a Leopard fan boy, or depending on German know how, but we are already with the C3 upgrade.
Yes we could buy the l2 and then beg Germany if we ever want to deploy them
That was before the Ukraine war. I think there would have been a new evaluation on the importance of APS. I would not be surprised to see a provision to buy more if required. Also not all the tanks will be deployed at once some will be in maintenance etc so will not need their APS. I am sue you will find that if the UK goes to war with Russia/China an APS will be fitted as a TES add on.
It would be unusual to deploy just one armoured regiment on an operational deployment (warfighting) – we need to have both armoured regiments equipped with APS and the Attrition Reserve tanks, plus a few Trg Org tanks.
Are they being fitted with the remote weapons mount ?
I asked same too, looks like it’s being missed. Another upgrade opportunity not taken up.
Could it be the case that the current remote weapons station could be fitted to the new turret though? As it sits on an additional mounting forward of the loaders hatch.
I saw a video of tank commander showing his challenger 2 and it had a remote weapon station fitted. He was saying it gives them an extra sensor to use.
I don’t know if it’s fleet wide but all the tanks in the video were fitted with it.
https://youtu.be/CiwbQ5Yj1nw
Not unmanned which is what Paul wants.
It’s a remote weapon station being operated with the hatches down. That’s what’s fitted just now.
Only thing more unmanned than that would be the computer firing it with no human input when it chooses.
Didn’t see that in the video. Must be my eyes.
Ahh in the video I think he was saying this is where the remote weapons station goes at 4mins in. It wasn’t fitted as it’s training.
He says it has another sensor on it and they were fitted during Iraq.
The challenger 2 has had lots of little upgrades during its service.
Not what your original comment said but whatever.
Getting through the CDR and ahead of time is reassuring, as is news that we are within budget, but should not be a surprise. The budget was set very high at an amortised £5.4Bn per tank and the programme duration of 9 years to upgrade148 tanks was very relaxed (slow).
No expert here on UKDJ, but I think this will be an opportunity missed, especially when you consider that they are already developing their next-generation Main Battle Tank in partnership it seems with Kongsberg defence which should be completed in the early-2030s. If we were guaranteed the workshare (Building them here in the UK) and a full partner in the next-gen of MBT AFVs I think we might just be on a better footing going forward. Poland as an example has already received the latest versions of the Black Panther and K9 thunder, Redback also looks promising along with the… Read more »
Pissing on the UK military again Nigel? Challenger 3 is way more capable than this Korean tank.
Explain yourself Ron 5, in what way is it more capable exactly???
That being said, I do happen to know someone I’d rather piss on, but that really would be a waste!
Any news on when Ajax will enter service?
Ajax is embarked on a Reliability Growth Trial which will take a long time. If faults emerge they will have to be fixed, so no-one is going to commit to an ISD right now.
As of today via Sky News. NATO has ‘largely used up available stocks’ Restocking is “important” for Ukraine’s fight against Russia, former NATO deputy assistance secretary general Jamie Shea has said. Speaking to Sky News, Mr Shea said NATO had “largely used up the available stocks” and this meant it “had to persuade its defence industries to go back to opening up the production lines” and to produce the stock at scale and quickly. Asked if it would be possible to do this, Mr Shea added: “It’s not going to be easy, but there is a push going on.” He said… Read more »
It’s a concern. Within the first month or 2 we were all aware Ukraine wasn’t going to fall and getting them kit was what was needed.
The restocking should of been going full speed then. The cost of losing Ukraine and sending the wrong message out to the world will cost much more than giving them supplies.
The U.K. along probably needs a £50b fund to get projects speeded up and start new programs, ammo resupply etc.
Then review and see if it needs a top up next year.
Spot on, we need to start thinking we’re on a war footing and start funding defence properly.
NATO seems to be in a mess at the moment with low levels of weapons available, time to ramp up production!
Been saying it for months. Wish I had been listened to.
👍
Totally! Restocking starts before you go into battle!
The tank pictured above is the BAe Pl-01 concept tank, which is based on the CV90-120.
See attached picture for K2 Black Panther
“The layout of the Hyundai Rotem Next Generation Main Battle Tank is conventional for a modern MBT with the driver position at the front in the middle of the hull and a turret located at the rear of the hull.”
Must have inserted the wrong image from my files! Next Generation of Main Battle Tank’ with 130mm main gun.
How that is conventional? Only Merkava have that config.
It’s a concept for the next-generation K2 Black Panther, K3.
Must be better than Cr3, just look at the model of a concept that might or might not be made in a couple of decades time.
Jeesh.
The current version already is and available. The first ten arrived in Poland within three months of placing the order. When will Challenger 3 enter service? IOC 2027 currently. Has it been fully tested yet? Is there a working model yet? Challenger 3 tank upgrades include: “High velocity ammunition with faster speeds and increased range Digitally programmed ammunition in a 120-millimetre smoothbore gun A versatile turret that can be fitted to the tanks of allies and global partners A new engine cooling system and suspension to increase accuracy for firing in transit A new automatic target detection and tracking system… Read more »
Don’t forget the armour upgrade from Dorchester to Epsom standard!
K2 Black Panther. “This tank uses both modular composite armour of undisclosed type and Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) blocks. It is claimed that front armour withstands direct hits from 120 mm tank rounds, fired from L55 guns. The Black Panther tank is also completed with an active protection system and countermeasures system. It’s lighter and faster which might just make a difference and can engage aircraft if required.” The autoloader ensures the loading of projectiles on the move even when the vehicle moves on uneven surfaces. The 120mm gun can fire about 10 rounds per minute. The secondary armament of the tank… Read more »
Must be better then (eyes roll)
Truth is Nigel pisses on all the latest UK kit. Aircraft, tanks, ships. Have to wonder what is his motivation.
What ships Ron 5? F-35B will not be of much use until 2029 and counting. Tanks, there are other options available right now, not 2027 and counting. Clearly, you would be more than happy to spunk as much money up the wall without considering what else is available including workshare and in a reasonable timeframe given the current war in Europe. Do you work for the MOD Ron 5? If not, you should apply, they seem to employ idiots. As I said before I know someone on here who would deserve my piss, but that really would be a waste,… Read more »
Why is F-35B not much use in the next 6 years?
In short Graham, Block 4 for Meteor/Next Gen weapons, plus Engine upgrades and availability it seems going on US stats.
LINK
LINK
Of course F-35B just gets better with each upgrade, but does it mean that current in-service examples are ‘not very good’?
I think the term used is “limited capability” In other news today. 17 FEBRUARY 2023 General Dynamics expects Ajax payments to resume soon “General Dynamics believes it has resolved noise and vibration problems with its Ajax armoured fighting vehicle and that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will resume making payments for the programme by the end of March, according to officials at the US-based defence contractor. “We anticipate, given the maturity of the vehicle and where it is in its test programme, that payments will begin to flow again,” General Dynamics chairman and CEO Phebe Novakovic told the Cowen… Read more »
And currently available. I’m thinking of workshare on their MBT, IFV, LRMRS, K9A2 howitzer, and the K-MLRS
LINK
S Korea’s Hanwha pitches K9 howitzer for British mobile fires program
LINK
Thanks Nigel, hopefully our in-service F-35Bs are at least a lot more capable than the Harriers they replaced.
Thanks for the info on Ajax. It would be interesting to hear from ITDU how happy they are with the revised vehicle; it is now on its Reliability Growth Trial but we are unsure how long that will take – I think the CR2 one took 2 years!
As an aside it is interesting to see how little profit GDUK makes – such a tiny company.
As for the F-35B, you would like to think so! “The F-35 first flew in 2006″ “Reliability Growth Trial but we are unsure how long that will take – I think the CR2 one took 2 years!” In which case we might just have some ammunition available for them! General Jens Stoltenberg recently took a trip to South Korea to see if they could supply some which if supplied to us would give us the opportunity to test them in battle “The Nato secretary-general has called on South Korea to supply military assistance to Ukraine, stressing Kyiv’s “urgent need” for more… Read more »
Staggering that waiting time, seemingly across the hole of the western world. I understand UK no longer makes large calibre ammunition, just SAA at BAE (was ROF) Radway Green. If so, that is a spectacular ‘fail’.
If MoD ammo stocks of all calibres is modest, it is doubly worrying that Industry cannot deliver quickly.
South Korea is on a permanent war footing, so I’m guessing like the equipment I have mentioned previously, can deliver ammunition at a faster pace than the west, or at least has sufficient stockpiles.
The cold war ended, the wall came down, and with it investment across the board in defence.
It’s never going to happen til it happens!
Funny how quick they fixed it when the Government stopped the payments, suppose denial is always cheaper ?
LOL 👍
How soon you forget – type 26
WTF are you on about now Ron 5? Or more importantly, what are you on 😂 Any updates on the F-35 replacing the F-16 fleet yet 😂Any chance of you and your mate +100 starting to get the bigger yet? I’ve highlighted it for you! The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth-generation aircraft that would replace the F-16. Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet. Nearly twenty years ago, the USAF set… Read more »
Shhhh! Are people supposed to know that!!
When will CR3 enter service?- you answered the question by stating the IOC. FOC is 2030. BW wants to accelerate those dates – but no details yet. A tank with IOC in 2027 would not be fully tested in early 2023. The project has been going barely 20 months from Contract award (May 2021). I am sure they are still surveying the first few batches of donor CR2’s and putting them in order, will have ordered all the bought-in components and assemblies (or at least the long-lead items) and sorted out the ‘factory’ facilities. They may have started building a… Read more »
Uprated turbos , new IMH . The cooling system has uprated higher speed fans so not really a complete new cooling system!
plus new Rad’s
How much combat experience does S.Korea build into its tanks?
The spec looks good I have to admit.
Like Challenger 3 and Ajax, we will find out when it goes into action.
It’s the training and the crew that makes a real difference to any weapon system in my opinion.
Every peer combat have huge losses by each side.
If the tank is hit then it is the engineering that matters not the crew.
Hi Graham,
I hope you meant £5.4 million..! At 5.4 billion each I’d hope they came fitted with a teleport system… press a button zapp to Red Square game over 🙂
Cheers CR
Sorry silly moment 🙂
Yep, senior moment with the keyboard. There are just a mere £5.4m each!
5.4bn a tank? They must have taken gold plated to a new level and insisted on solid gold armour.
AT present it is estimated that there has only be 76 cu metres of pure gold ever produced! Given the MOD ability to loose things how many turrets does this equate to?
Haha! They are a mere £5.4m each. Quite a bargain!
Might grab a couple myself at that price.
5.4Bn per tank, is that the new strategic platform version with in built Tank launched ICBMs ?
I wish! Typo, of course. The CR3 conversion is a mere £5.4m per tank.
😂 and 5.3m is a real bargain for what the army will be getting. I do wish they would just convert the whole fleet ( is it 220 now?) after all it would only be about 300m extra capital expenditure over a few years which to be honest is chicken feed to HMG.. having an extra brigades worth of tanks would help the fleet management no end as well as ensure a solid attritional reserve,,,and you never know when we may suddenly decide we actually need 3 deployable brigades of heavy armour ( if they are active for 20 years… Read more »
The army has 227 tanks in-service and this is a reduction from the 386 purchased (ISD was 1998), thanks to the 2010 (Tory) Defence Review, aka Defence cuts. 227 tanks enable three Type 56 armoured regiments to be equipped plus tanks for the Trg Org, Repair Pool (RP) and Attrition Reserve. Army manpower is being cut yet again (by 10,000 this time) and the Future Soldier structure is shaped around this tiny 73,000 strong regular army. This has just two armoured regiments so the tank fleet will reduce yet again to 148 CR3 tanks (ie two Type 56) regiments plus… Read more »
With two type 56 regiments only have having 36 tanks for the training org, fleet management ( repair pool) and attrition reserve seem bonkers to me. I thought the having 59 for attritional reserve, training and maintained was quite frankly one catastrophe event ( the risk management meaning ) from causing issues. Essentially now with 36 spares from the two regiments if we lost even a handful of tanks we loss the ability to manage the the fleet and as I have said before, stuff happens, buildings burn down and large ships founder…we can loss tanks for any number of… Read more »
With the 227 CR2 tanks we have now, that is 59 with Trg Org, RP and Attrition Reserve, as you say. So in the CR3 era we go down to 36 for those three very different tasks outside Unit Establishments (UE).
I regret that I do not have a breakdown of tanks per each of those three tasks. Clearly the Trg Org tanks are not in storage – they are being actively and constantly used to train RAC and REME soldiers.
36 is a dismal number. HMG is indeed very stupid.
Like others I was a little concerned about the wording underneath the above graphic regards the purchase and fitting of a APS system. However, on checking I find that it is from a British army tweet from May 2021: The MOD Defence Equipment & Support website clears the matter up: Challenger 3 Critical Design Review (CDR) approved Published 09 February 2023 Another significant milestone has been achieved by the Challenger 3 Delivery Team within budget and ahead of schedule – we are moving closer to delivering one of the most capable and lethal tanks in Europe. … Read more »
60 APS systems are being bought for 148 tanks. You do the math.
To be fair ‘Grinch’ I wasnt debating the number, rather i addressed the fact that the graphic used stated “subject to contract” on checking I found the graphic was 2 years old and that (as you pointed out) The MOD has selected Trophy and I fully agree with you that all our tanks should be fitted with it. Funny enough, the Germans ordered the same system for their leopards at the same time as the Brits, but they only ordered 18 (17 for fitting onto MBTs and one for testing purposes) In contrast the US which also ordered the Trophy,… Read more »
Also Ironfist for the Bradleys.
We ordered T26 in batches and got a cheaper, better deal on the second batch. Could be the same here.
Most amusing.
At £800 million for 148 kind of makes you think they should just do all the challengers up even if not in use. If Ukraine has showed us anything it’s that tanks are really hard to make. Crews may well survive a knock out of a tank and crews can be trained pretty quickly but making new tanks in anything less than 4 or 5 years is impossible.
Totally agree, upgrade all the hulls we have ( including those in storage), fit all of them with APS, and once that is done have a plan for a future MBT.
So, are Challenger 3s actually new hulls or just upgraded Challenger 2 hulls?
Upgraded CH 2
Thanks. Pity the UK has opted out of building its own tanks. I see no reason – outside of governmental decisions on priorities – why the UK can’t design and build competitive tanks anymore. We did it with CH1 and CH2, we’re still building ships, submarines and fighter planes, but seem to have thrown up our hands on this matter. Pity, since we invented the things after all…
I don’t think UK have build/designed any front line AFV in last 20 years. The last vehicles have been CH2, Warrior, AS90.
In that circumstances obviously the know how is lost.
Spot on. Agree. That would be prudent and sensible and therefore about as likely to happen as my invite to a fortnight stay at the playboy mansion.
There are 400 Mk1 Challengers in store in the middle east.
Could they be purchased back and upgraded. ?
One of the reasons given for the change to the Rheinmetall smoothbore was the concern that Ch2 might not be effective against the latest enemy tanks, such as the T 14 Armata. I always thought this was nonsense: the anti armour capability of L115 was only slightly inferior at some distances. But now it seems Armata won’t go into mass production.. So the gun upgrade might be an unnecessary expense and the money better used to otherwise upgrade a greater number of hulls to give us a meaningful reserve. At the very least, all existing hulls should be retained for… Read more »
Except it wouldn’t really matter how many tanks we have if nobody manufactures ammunition for them…
Give the commander a thermal sight and replace any troublesome parts.
He could use one mounted on remote weapons station.
Put the leftover money into new tank design, more APS systems.
Does Ajax even have APS for it’s massive expense?
There is a very interesting article over on ‘The Wavell Room’ wrt to the T14 Armata, don’t know if you have read it or not? It basically outlines why the Russians wont be producing any more then they have – its basically a busted flush so to speak. Will be interesting to see where the Russians go with tank production given the current sanctions that they are under.
Refurbishing more T62s would seem the only answer they have 😂
Per hull it isn’t that much IRL.
Upgrade away I would say: do the whole lot.
The smoothbore is more for NATO standardisation. We’re the only ones using rifled which means we need bespoke ammo, smoothbore means we can draw from NATO stocks should we ever need to.
If we ever need to, won’t others need to also? There’s a level of resillience in having multiple suppliers, but the idea that we’ll be able to dip into a mystical NATO pot is unlikely. Other countries will be able to dip into our stocks too. Ask yourself, who is more likely to run out of ammunition first, a country on the front line, like Poland, or us who will take weeks to even get our tanks to the front?
On foreign soil we use the collective stock.surely enough logistics to sort out. I think there’s an argument to forward base anyway, they won’t get used in UK. Future tank wars who’s in, and base with them, train with them.
It’s also the unique ammunition issue. No other MBT has a 120mm rifled gun…everyone else in the west uses the 120mm L55 smoothbore.
Crews take years to train. Five years for a competent tank commander.
It takes months to build a tank.
These Ukrainian crews are competent tank crews to start with.
It takes a month to build a tank if you have a production line running if you don’t it takes years. We haven’t made any tanks for two decades. Sure it takes 5 years to train a commander but if the commanders tank gets knocked out and they survive then what do you do with your highly trained commander if their are no new tanks? Stick them in the infantry? You need more tanks than crews nowadays, same goes for aircraft. It’s not ww2, you can’t get a train factory knocking out tanks inside of a year. It’s more like… Read more »
Agreed on all counts, it was your comment on crews within months.
In the supposed Battle of Britain, aircraft were not the problem, crews were.
Training competent Polish crews to fly RAF aircraft took weeks.
Yes but you could build a world war 2 fighter in 2 days, they were never the bottleneck. Without a production line we are never ever building another challenger, they are essentially irreplaceable under any timescale. That’s a problem If your enter stock is down to a bare minimum to maintain 2 brigades. What do you do if you accidentally loss a few. Buy a different tank and have a split fleet…scrap the lot and replace them or reduce deployable armoured force.
For RAF Braid to shed their arrogance and racism and actually let them, Czech and Slovak pilots off the leash, totally agree.
Wallace has recently said he wants more upgraded and contract negotiations are underway with RBSL. Of course, extra tanks will cost more per tank thanks to inflation.
Hopefully, Ha Ha Ha, I laugh whilst I write this – there was something in the original contract that allows for savings because of the quantity ordered. Thus, subsequent orders will be be minutely cheaper.
Sure 😀
There often is a run-on clause for extra units.
Sometimes it has to be at manufacturers convenience – so the commercials take precedence.
Sometimes it is in a set year.
You mean option as in xx were ordered with an option for yy more.
Clearly this wasn’t the case for Cr3.
Why: do you work at Abbey Wood?
It could be that the follow ons were spec’d differently with no whistles and bells.
They can be lots of reasons why negotiations are needed even over an existing contract.
For instance we may have learned something from the Ukraine?
You’re just arguing for arguments sake. Grow up.
The army in Future Soldier only fields two armoured regiments – thats 112 tanks, plus there are those in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. So no way are we keeping 227 tanks.
Good news, no order another 100.
Now
Stupid question but what’s going to be the main difference between the c3 and other nato tanks since its going to be using the same gun as most of them. Will it just come down to different armour and engine.
Another question what’s the advantages and disadvantages of the smoothbore gun over a rifled gun apart from the shared ammunition. Why did we originally go with the rifled gun over the smoothbore when designing there c1/2 when everyone else went with smoothbore
Buy back the retired Jordanian challengers and upgrade another 148.
Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are not the same vehicle, I believe only 4% of the parts are interchangeable between them. Unfortunately, that would not work.
Isn’t the C3 turret module supposed to slot into any chassis now?
I can see the next gen British tank utilising a foreign(German)chassis
The key to commonality and interchangeability in this regard is the Turret Ring size – both CR1 and CR2 will therefore share common architecture so upgrades could be possible, but you have to balance that with cost and time taken to deduce whether the end result is worth it.The CR3 Turret will likely be based on the Leopard 2 base and embelished accordingly, but the original doesn’t share commonality with the CR series architecture so more work and therefore expense will be needed.
Challenger 1 was in a pretty bad stare of repair even in GW1 and there’s is only 10% commonality. You could get CW2 from Oman as I hear they are looking to get rid.
That would be hugely sensible and prudent Jim and therefore about as likely to happen as my invitation to a fortnight stay at the playboy mansion.🤭👍
They’re buying the Korean K2 Black Panther as a replacement.
You’re 7% more than Rowan! 😁
The CR3 turret will not fit Cr1 turret ring. Turret is Leo sized.
Putting a CR3 Turret onto CR1 Hulls is not viable i agree,but do you know if the CR1 and CR2 Turret Rings are the same size ? – im pretty sure they are.Therefore the Leo 2 Base Turret has to undergo a redesign for it to fit on CR2 Hulls.
I was under the impression that the new Cr3 turret was being offered as a Leo upgrade which would imply the Cr3 will have a Leo size ring. Haven’t read anywhere that confirms tho.
Chicken and Egg situation maybe – (a) you either modify your existing Hull to take the New Turret or (b) you make your new Turret to fit your existing Hull.
The second bullet from the bottom is interesting
So purchase another hull and fit a UK turret? Easier said than done though.
More like if you own an old Leo, the new turret would get you up to date toot sweet.
I can just picture that huge turret on on a certain countries T72, T64.
Don’t you mean 40%?
Great, now can we order another 148!!
Just goes to show what can be achieved if someone puts the hurry up on a process and instills some discipline.
Now send someone over to the Ajax team a sort that lot out, please. Oh, and can we have a modern IFV while we appear to be on a roll. Not to mention get the munitions that we have rightly sent to Ukraine replaced, and…….
Cheers CR
Difference is that Ajax was given to GD UK, a company that had never built an armoured vehicle in its corporate life to be built in a Welsh fork lift factory. Surprise surprise, they royally effed it up.
Meanwhile Bea Hagglunds the loser in the Ajax contract has built thousands of armoured vehicles in use across Europe. CV90.
Army procurement at its finest. And the general in charge of buying stuff afterwards got an extremely well paid job on GD’s board of directors.
Corruption British style… Drives me nuts. This kind of thing has been known about for decades and there are rules that are supposed to stop it, but guess what, they’re often waved. As for the other points you make, I think I have read these before, possibly on your previous posts. Makes you wonder where the scrutiny and oversight mechanisms are. Back in my day there was a scrutineer group who had responsibility to ensuring all processes had been properly followed and justifications given. Not sure they exist any more as they were being undermined by the grown ups who… Read more »
The MoD actively avoids scrutiny. Fallon stopped the annual NAO report on procurement because it showed what a crap job they did year after year after year. An interesting “lesson learnt”: if you are found wanting in an audit then cancel the audit.
There also needs to be a public enquiry in Ajax to find out how such a clusterf happened. Won’t happen of course. Open government at its finest.
There is some sort of enquiry into the Ajax fiasco, described as a ‘legal probe’.
My guess is to determine if the MoD can sue. I guarantee report will be kept secret.
I really hope we learn our lesson her (Although I doubt it) We need to be constantly moving forward with iterative design improvements. So as soon as they start building the first one, we need to be looking at the next improvement we are going to bring forward. Basically we need to be constantly building and refining rather than simply building the whole batch and leaving it for the next 20 years…
Amen
Absolutely. And also produce a few a year thereby sustaining the skills needed and keeping the factories open so we don’t lose industrial capacity. You also find out your mistakes on much smaller batches and costs then if you do large scale contracts – see Ajax as prime example.
We always used to regularly upgrade our AFVs in-service and give them a new Mark number. Take a look at the Wiki entry for Chieftain – great example.
Yep, However I am also talking about upgrades during manufacturing too. We ought to order steady production of them (for the reasons DRS mentioned above) and then make improvements as we go. Then the older ones go back to be upgraded later. These days we order all of them at once to be delivered as quickly as possible and then forget about them for the next 20 years. They get outdated and we then have to spend huge amounts to restart factories, hire workers and do massive upgrades.
Upgrades during manufacture – ahh, yes. Commonplace with naval and air equipment but not with army equipment. Worth trying if the manufacturing phase is protracted due to the drumbeat delivery system.
Theres an interesting programme ( War Factories ) where the US set up a Bomber Factory in Willow Run.The gist of it was manufacturers hate upgrades/modifications on the production line with a vengance.Build to a spec and stick to it,keep upgrades for the next batches.
That was then, this is now. Most engineering companies are starting to embrace agile development (which was pioneered in the software industry). Rolls Royce now do this and it is the reason SpaceX have been able to develop rockets cheaper and faster than anyone else. Now if you are building millions of products a day then it is a problem but if you are producing tanks in the 4 or 5 per month then the benefits outweigh the disadvantages by a long way. I mean they do this with ships and always have done. That is why HMS Queen Elizabeth… Read more »
If its under budget and on time we should take this opportunity to order a few more.
Ideally yes but lets not get too carried away – the Prototypes have yet to be built,we don’t want another Warrior fiasco on our hands.
The warrior upgrade was working very well and passing all its trials before it was canceled. The cancellation was to free up more money to flush down the Ajax sewer.
Wasn’t it you that pointed out that LM seriously messed up with the CTA Turret for Warrior – the original had an external Ammunition Feed which meant a redesign ?.
Yes they did but had fixed that by the time the Warrior was undergoing the last set of trials. To be fair to LM, they say the last minute changes to CTA40 was the biggest cause for delay. Didn’t seem to bother Nextor and their turret tho.
😀
One of my finance officers was on the Warrior program. She said it would have been sorted in 6 to 9 months, when it got canned.
Dr Jack Watling from RUSI, interviewed on Forces Network as part of an article on CH3, stated that a problem with the Warrior turret upgrade was due to custom matching of the turret to the hull at original manufacture (serializing), exacerbated by subsequent wear creating issues or “kinks” for the new turret. Perhaps MoD saw shades of a ‘Nimrod wings’ repeat experience if the turret upgrades went to mass production with possible in-field reliability and performance issues. Had you heard this from anywhere else?
Details mentioned in the first video and article text at following link
https://www.forces.net/news/challenger-3-could-tank-upgrades-be-cancelled-warriors
I find a few of Dr Watling’s points less than convincing. It is common for precision components to be serial numbered the same as the part they interface with and they should be kept with assemblies bearing the same serial number, eg working parts in a rifle kept with the body of the rifle. Thus rubbing surfaces continue to match over the years.
If you then replace the turret of a WR with a new one, then you also fit a new turret ring to the hull – and they will wear together again. Not an issue.
“… then you also fit a new turret ring to the hull …” One might think so but remember that Lockheed won the WCSP contract while intending to re-use the original turrets. So presumably no new turret rings in the original contract and perhaps even an expectation to keep the turret and hull paired, if they considered it at all. So the question is, when Lockheed changed plans in 2014 to building a new turret, did they do so while also adding in the cost to replace the turret ring in the hull? Or did they expect to drop in… Read more »
Great answer. You should never drop a new turret onto a hull with an old turret ring. But who knows if there was a bit of corner cutting?
Dr Watling also criticised the lack of an autoloader in the upgraded platform; a risk that weight might climb towards 80 tonnes; the current gun as not being capable of knocking out T-series tanks.
Much of this is questionable.
Not surprised. Pagey hinted at his outrage that it was canceled but obviously was ordered to shut up. Biggest problem with the cancel was the british general that stood up in front of cameras saying it was canceled because IFVs were obsolete. Nice of him to put his career ahead of his soldiers lives.
That’s unbelievable, not surprising though to justify a bonkers decision.
…and so instead we buy enormously expensive Boxers for the Armoured Infantry which probably have less mobility and may not even have a 40mm stabilised cannon.
I heard there was going to be an issue fitting new turrets onto 40 year old vehicles that had been built in batches ie not perfectly standard. Then the army has bashed about in them and fixed them countless times again not to perfect standard.
At some point it must be cheaper to just build new ones. Even just new warriors using the old plans.
Might be true but not the reason the program was cancelled.
If you fit a new turret to an old hull, you first replace the turret ring in the hull with a new one. Standard practice and not an issue.
Another very sensible, prudent and affordable suggestion. Hope someone high up is reading all our posts on UKDJ! 🇬🇧 🇦🇺
Trouble is ahead of schedule gives people time to fiddle with the specs….
Also needs improved transmission but that’s not being addressed.
I heard that the engine enhancement program, included modifications to the gearbox and final drives.
Don’t the CH2 supplied to Oman, have an uprated engine and gear box fitted ?
Totally different rear hull and deck layout on those.
In what way ? – the Oman CR2’s are not that different from the BA ones.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/184399311@N08/52692236692/in/dateposted-public/
Taken from a modelling book but clearly shows the difference!
Same engine and gearbox but significant changes to the cooling system
Thanks yes confirms info on wiki that it has an enhanced Cooler Group arrangement – pic from same site -https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235095803-omani-challenger-2/
No.
Interesting, i was lead to believe the Oman models has a 1500hp MTU MT884 engine fitted
I think you are confusing CR2 with the French Leclerc,which had that Engine specified when the UAE bought them.
Addendum – the MTU MT884 Engine was an option for the Challenger 2E export version, which gained no sales and was withdrawn from the market,this is not the version Oman bought/operates.
Thanks for the clarification
Find that in writing. There’s plenty like me saying the transmission needs fixing and adding more power won’t help. It’s a slow and noisy tank even though the excellent suspension mitigates that to a great extent over rough ground.
Someone shared a link on a previous thread I think it was parliamentary response where the transmission upgrade would be carried out at the same time as the C3 upgrades. Although they are separate programs they will be performed at the same time. Hopefully there won’t be any reliability issues.
CR2 is slow and noisy? Wiki says it has the same x-country speed as the gas turbine equipped M1 Abrams.
I believe I addressed that inmy comment.
I can’t see how a tank can be described as slow if it can go at the same speed as a M1.
I have never thought that CR2 was especially noisy – all tanks are noisy.
Have you not noticed yet anything British old Gringy has a downer on. It really is amazing take 30 mins on the inter web and all these moans and groans can be put to bed🙄
Good point. When I was serving, I thought that much of our kit was pretty good. However, an Infantryman would always criticise the boots though, although seems to be content with issued Meindl and Lowe in recent years. Many would criticise Snatch LR without recognising that it was a fair vehicle for NI for which it had been designed – just that when it faced Taliban IEDs that it was then under-armoured. People criticised Saxon (often bizarely comparing it unfavourably to IFVs) but it was a good vehicle to transport Infantry on main roads and good tracks, which was all… Read more »
Except during this thread I’ve been a big supporter of Cr3. Just pointing out it also could do with a transmission upgrade.
Rubbish. You’re only saying that because I criticized your ridiculous anti F-35 campaign that you sprinkled with lies and truths truths.
Not me mate never criticised F35! Someone else methinks👍
Sorry, thought you were Jackinoko
No problem👍😄
Challenger is fast enough up to speed over rough country but slow at accelerating to get out of trouble and slow on flat ground like roads. Both could be improved with a better transmission.
It’s been claimed they CR3 will be able to do 60 mph but I can’t find the link! However I do think that might well be stretching it a wee bit!
Yes, I saw that too!
Have a read upgraded engine and claimed speeded up too🤔
https://www.army-technology.com/news/challenger-3-signed/
Transmission is being upgraded under HAAIP. ‘Heavy Armour Automotive Improvement Programme’ (HAAIP) which ensures the British Army’s Challenger 2 vehicles remain highly effective and capable until Challenger 3 enters service. The HAAIP programme is being led by DE&S, with engineering work completed by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) and integration work by Babcock. Under the programme, a number of automotive upgrades will be made to existing in-service Challenger 2 tanks to increase their mobility and stability, both of which are critical to providing the foundation for the new turret and systems that will upgrade the vehicle to a Challenger 3.… Read more »
Don’t know if you can read the attached shephard media article but it does state the transmission is not being upgraded. Perhaps they and I are confused because its being done under a separate program?
https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1626201430188072960?cxt=HHwWgIC9ubbltpEtAAAA
I can’t read more than a few lines of the Shephards article.
HAAIP does update the transmission, engine etc.
It is linked to the CR3 conversion work and loks like it preceedes it.
You can sign up for a free Shephard’s account that allows you to read it. Doesn’t say an actual lot.
There’s also this on twitter
https://twitter.com/thepagey/status/1606588934036885505
Tweet – who is this Pagey guy – is he ex-military? Why does he slag off CR2 as being big, heavy, slow and very noisy?
Big and heavy – yes, its a very well protected MBT – its only a few tons more than Abrams & Leo2.
Slow – I disagree – due to its fantastic 2nd Gen hydropneumatic suspension (far better than torsion bars) it goes cross country as fast as M1 and only a few mph slower than Leo2.
Very noisy? All tanks are very noisy – I have never thought Chally was much louder than contemporaries.
Pagey was the boss at ATDU. Had plenty of Challengers thru there on test. Interesting guy.
Thanks Grinch. Interesting that Pagey seems to have a quite negative view of CR2.
Challenger 3 may be on the drawing board ready to go but only 148 to be made. Its a joke. The government have
been running down the forces to save money , with still another 10,000 to be cut we would be pushed to defend the
Isle of Wight. Well done M Ps.
Are all the C3s getting active protection systems? I know I read somewhere before that only around 60 or so were going to get it. I could be wrong and I hope I am.
I think it’s still to be worked out in a contract, that’s what graphic says anyway. Maybe it’s separate from the vehicle upgrade.
I think probably 60 is the maximum they thought would be deployed at one time. Moving the APS from deployed tanks returning to ones going on deployments.
I don’t know the ratio of tanks for deployments, in repair, training etc.
The contract says 60 Trophy APS for the CR3 fleet but I am sure that is being revisited now, hopefully.
Again for CR3, there are to be two Type 56 armoured regiments, so 112 tanks there – and 36 tanks spread between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
Yes, the signed contract was for 60 systems. They learned this crap from the navy, only having enough kit for deployed assets. Of course if your deployed assets gets blowed up, your replacements have no APS.
Still all quiet on the AJAX Front. I want to see all the Generals who have been before the Defence Committee and all the current and likely future Bde and Div commanders be driven around in this a sample of the delivered AJAX test vehicles.They need to be required spend the average number of hours as endured by the injured testers going through the acceptance tests if they are so confident that AJAX is ‘coming good’. Same for the Defence Procurement Minister. All independently monitored but not by the Army.
amen bro
MoD should never have cut DGDQA so severely – we used to have their people permanently embedded in the factories making the most significant kit.
Graham. Agree. Having worked in procurement, primarily UORs, Civil Service permanent, unaccountable, untouchable, unsackable, incapable PRINCE Process Jockeys want total control of everything, particularly perceptions of deliverability and success. They only want to procure that which is comfortable and provides a lot of process-work for them spread over decades even if it does not work quite right. C/F SA-80, Watchkeeper, Bowman and now AJAX. Our soldiers do an amazing job with equipment delivered one-generation behind and generally obsolescent on user trials. DGDQA need to be reinstated but Humphrey will bully ‘Minister’ into not doing so! Yes Minister is not a… Read more »
John, I find your posts a good read. I too have worked in procurement, specifically DE&S, in 2009-2011 as an ex-mil contractor and some years earlier I worked to Abbey Wood staff from DLO Andover when I was ESM for (withdrawn) CR1 and in-service tank derivatives (in TSS IPT). Earlier still (1989-90) I was an SO2(W) at RARDE Chertey working to a Grade 6, and was the only military man in our Division. I did not find all civil servants the same – at DLO I ran a team of 4 x C2 grades, 1 x D and an AA.… Read more »
Why can’t the MoD get some extra cash from government to upgrade all hulls…it’s completely false economy. Typical government do half the job and not the full one to save pennies (in the grand scheme of things)
Andrew, in answer to your question..’It’s because the politicians want us to have a smaller tank fleet to save money’. From 900 Chieftains from the mid-1960s to 420 Chally 1’s from 1983 to 386 CR2s from 1998 reduced to 227 CR2s from 2010, and now down to 148 CR3s in the late 2020s.
Its what Governments do.
Graham/Andrew. Having arm-wrestled with them in the procurement domain, you gift politicians and Treasury Humphreys with more intellect than they can rightfully claim in the Defence Domain that exceeds that of an Amoeba. Those responsible are really the Generals who enjoy higher-end status at Court. Chally has been sacrificed for Heavy-Medium ‘Tank’ in the form of AJAX which is 17 tons heavier than a WWII M4 Sherman MEDIUM Tank and is not transportable by RAFAir unlike the 7 to 9 Ton CVRT Recce Very Light Tank which is doing the job, OJT, in Ukraine. Barking!
John, you have experience in DE&S? Clearly a different experience to mine. I briefed Min DP every month on UOR vehicles for Iraq and Afghan and he did not come across to me as an amoeba. Not sure why you say Chally has been sacrificed for Ajax – what do you mean? Do you mean we are buying fewer CR3s than you would like, somehow because of the Ajax order? Amusing that you compare a 2020s recce vehicle with a tank from 80 years ago! Things do change over time. Do you think CVR(T) is still doing a good job… Read more »
The Trophy APS has been committed to for CH3, as pointed out by Farouk. However, its worth pointing out that the UK also has the domestic Icarus Technology Demonstrator Programme for APS, that kicked off in 2017. It has developed and proven the Modular Integrated Protection System (MIPS) architecture as of December 2021. As stated by DSTL in late 2021, “Research and verification of the core architecture has been completed with the next step being to progress the implementation of MIPS-compliant systems to higher technology readiness levels. Depending on the speed of the development, MIPS could be brought into service… Read more »
Something else worth highlighting wrt MIPS from the original 2017 DSTL announcement, is the intent for both weight-efficient and affordable protection, both being challenges with APS for protection of the higher numbers of lower capability platforms. “The MIPS Electronic Architecture will provide a common infrastructure that will deliver UK operational sovereignty and enable “best of breed” commercial off the shelf APS sensors and countermeasures to be selected, integrated and deployed to defeat a wide range of current and future battlefield threats. This will enable the provision of a weight-efficient and affordable protection system capability that can be tailored to protect… Read more »
Interestingly, MIPS is part designed by Leonardo. Leonardo have also partnered with Rafael who make the Trophy APS. Leonardo have improved the magazine count and loading mechanism on Trophy. So does MIPs use Trophy as a foundation?
I don’t believe Leonardo UK is using anything of Trophy, which is a Leonardo DRS, i.e. a Leonardo US partnership with Rafael. AFAIK the key Trophy IP was developed in Israel? A couple of further data points are that the US adoption of Trophy was announced in January 2019 (oops my mistake US army committed to Trophy in 2017) while the UK Icarus programme kicked off in 2017 and according to Leonardo UK PR, one of the key tenets for the programme was “The basis for UK sovereignty, ownership of the APS control system and management of threat library, which… Read more »
Didn’t know about this. Thanks for the update.
So many comments about the number of Israeli Trophy protection systems being fitted to the CR3, shock horror we are only buying 60 for 149 Tanks. The really shocking things are the disgustingly low numbers being converted for £800 million and that they are being produced with virtually no U.K owned industrial input. RBSL is a 55/45 joint venture Rheinmetall own 55% and BAe 45%. The new turrets are being built by Pearson Engineering Ltd in part of what used to be the BAe Tank Factory in Newcastle. The new CR3 will have 60 Trophy Systems which are built in… Read more »
from Telegraph.
Oh my lord…. Are we being ganged up upon? Hopefully some good will come of it. The French after all have just increased their defence budget massively. I guess they want to sell more of their military equipment too.
They have a good point as the armed forces have been cut to a stupid degree.
But almost no European country can complain about that without looking immensely hypocritical, even the French who have been one of the better members.
Austerity has gutted the armed forces. Our tank fleet should be in a state of continuous development, as well as all significant hardware assets.We have had too many governments waving the flag, but actually bleeding out defence capability to the bone. A bunch of charlatans that too many have found agreeable. Until we get back to grown up governance, our armed forces will be screwed, like every other ‘public’ service.
Surely tanks are outdated now as we have seen in Ukraine due to the effectiveness of modern anti-tank missiles.
Michael,
So let us scrap tanks..and why not all AFVs as they too can be taken out by ATk missiles.
Then the trucks can be taken out by less sophisticated weapons, so we might as well scrap those.
So we are left with dismounted Infantry who have to walk everywhere. One snag – an Infantryman can be taken out by a rifle bullet costing 14p. If only he had an armoured vehicle to ride in!
Maybe we should have opted for the Rheinmetall 130mm gun as part of the upgrade, of course, we would still have the problem of non-NATO standard ammo, but it would bring the advantage of overmatch in any near-peer tank slug out.
The 130 mm was actually tested on a modified Challenger 2
Unless the rest of NATO upgunned it would leave us with bespoke Ammo all over again!
Oops sorry you already pointed that out😳
Probably prudent to wait for MGCS to develope and see what requirements that brings,120mm smoothbore is good enough for now,going against the herd again not the best course of action.
That could be a long wait, MGCS is barely making any progress.
There is no immediate rush if CR3 is to serve up to 2040.
I heard that Italy has, or is thinking of pulling out of the programme
All remaining tanks should get this upgrade. Re APS system does anyone know if they protect against top attack missile like javelin as this modified drones and GPS artillery seems to be main destroyer of tanks, disregarding the russian passion for driving into minefield and seeing how many you can drive over.
But the politicos only want our army to field 148 tanks – and are only resourcing two Type 56 regiments.
How about ramping up production so that they can be fielded this year! Time is perhaps no longer an option.
Nick, Do you think you can reduce a 9-year programme (2021-2030) to a 2 year programme (2021-2023)? You need to work some serious magic.
Why do people take such comments so seriously? It is a 9 year programme under benign peace time conditions, we are in a state of flux so perhaps the priorities need to be reconsidered. It can be done if there is a political will, the timescales often depend on considering all the bells and whistles. What is more important fielding equipment as quickly as possible to meet an emerging threat or just sit around without a care in the world, hoping the s**t doesn’t hit the fan!
Nick, I agree that priorities need to be considered with the worse war in Europe since the Former Yugoslavia wars of the 90s, or since WW2 depending on how you measure things. I view it as the latter, as one protagonist is a neo-superpower, has nuclear weapons and is anti-NATO.
Pity our Government has done little for our own defence, other than commissioning a new Integrated Review to be done in fairly slow time (to be published 6 months from being tasked in Sep 2022). Getting a few officials to write a document is cheap and easy.
Yes, a few mini-states fighting amongst themselves is not the same as Russia. Though it seems like they are fully committed and keeping the rest aside just in case NATO collectively thinks it might be time to invade also helps Ukraine indirectly. Though at this rate we will have to wait till he either dies or gets replaced, but who knows who will replace him.
I have long thought this war only ends when Putin leaves office, one way or the other. Who will replace him? Good question. It would be someone who realises what a disaster that war has been for Russia – and would unlikely to repeat or try similar again.
My understanding is that Wallace has requested an accelerated program just as he has with Boxer.
Just hope it gets approved asp.
Yes, I heard that a few months ago. I would think the best he could achieve with CR3 would be 12-18 months faster and would have to pay RBSL a shed load of extra money.
Had not heard he had accelerated the Boxer programme – do you have any details?
Also placed extra orders for Boxer.
I presume the extra orders for Boxer are for those to replace Warrior IFV. Just hope they all have a beefy stabilised cannon ideally of 40mm calibre.
Don’t think so. Just more of the same.
Then that is a disaster for what we used to proudly call the Armoured Infantry. Objectives will not be taken and lives will be lost.
On the subject of Starstreak: once past the first month of operations, with a few videos of Russ helicopters being brought down shown on Youtube, does anyone have any credible stats on its use since then? It looked to me, as a lay person, a highly mobile and nigh unstoppable ignition source for static stored energy installations such as gas/oil storage, from a healthy distance of 3-4 km. A special forces super weapon…
Well done BAE SYSTEMS. If only the MoD had given Ajax and WCSP to BAE SYSTEMS. The Army would have taken delivery of most of the vehicles by now instead of bodging a solution together.
I also congratulate RBSL on achieving CDR early and for the programme to be on time and to budget but the bar was set quite low. Upgrade a mere 148 tanks, take a whopping £800m to do it, and you’ve got a leisurely 9 years! Seriously I am a fan of Rheinmetall (I used to work for them) and BAE (I used to work with them when I was at DE&S). Together in RBSL they are formidable. We should have persevered with WCSP, and MinDP and DG Land (Equipment) should have gripped the programme, amongst others. LMUK (was Hunting Engineering)… Read more »
Could just do with a few more of them…………….
148 CH3 for 800m GPB not bad for upgrading the Army Tank force. What’s gone wrong? Maybe they can use Ajax for target practice.
What about the other 70 CH2?
I believe the 120mm cannon is not suitable for the next-gen MBT. The KF51 Panther of Germany has an upgraded 130mm cannon.
What are the potential advantages of the New Challenger 3 tank compared to the EMPT tank? I think EMPT is more advantageous when compared with Challenger 3.
Can the UK not design and build tanks anymore..? What the he’ll is happening to this country !!!