The Challenger tanks are being upgraded by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land under an £800 million contract, which will deliver 148 Challenger 3 tanks.
Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) marked the start of Challenger 3 supply chain production following a steel cutting ceremony with Pearson Engineering. RBSL has awarded a circa £25 million supplier contract to Pearson Engineering to fabricate the turret structures for the British Army’s Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank. The two companies marked the announcement with a steel cutting ceremony at Pearson Engineering’s facility, Armstrong Works, in Newcastle.
Constructed as part of a £25 million sub-contract with Pearson Engineering in Newcastle, the new turret will ensure the Challenger 3 tanks are equipped with “state-of-the-art lethality, upgraded survivability, and world-class surveillance and targeting technologies”.
Officially announcing this milestone at Pearson Engineering, Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin said:
“Challenger 3 tanks will be at the forefront of the British Army’s ground force deterrent against our adversaries. They will be equipped with the latest digital enhancements and weaponry, providing support and reassurance to our allies. This steel cut represents progress on delivering on our ongoing upgrade to British Army capabilities and on investment in skills and manufacturing in the North East and across the U.K.”
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 to identify threats
- New thermal long-range cameras, modernising the day/night image system
Challenger 3 Senior Responsible Owner, Brig Nick Cowey, said:
“I’m really excited at this key milestone in the Challenger 3 programme being achieved on schedule. The turret fabrication being conducted here by Pearson Engineering is crucial for the delivery of a fully digitised turret, ensuring that our modernised Main Battle Tank is the most lethal in Europe.”
Initial Operating Capability for the Challenger 3 tank is expected in 2027.
More to be done please!
A lot more! Come on number 10, get your fingers out and get our Defence spending increased. The threat is real….
The threat is real but it’s in the air and sea. Russia’s failed army won’t inspire the treasury to part with money.
Mostly under the sea and in the air as missiles I’d say. Anti air, BMD defence, P8s, and more subs and autonomous under water vehicles would seem the best way of spending any increase in budget.
I am assuming though that Ajax gets sorted and the additional order of Boxers comes through and with the right mix of types. Also the RA finally gets a replacement for the As90s – scheduled for about 10 years time I believe!
Yes assuming the army completes all the purchases under future soldier they will be in good enough state. In a NATO world our principal responsibility is the North Atlantic and Norway. If China kicks off at same time we may be in a position of having to handle this area with little assistance from anyone else. No one needs a British armoured division in Eastern Europe. Russian submarines cutting cables and pipelines could cripple the UK very quickly. That’s where the defence budget should be focused. Home defence comes first.
UK geostrategic position has been to ensure no one power gains complete dominance over the European continent. In order to achieve this some land forces will be needed to support our European allies and for good politics. Out of the three largest powers in Europe, UK is currently the only one most willing to get their hands dirty. Also, Americans have historically always been a bit sensitive about getting involved in European wars. With this in mind I feel that UK armoured deployments to eastern Europe will be rather necessary and important, although maybe not on the scale of a… Read more »
That’s a very pre 1945 Geo politics view of Europe. The reality is Europe is United under one power structure the EU. Russia’s tiny industrial base and shrinking population has managed to take it a whopping 25 miles across the Ukrainian boarder before getting bogged down. It has zero chance of posing a conventional land threat to Europe and the EU is easily big enough to look after itself with no help from the US or the UK. I just don’t see the relevance of use for British armoured division especially when the threat from the Russian navy and China… Read more »
Agreed, the danger is a naval assault which goes much further than 25 miles. Few civilians to get in the way and the winner takes all as has been the case throughout history. I would double up on SSN’s,ASW and marine RPV’s etc. In fact almost anything that floats.
What you write is reasonable. However, the reality is that ‘Europe’ has the United States to thank for its defence after 1945 because this is in the United States interest (and the U.K.’s). Otherwise the record for Europeans combining to defend themselves is scant, driven by an impulse that was always and remains politically imaginative rather than militarily realistic. N.A.T.O. it is.
I think the tank has gone the way of the battleship and horse.
Horses you say… the 500+ horses the British Army still fields alongside 148 tanks.
🙂
What!? No donkeys!?
No, but we have several hundred donkey whallopers… 😉
A man on a horse with a NLAW maybe the way to go. In rough terrain or forested land i can see they would be quite effective.I would put my money on the horses.Certainly worth investigating.
Your grandfather was a Cossack.
Thing about horses is they are clever than people, one bang and they are off at full pelt in the opposite direction and bugger the guy on top.
100% correct tanks are finished .
If the tank is obsolete why has only Belgium discarded it?
They are obsolete finished cannon fodder for 3 rd world armies
Peter, you cannot be a serious commentator on the armed forces with a comment like that. The battleship is obsolete – no-one has any, none are being built, they were superseded by very different ships without the battleship’s drawbacks. The tank is only obsolete if no-one has any, none are being built and they have all been superseded by different AFVs. Only Belgium has scrapped the tank and not because it was ‘vulnerable’ or because its role was better carried out by another AFV type – they wanted to save money. No other nation is scrapping tanks and the ‘axis… Read more »
Have to look at way Russia has employed its tank formations. In some places Ukraine has also purposely flooded areas. But mostly Russians are choosing to stay on roads. In a more conventional war, the tanks would having a better day. So no, I don’t see the tank becoming obsolete. Akin to recent arguement S400 etc would make 4th gen fighter jets all obsolete. Was is Stalin who said “quantity has a value of its own”. Its old doctrine and bad tactics which has largely contributed to Russian losses. Together with no integration with airborne assets. Pleased we are sending… Read more »
Finally people are starting to wake to what the actual threats are, as you say it’s primary the job of the EU and the land powers in Europe to look after the eastern flank. I think somewhere inside the MOD they understand this hense why your only getting 148 tanks. We need to be navy and air force heavy with a smaller army equipped with the best but in numbers we can afford and actually need
You advocate our army to be small – well it is, so you must be pleased. Putin must be pleased too.
No on the contrary I’d love to see the army expand 2x but alas Whitehall is taking defence for granted again. With our budget and needs unfortunately the army has to play support to the other services, now that doesn’t mean they need to shrink further just if we want the best equipment there has to be a trade off
With any military operation there is the concept of the supported service and the supporting services. Thus Op Corporate (Falklands, 1982) was a navy lead, with land and air forces supporting. Op Granby (Gulf War 1) was an army lead, with navy and RAF supporting. Each service needs to be strong enough to assume the lead role when tasked. If there was a land war in Europe (or elsewhere) in which NATO played a part, then the British Army would need to be strong enough to be a credible lead service. A country with a budget the size of the… Read more »
The moment the government decided that we would play a supporting role in a coalition, in all current and future conflicts was pretty much the death of a larger army. All we need is to generate one American style heavy armoured BCT, hense 148 figure. There really is no need for 2-3 times that number what with the budget being what it is, no I know we should be getting more for our money if you look at Europe for example but these tanks with aps and smart ammo are obviously a lot more expensive than 1980s tanks where we… Read more »
I could hardly disagree more – the defence of our continent is hardly some EU only issue that the UK can now distance itself from because of Brexit. No – as a NATO member state the UK has a unambiguous obligation to the mutual defence of other member states. Therefore, were Russian air and ground forces to attack NATO states in Eastern Europe for example – hardly a unthinkable scenario given current events – then surely we would be expected to react to that situation in a appropriate, timely and military useful manner. Do you think it all likely that… Read more »
Europe maybe big enough, but it’s not good enough. Who’s supplying the most and the best -the UK and the usual Johnny come lately Americans. I cannot see that ever changing because the people who want a United States of Europe are the same people who view the world through rose tinted spectacles.They think you can do deals on gas etc with those passively threatening to nuke you. A cosy chat will settle everything mentality.Ask the Ukrainians what they think of that.
The ones who are “Johnny come lately” in this are the Brits. The US has been providing billions, yes billions, in financial and military aid, not the paltry amounts the UK has been giving Ukraine, since 2015. Only until the invasion were the Brits to be found, then, as usual strutting around pretending that the meager amounts they were furnishing Ukraine are of a crucial nature when the US has been there for years with billions.
You can’t criticise us Brits because the Americans stump up more than we do – they are a superpower with an economy an order of magnitude higher than ours. However until Biden’s signature yesterday on a huge aid package, we were the largest humanitarian donor. From http://www.gov.uk: ‘7 March 2022 The UK pledges extra £100m in aid, UK now the largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Ukraine’. The point was about timeliness. We delivered lethal aid and training teams before the Americans, from early 2015 under Op Orbital. However it is not a competition. We should all pull together. A greater… Read more »
What glue have you been sniffing? If it wasn’t for the UK, US and Poland setting the precedence with the sanctions. The EU would still be floundering over trying to make a decision. Especially over the gas debacle. Or Germany initially preventing arms supplies from the UK. If anything the EU was pressurized into agreeing with the sanctions. The conflict in the Ukraine has highlighted the intractability of various factions within the EU in trying to make a quick and all inclusive decision. Consider the EU’s reaction to the fact finding mission that the Polish, Czech and Slovakian leaders undertook… Read more »
Unfortunately it’s still accurate, one of the reasons for the UK’s opposition to the EU’s ever closer union policy and against having a European standing army. I would gently disagree regarding how United the EU currently is overall. Yes there is regulatory harmony, but politically and culturally there are definate splits and differences. You can see these clearly from the initial EU state by state responses to the Russian aggression. Very interesting points concerning the true strength of the Russian armed forces. I too wonder why they aren’t doing so well in Ukraine and whether this is symbolic of Russia… Read more »
I think that strategic imperative has returned, though not in the dame way. If the EU unifies strategically and militarily (which would be a disaster becuase they have no hope of being unified strategically enough to be effective; hwo can 27 countries formalise a strtategy and choose where to deploy their forces?) then that pushes UK influence out of europe, which France seems intent to do. The way to combat this is to champion nato and be a big enough military power to always give us a seat at the table
Most of the EU countries disagree.
John, do you think assigning a British division to European defence is a lot? It isn’t. Shame we could not today field a division though, more like 1 or 2 brigades/BCTs. Army intent is to be able to field a warfighting div in 2025, as I understand.
Evening Graham, I think it is all relative. A division is usually quite a large unit, from what I understand you would be looking at around 4-500 tanks for an armoured challenger division (as we were talking about tanks specifically in earlier comments). If we had to stop Russia alone, a division would feel rather small. As things stand though we are not alone so I feel our role is more to show willing, chivvy mainland Europeans to pull their weight and get involved, and to provide a significant ‘sting’ so to speak. I think we could achieve this with… Read more »
John, A division (Maj Gen commanding) is a formation not a unit (Lt Col commanding). We don’t have armoured divisions (by description) now, however a division would be considered reasonably well equipped with tanks if it had 168 tanks (a regiment per brigade) and very well equipped if it had 224 or 280 tanks (ie 4 or 5 tank regiments in the div). Not sure where you get the idea of 4-500!! We only have 227 declared and that figure is reducing to 148. We deployed 221 tanks to Gulf War 1 (many of which were attrition reserve and not… Read more »
Name one other NATO army other than the US that has living operational experience of Armoured Divisional level warfighting? Name one other NATO army that can conduct all-arms operations at Brigade level and has done so in the last 20 years (maybe France). And now you realise why the British Army is needed by NATO in Eastern Europe. There is a gang on here that seem to wish the Army away, but it is still the case that wars are ultimately decided on land and in the NATO context, it’s vital. I’m not naïve (or arrogant) enough to say that… Read more »
Yes but those operations were outside of NATO, also remember we did not deploy and armoured division the second time but effectively and armoured infantry division. The US itself only has one armoured division. Armoured divisions are slow to move and their logistics are terrible. Tanks are still useful but they are not the core of the force any more and you need to ask if the logistics of getting a tank there are worth it for the capability of a 120mm gun. Countries in area like Poland and Germany should supply the majority of the heavy armour forces well… Read more »
I believe the US has 3 armoured divisions on paper. Nonetheless, the point that BobA made is that regardless of what *should* be the responsibility of Continental NATO, the reality is that those divisions are every inch as suspect as the Russian BTGs that have been entertaining us the past month. So no, I disagree that “the EU can look after itself without help from US or UK”. Furthermore, the British Army should retain the ability to defend its interests unilaterally to some degree, and while a naval and air focus is natural for an island nation, 1 credible armoured… Read more »
In a nutshell 👍
Absolutely spot on.
In fact on paper the US have 4 armoured divisions as well as 2 Stryker divisions (not including national guard).
At last someone on here speaks some sense , to my knowledge we haven’t lost an RN sailor in action ( at least at sea) since 1982. There have been over a thousand British soldiers and yes some RM killed in action since with many, many, more horribly wounded too. Every major conflict we have been in since has been conducted and decided on land. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War 1 and 2 to name but some . In all of these the British Army has taken a leading role and although valued our European allies have provided very much… Read more »
Think some in the SBS might disagree with you wrt Royal Navy losses.
I think I acknowledged that when I stated ‘ and yes some RM’ . Point still stands, those losses occured occured on land.
Good points. When did the navy last sink an enemy ship? When did an RAF fighter last dogfight against an enemy ‘plane? Contrast that to the huge amount of army involvement in kinetic wars over many decades – our tanks have been in action many times.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html
Could Britain deploy a Division today?
Britain and France would both struggle.
As to combined arms Royal deployed to Falklands and 2* Gulf and acquitted themselves well.
The Army just pished 10,000 pids up against the wall because they could not fill the places but wanted to maintain the braid structure; total braid arrogance that lost the armed forces the lot.
And I was Green.
No, we can’t deploy a Division today, but we can deploy 2 divisional headquarters that actually function. My point is that we have the professional memory to do it and manning, equipping and training a Division is exactly what we should be doing in NATO (and what we are valued for). When you talk to German (and Polish) staff officers, they fully recognise that their organisations have never actually done it for real. They recognise the real life experience that the British Army bring to the party. And yes, in the Falklands (40 years ago) 3 Cdo Bde did do… Read more »
Thanks for engaging, appreciate it.
And it is true that the German Command Major, Armoured, really enjoyed his time with RTR in Poland… and added, ‘Ze were talkin bout challies all ze time, and I am, wat ze fuck is challies’ Then he started laughing.
Yes agree although we are never going to need a large especially static European Style army, the days of the BAOR or even the BFG are in reality over. But that does not mean the need for the British army to deploy at scale are over (There are plenty of places in the world that may explode and need significant western intervention).So we do need an army that can generate in extreme need a full functional Meaningful (divisional) sized armoured/combined arms force. So we need to ensure are armoured forces are up to the job, Russia has just proven what… Read more »
Well said Sir, thank you for your service
“There is a gang on here that seem to wish the Army away” Looking at a map of NATO-land, in its fullest sense, the UK is now firmly located in the middle of it. The UK needs deployable land forces which can help re-enforce our NATO partners. The benefits of large scale pre positioning of our land forces seems questionable when we don’t know when or where they would be needed. So I’m presuming we need the capacity to relatively quickly transport and sustain our land army in NATO-land. That’s a real logistical problem which isn’t the army’s sole responsibility… Read more »
Yes a point I have been emphasising for some time mass tanks is the priority for Germany Central European members and even France, our priorities should be specialist and flexible forces and kit including anti tank weaponry to help support those main players and a core armoured force as back up, but priorities need to be on and underneath the waves and airforce assets to protect the Northern approaches and to blunt aerial threats all over Europe and able to engage land threats from the air.
Good news
Martin,
Where is it written that our primary areas of responsibility are the North Atlantic and Norway?
Who is saying they don’t need a British armoured division in Europe? Not the eastern Europeans, that’s for sure.
Home defence? Are the Russians about to land on the Kent or Sussex beaches?
UK responsibility has always been in the north since WW2 & BAOR. NorthAG is under British command. As for armoured divisions, forget it! The days of armoured divisions & mass tank battles are over as far as the UK is concerned, putting 1 AD in the field takes massive logistics & logistics is the key to any success in battle. Air & sea power are fundemental to UK security not a huge standing army mate, & I’m saying that as an ex squaddie! As you intimated, no one is going to invade the UK (no country on earth has that… Read more »
Hi John, On the navy side I thought RN traditionally had Eastern Atlantic as our sea space AOR with the US largely taking Western Atlantic. Not heard of Northern Atlantic as a AOR. Is the sea space still carved up like that? On the army side, NORTHAG rings a bell and I know that the British area (garrisoned areas and operational areas) in BAOR days was the ‘North German Plain’ ( Iserved there 4 times) but surely that is ancient pre-1991 history. We no longer have any troops in Germany less a few amphibious Sappers and Depots & Training Centre… Read more »
Hi Graham, all I can say is that when I served in the 80’s NATO tactics were based on the last major fight (WW2) but as we have seen, technology has increased massively since then & numbers don’t count any more, the Israeli’s have proven that, let alone NATO (I last was in combat in Iraq) & I saw what air power can do to a highly mechanised armoured army. Times change & the Russians haven’t, they are not in the same league as any NATO army, they are outclassed in everything. Ukraine is proving that point now & Putin’s… Read more »
Have to agree
By the way, you are right in everything you said, the RN was responsible for the GIUK gap of the north atlantic & the RM were earmarked for the high north (at brigade level) the Commando’s do have a large Army input as far as numbers & support go & obviously our SF go a long way too!
Very true. The Russian submarine threat is where the most danger lies for the UK .The Panzer Grenadiers can handle the Russian armour
Bravo.
The AS90 is being replaced by the South Korean K9A2 155 self propelled guns.
Cancel Ajax and buy something that works….
…or fix it.
K21
Just watching the footage of the NATO Ex Northern Guard in Norway. Lots of good footage of Norwegian CV90 . Always thought we should have replaced both Warrior and Ajax with CV90 . A proven reliable vehicle with a 40mm gun and carries a full load of dismounts – eight I believe . Part of the BAE systems family too.
Really? I thought the tendering competition wasn’t even due to start until near the end of the decade. Where have you seen this?
In about a decade as per usual. Allegedly.
Did you not hear the Russians have lots of army kit and are using it aggressively? Need to spend money on our tiny, badly equipped army, not on P8s and underwater vehicles.
I would argue we need to spend it on all areas, but if we don’t defend the seas and the cables that lie beneath it then we are royally screwed given how much we import and the necessity of those cables.
we should absolutely have a bigger better equipped army but in the absence of a very large increase in budget we have to prioritise. unfortunately it seems any increase is way off if at all, it’s likely we’ll be cutting more not increasing anything given inflation. It’s a sad state of affairs.
OK, good job no-one expects us to commit our army to operations in eastern Europe then.
UK got far tools to work with quality far better than quantity every day .
Far tools?
British Army needs more quantity of everything and some decent kit – most of the combat vehicles and artillery are 30-50 years old and mostly unmodernised.
Here here to that acknowledge the threat is where it’s at. We need P8’s sure and could always do with more but our P8,s combined with Norways and some US forward deployed can prob cover the Greenland – Iceland- UK gap and ate sufficient for now. Maritime and Air have done well in recent years while the Army has been pinned down on COIN Ops in far away lands and it is our ‘heavy metal’ conventional forces that have been allowed to degrade. The need is to re-build the deployable armoured Div that’s at the core of the Army and… Read more »
The real problem is that Russia has effortless converted itself from a state people would do business with into the New North Korea. The problem with NK2 (TM) is that this one has masses of nasty stuff like chemical weapons and nuclear submarines / missiles. Some of which may actually work. Vlad will now be fighting for his own life. So there is no knowing what the crazy guy will do next. Biden et al made a mistake calling him a war criminal as he knows he cannot go for a quiet exile in Switzerland building a collection of cuckoo… Read more »
I think he was only ever likely to be leaving the kremlin feet first even before this.
Yeltsin only made Putin his prime minister because he promised that he wouldn’t prosecute him once he’d stepped down – and Putin had discredited the public prosecutor who had been investigating Yeltsin. Could Putin find a successor who’d make the same promises? Very doubtful, as Yeltsin only faced financial crimes. Putin’s long list of crimes, both internationally and against the Russian people is too long to overlook. Putin knows that if he ever surrenders power he is doomed, so holding onto his position is an existential issue.
Indeed his heightened ‘popularity’ now would plummet the moment anyone succeeding him let out even an inkling of the truth about what he has done. The army and police already hate him from what I read today from a long term Russian political analyst it’s just that they have no influence any longer only the FSB are remotely close to the centre of power and few of them had any real idea of his intentions so little trust beyond a close coterie of extremist cronies but no organised authority that would dare put their heads above the parapet as it… Read more »
His only way out is within Russia or in the handful of states willing to give him both a home and be able to protect him. Not sure even China would actually want that ‘honour’ North Korea perhaps. The moment he started this invasion a safe haven in any western Country was cut off at the hip, so Biden’s words whatever one thinks of them, have changed nothing in that regard. Keeping power is his only real defence and that’s where the danger lies if truly cornered.
Let’s be honest russia has a long history of brutal dictators one after the other. Putin will at some point hand power to a choice successor or he will have lined up a replacement for when he goes feet first. It’s not like anyone else in Russia with power is in any way liberal or liable to embrace the will of the people.
They also are a high producer of some pretty significant raw materials such as Food staples and hydrocarbons, As well as defence industries that unpleasant people will still buy from and which China and India are just going to keep buying from Russia no matter what the west says. So unlike NK it’s not a state that will completely crash, but it’s likely to end up becoming A big part of any Chinese hegemony. Just not great all round really.
Also he’s a 20 year entrenched totalitarian, who has a mass following so he’s not likely going anywhere soon.
Maybe. So you think the Indians and Chinese are wowed by the amazing Russian tech?
TBH in a lot of areas both countries are probably in advance of Russian tech and just didn’t realise it.
Russia does have the accumulated research base but it is a fixed feast. The only reason the Chinese don’t have all that is that you can’t hack a filing cabinet!
It’s not so much the tec as industrial base and manufacturing of some key areas, especially for India as it’s not really a high tec economy and It’s defence industry is mired in crap and grift. But the big thing Russia has is It pure raw resources and Russia has a shit ton of those, Now 20 years ago it would not have mattered as western liberal control of the world economic systems meant we could still effectively isolate Russia as we did with the USSR. But the reality is China and India are not going to let the western… Read more »
An excellent appraisal of the long game Jonathon……sadly.
I fully agree, priority is Navy and RAF, i’m referring to Defence spending across the board
Let’s forget about what Russia is doing then.
The trouble with this current conflict is that if it expands to a NATO on Russia convntional conflict then the mainland UK will be under direct attack from long range Russia air power such TU-22 equiped with cruise missiles. The difficulty is that the RAF will struggle to defend key military and civilain targets in the UK such as power plants, air bases and air ports, Naval bases and ports etc as well as provide a reasonable air contribution to any NATO activity in Eastern Europe. The simple fact is that until both Russia transitions to a liberal democracy (and… Read more »
You have an interesting ‘take’ on this. Putin is struggling to make much progress in Ukraine with 3/4 of his entire army. I find it inconceivable that he would seek to take on the whole of NATO, by invading a NATO country. If that did happen I don’t think it follows that Putin will attack all 30 NATO countries (such that the UK homeland is attacked). If that did happen I don’t see that the RAF defends specific localities in the UK – they would surely seek to deny penetration of UK airspace by the aggressor. I do however fully… Read more »
The threat is land, sea, and air. No, the UK is not mainly a land power. But it is a land power nonetheless.
NATO membership requires our forces to fight anywhere in the NATO area – that includes the whole of continental Europe.
Let’s do the stuff were good at. And this time I’m grateful for the ballistic sub we have out there.
The treasury needs to be directed, ordered to act in the nations interests rather than left to starve vital areas of funds for fiscal dogma. Left alone they’ll always find any excuse to avoid funding what’s necessary unless it lines the pockets of Tory sponsers..
Not necessarily ,as one former Chally 1 engineer said ,the build quality of the Russian tanks is dire ,no modern tank should blown to peacies like what’s happening to the Russians tanks, there performance should not be the set standard, 150 tanks is a joke ,the rest of chally 2 tanks should be kept as a reserve especially during these times.
Anybody who thinks the Russian army performance is not being analysed and plans put into place to correct it, is sadly mistaken. Admittedly some thing will take longer to fix than others , probably starting with a wholesale cull of their senior staff and correcting the woeful performance of their NCO cadre , but fix it they will. Developing a proper logistic support network
It will be extremely foolish to assume they won’t.
My priority for defence would start at home before worrying too much about a ground war in Europe. Raf given the capability to properly defend the UK from air and sea attack. Give them anti ship capability. Add a couple more p8s. We are vulnerable to sub launched cruise missile attacks so ensure SAM systems can act as a last line of defence at key installations for any cruise missiles getting through. Assume the astutes are being keep busy so make sure the navy’s surface fleet can match anything it comes across. Make the North Atlantic a no go area… Read more »
that sounds far too sensible…… unfortunately thats why i suspect it will never happen :/
My priority for the army would be to make it more expeditionary at its core, I’d rather have 148 of the best tanks in the world and be able to deploy them within literally hours than say 500 in with half of them in storage
But I’d like sound of 200 upgraded tanks more than just 148… even 150 sounds better with 50 more in reserve. It’s not too much to ask for, is it?
It is when again government put defence on the back burner
Hi Fosterman, you posted something interesting and similar on Saturday afternnon but it has gone. My view is that our tanks are not just a force in being, but they actually get used. Hard to remember a time since 1982 that the Navy fired a shot in anger or that an RAF fighter was engaged in a dogfight. Our tanks have been in many kinetic combats since 1982. I am sure NATO expects a country of Britain’s weight to be able to field at least one warfighting division with AFVs in prominence (not that we could do that this week… Read more »
But surely history tells us otherwise – sure the defence of Dover begins on the Rhine – but now much further east?
With you on all of this list. Would like to see another 1 Astute and a small fleet of diesel subs for more regional defence and undersea cables surveillance. Lots of good German-Norwegian-Swedish designs we could go-produce with. It all costs extra money, resources, time and has to compete with other priorities and necessesities. You’d hope that this crisis has definitely instilled some real sense of urgency and absolute real needs into the government and MOD and not to leave the UK with unnecessary weak spots in its defences.
It’s not unrealistic in terms of cost either. It should be achievable with only a modest increase in spending.
The key is to spend correctly where it matters.
And don’t fall into the trap of over complicating things. Previous conflicts keep on proving the fact that plenty of what is good enough wins the day over very small numbers of over engineered expensive status symbols.
We had 28 SSK/SSN attack subs in 1982 – hard to believe now.
A force of 7 Astutes, when maybe 2 are alongside etc means 5 subs that are taskable, one of which will be protecting the bomber SSBN So 4 subs to cover the Seven Seas. It is ridiculous.
Definitely need to buy some SSKs with AIP, even if they are pre-owned.
Challenger 3; such a cynical name.
In reality far better than Russian Chinese rubbish .
Agreed
Yep, looking at some stats the tanks that are fairing the worst in Ukraine are T-72B3 and T-80U .. not as many T-90s knocked out.
Stats here:
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
also not as many t-90s in use in ukraine…. hard for them to die at the same rate if they aren’t being used in theatre
👍
Aah you answered my next question I rather expected that few T90s were being used by comparison.
I remember boarding a foreign bulk carrier on the Kent side of the Thames about 6/7 years ago, most of the officer crew were Indian and the 1st Officer was disembarking and flying back to India and he also had his wife on board with him so both needed temporary clearance to stay in UK while awaiting their flight out, anyway chatting to the Capt and he was saying the ship was Chinese built but the owners had completely stripped out the original electrical cabling and replaced it all, he also said the owners would only keep it for 10… Read more »
Why 4 years for IOC? It’s taking over a decade.
Mix of spreading the budget, as always, and trying to keep a decent number of Ch2s operational while the work is ongoing?
FOC was mooted for 2030 but Wallace is pulling this back a few years. IOC is obviously a lot earlier than FOC – don’t know the date or IOC criteria, though.
I hear IOC is 2027 and FOC is still 2030. I worked for Rheinmetall in 2016 as the PM for their CR2 LEP bid. I am as amazed at you that it is taking this long and cannot explain it. We really should have been doing incremental upgrades to CR2 with perhaps the first being about 20 years ago – we always used to do this with AFVs with the bigger upgrades being done during Base Overhaul (3rd line) and the smaller ones being done by REME 1st/2nd line. Chieftain had so many Mark numbers that I lost count, but… Read more »
Good news, now let’s get another contract signed to upgrade the remaining number of C2 hulls
And while The MOD is doing that, they should start looking for the next generation MBT, looks like we are going to need it.
I believe we are a small part of the European next generation MBT
We have observer status on the program.
Yes upgrade all Challenger Hulls and keep them in reserve for turret fit later. A FFBNW for the army.
Nah , upgrade them with the turret
Without putting too much of a dampener on this news, at £5.4 million a pop does this really offer any value for money ?.
It takes a tank that was all but obsolete to rough equivalence with other Western tanks. It’s definitely worth doing, but we need more than ~150 to bring to battle against near peer enemies
Seems like a bargain compared to Ajax.
Good point. Rheinmetall and BAE decided not to compete against each other and formed a JV. Government decided to accept that as a fait accompli and that kept the price high. Really bad that it costs that amount of money and that we have to wait until 2030 to get the full operational capability – and end up with a tiny fleet.
Just out of pure curiosity; How would a C3 manage against an NLAW and the Javelin?
I guess ‘Dorchester Armor makes a difference against these types of weapons. We know that during the Iraq campaign in 2003 one CH2 was hit by 14 RPGs and a Milan ATGM, the crew survived and the tank was operational again hours later.
Another incident was where the underside of a CH2 was hit by an RPG-29, some crew injuries were reported but the tank was still driveable, and since then the tank was fitted with extra Dorchester armor blocks.
CH2 appears to be much tougher than the majority of current Russian tank types.
To be fair I think CH2 is more modern than most of the Russian tanks, although the latter have been upgraded…
Cheers CR
Against a direct line of fire attack, so long as it comes from the frontal arc. The armour should protect the crew from both NLAW and Javelin. As there’s in parts there’s over 1m of equivalent armour. Directly attacking the sides, it will depend on the ATGM’s penetration value. Javelin has the greater pen value, NLAW may struggle. If the additional side armour is fitted, this may protect the tank. The armour has been tested against a tandem shaped charge warhead as used by Javelin, but the results are classified understandably. From the back the engine/gearbox will help, especially if… Read more »
The front and side armour is irrelevant for NLAW and Javelin, they attack through the roof where the armour is thinnest, nobody would use them in direct line of attack mode against a tank.
No challenger should ever deploy without an active defence system in the 21st century. Its a system we should have had years ago.
I think we have only order 60 Trophy systems. We need rather more than that, should be on Boxer and Ajax too.
Agreed, really should be as basic a requirement as a drivers seat these days.
Agreed, there needs to be enough kits to do the whole fleet. Rafael also do a Trophy Lite, that is meant for recce vehicles down to the size of a Humvee. It may only have a single reload per turret, but it would make all the difference in an ambush.
It depends on the skill of the firer. If they are panicking, they may forget to set the top attack mode and just fire straight away. It takes a brave man or women to stay tracking the vehicle for 2 to 3 seconds for the predictive software to work out the interception point, when they are under fire.
I bet that DE&S have been having calls about fitting Trophy as a UOR.
Thanks. Interesting, and I hope our tanks fair better than the T72’s & T80’s do.
No chance about modern ATGW and Javelin/NLAW are not the heaviest either. Unfortunately.
That is the reason for Trophy kits being bought.
Without an active protection system they would be toast since both attack the thin top armor of the tank.
Nice of the Germans to build our tanks for us. Oh the irony.
Better that, than no upgrade… I think we should let the Germans open more factories of this type in the UK, we need to beef up our manufacturing.
Yes they do good engineering and R-R are heavily involved in any case.
Finally, some good news.
On the one hand it’s great that these are getting upgraded and aren’t being completely mothballed. On the other hand, as others have said. The numbers are not enough. Gut feel, (based loosely upon Russian losses in Ukraine), I would say an absolute minimum should be 200, to allow continued effectiveness even after combat losses. With a more comfortable figure being the 300+ range. If these are deployed for use abroad, it is feasible to expect losses, and I think with only 150 I can’t see more than 50 of these being sent abroad at any one time. In a… Read more »
How a few hundred million more cannot be found to covert all the hulls is beyond me. It’s despicable really.
What you have to bear in mind is that when the next future tank project comes along the MOD will not increase the number of units. ANY reduction is forevermore.
148 future tanks for the British Army will be the maximum ambition – and we all know it will likely be reduced further.
Running costs of a tank are often overlocked , hence the reduction, if reduced further supply chain of spares becomes more expensive, finding companies to manufacture parts in small numbers is expensive and lead times increase as low profitability means it is not a priority in their production. Would make sense for the Government to have their own engineering facility although this goes against lean management and privatisation thinking which Governments of the last 40 years seem to love ?
Whats the point in a tank? Surly they are obsolete? The Ukranians are showing that a main battle tank is no match for one man and a Javelin. We also have Apaches which i believe are very effective against MBTs.
How much armoured units have the Russians lost to Javelins/NLaws so far?
Scott. The tank has gone through a century of development that swings between the tanks armour, speed, weaponry and now active/ passive defences vs weapons that are aimed at destroying the tank. No other weapin system has so many possible threats. Why is that? Because the tank is still relevant. We are juat in a phase when the advantage has swung against the tank. That phase wont last long as the armour , active defences, passive defences will improve and the tank will once again be able to dominate a battlefield. I dont see the wisdom in abandoning heavy armour… Read more »
You may be right but I feel you are being very optimistic there are limitations within size, capacity and weight in a tank that is potentially far more limiting than that imposed upon potential weapons used against it. At some point it becomes self defeating. Tanks are by no means obsolete but only something unforeseen can prevent them becoming obsolete in most scenarios much of the time and I suspect that might be being a little optimistic looking forward.
There are already many places where heavy tanks cannot operate reliably. Be it because of things like thawing terrain, monsoons, roads & bridges (both lack of or quality of) or lack of logistics or logistic bottlenecks. The world is also more crowded, hamlets that once had 20 houses now have 200 or 2,000. The distance between them is shorter. Not everywhere is like Iraq. A modern nation like Japan had to design the T10 tank because their heavy mbt’s couldn’t operate outside of their larger northern island. I seriously think the 70t tank is dead if that’s your sole mbt.… Read more »
Don’t believe all the hype. You are only seeing a one sided picture due to the free press coverage from the Ukrainian perspective. Russia does not allow press access to its forces and its ongoing operations, plus they only release choreographed press releases. To make matters worse, we are also seeing highly edited clips of ambushes etc. So you don’t see what led up to it or the aftermath. Plus you hardly ever see ones where Russian forces countered the ambush! Irrespective, those that have served, still cannot get their heads around how the Russian forces seem to have been… Read more »
The Russians are road bound in small numbers it seems. Cross open ground , or a line/ V formation it would be far harder to mount ambushes . For some reason they have just used bad tactic. A modern tank needs supporting infantry, air cover etc. Potentially in future, they or the IFV could self deploy drones to screen 1000 metres either side of the advance, sensors and AI identifying ambush sites in advance. A mobile 120 mm mortar in group could neutralise those forces. The way used will evolve, but there is still no better way of focusing devastating… Read more »
The Russians are road bound because the Ukrainian countryside is full of mud this time of year and tanks don’t do well in mud. Tanks need open ground that they can move across to be effective. They aren’t nearly as useful in mud or forests or hills or urban environments.
They were made to fight in the Northern European plains and the only other environment they might be as effective in is probably deserts
Whats the point in a tank? Surly they are obsolete? The Ukranians are showing that a main battle tank is no match for one man and a Javelin. In a real war without a big overmatch like Allies vs Iraq, every side gets losses, heavy losses. Media distort what we know. Tanks and AFV can resist up to a point artillery that would make leg infantry totally vanished. They are just one part of combined arms. Now what i am afraid for the tank(and other AFV) is if we start to see 10km range ATGW that can be directed by… Read more »
Really?
Do you not read military history?
Why are the French, Germans, Israelis, Russians and others designing new tanks?
I rather hope we dont just copy our defence stategy from the French and Russians. I did Naval history and it is littered with, once powerful weapons becoming obsolete very quickly. The demise of the Dreadnought, Cartiers making Battleships obsolete etc… We always learn from battles. We learnt alot from the Falklands war, mainly the threat a missile csn pose to a ship. History is resplendant with examples of weapon platforms which we rely on, becoming obsolete. The ability of Ukranian soldiers to take out Russian armour with shoulder launched missiles is surely an example of something we can take… Read more »
This needs fast tracked. To the full fleet not just part of it. We don’t need thousands of tanks, just a reasonable number of top drawer machines to form the army around.
Agree Marked,
I would think that 5 Challenget regts would be the right number, one in Estonia, one in Germany, two in the UK as reinforcements, one reserve (R Wsx Yeo) to provide trained replacement crews.
Including driver training, field training I Suffield or Germany and a 20% war reserve, that would total about 380 Challengers.
148 is far too few, upgrade all 227 known to be available, as well as any others in store.
I do agree 148 is too few despite my relative negativity about tanks generally moving forward. (Literally)
I don’t think we have had thousands of tanks since the 1950s. Just need a reasonable number – perhaps 200 – 300.
Exactly, keep the capability. Other things take priority in the army.
Enough of this island nation spiel! We are not in the age of sail, where we rely on the Home Fleet to save our sacred Isles. We are part of NATO Europe and all membets need to play their part on land and in the air and, to a lesser extent, at sea, as Europe does not face any significant naval threat, in the event of a threat to the continent. ‘Island nation’ is a metaphor for isolationists intent on playing no serious part in the defence of Europe, instead playing at being a major naval power. Others manage to… Read more »
We have a rail link to the continent too, people forget this. Get tanks on a train and they can, with a stop to switch gauges, roll all the way to the border without the need for a navy. Tanks are also expeditionary. We managed to get an armoured division to Iraq twice, and as the British Army showed in Kosovo, and the Danes and Candians showed in Afghan, even in a counter insurgency Tanks are really useful.
Er… we share the same gauge all the way to the Polish, Slovak, Hungarian and Romainian borders Dern. Well, the Spanish and Portuguese are special but, hopefully we don’t need to there 🙂
Yes. So if we where moving tanks to the Russian border we’d need to stop to switch guages in: Poland.
I agree.
We invented the tank in 1916. Within weeks they were off to expeditionary duty – BEF, France.
We have only ever deployed tanks on expeditionary operations.
If tanks were obsolete, why has only Belgium scrapped them? Also, what would replace the tank? It would have to be a well-protected, highly mobile, platform with a large direct fire, stabilised weapon system. Sounds like a tank to me.
*1915 but otherwise agreed.
Or why the Canadians did an about turn as soon as they realised they actually where going to be doing fighting and brought Leopard 1 back into service.
Politicians want Tanks to be obsolete because they’re expensive to deploy, amateur (and some professional) keyboard warriors want them to be obsolete because they like system X, which shows up in the news reels.
People have been declaring the tank “obsolete” since the T-Gewehr was introduced in 1918.
Not only did the Canadians do a U-turn on retiring the Leo 1 and replacing it with the Stryker MGS, they soon afterwards bought the Leo 2. Both Leo 1s and later Leo 2s deployed with the CF to Kandahar province.
Good knowledge on the T-Gewehr!
Tanks should really be based in Poland or Estonia not UK.
Agreed. Helicopters, paras, hovercraft & other amphibious landings could quickly overwhelm our tiny forces & our navy is tiny. Being an island now isn’t the barrier it once was. Rather than withdrawing into ourselves, our security lies in deploying forces where they can deter, deal with threats, guarding allies, long before they get near us.
Turning our backs or standing off when friends are attacked is counter productive; a lesson we may have to re-learn the hard way.
Why on earth do you think that an invasion fleet could get anywhere near the U.K.? Don’t you think we actually might see it coming and deal with it before it gets here? And who would this mythical fleet belong too anyway?
100% correct what fleet.
If it’s parochial to point out we are an island nation, why is it not similarly parochial when you say [mainland] Europe has no significant naval threat? I fail to see the difference, other than we are discussing what the UK should pay for, so maybe the UK is a more appropriate bias. NATO isn’t the only military commitment we have made, so why does a part of NATO, Northern Europe, seem the appropriate geographic bias to you when deciding military purchases? Reliance on post-Suez Cold War thinking doesn’t serve us well when so much has changed geopolitically, militarily and… Read more »
Yeah and it is for that reason that we have retained command of the ARRC which with the exception of the US V Corps is NATO’s only viable deployable Corps. No other European nation either volunteering to take on the task or indeed in reality being up to the job.
Let’s try again, but, I promise, no crayons even for the hard of thinking:
Combined arms tactics.
Ask @Airborne if he’d like to be alone or have RTR and RRA with him.
Combined arms the only way! Go too light go home 😂! Armour, has the ability to go on the offensive/defensive at the drop of the hat (hatch)and correctly protected with an active defensive system, they also have longevity and the ability to remain in the field for a long time! But shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don’t tell anyone I said that….
Taps nose.
Absolutely and from an Airborne warrior very well said. We had our Warriors ( as in IFV) with us in 2004 but after Phase 1 Ops entry Ops were over which thanks to our heavy metal and unlike Mr Putin’s were achieved with almost zero loss we were patrolling as light role on Snatch. Whenever it kicked off however , at MAK or Three Mosque Roundabout for example out came the WR backed up by CH2. There was only one Squadron of tank remaining in theatre at that time but that was enough. Even a single troop supporting your dismounts… Read more »
Here, here. Somebody talking sense from experience.
This is an ever changing, dangerous, world. We need options. I would also argue we need our own national design and production capability for MBTs – not rely on the Germans or Americans.
Imagine how the world could go. Just in conventional terms Russia/China in the Artic/Canada, China going into North Australia… let alone Estonia or Finland. You may laugh but think about it and the need for something doing that does the MBT thing.
The issues in Ukraine are much more about Russia picking the worst time to undertake a rapid offensive action in Eastern Europe. Mud in that area of the world at that time of year has aways stopped mobility. The Rasputitsa which happens in spring and autumn across Russia and Ukraine has always murdered any offensive mobility, it hit Napoleon, saved Moscow from the German army in 41/42. Its bizarre as the Russian army know what happens to Russian and ukriane especially in the spring Rasputitsa which involves the melt of up to 2 meters of frozen soil which then turns… Read more »
At last – someone who actually knows what he’s talking about lol
Are they? Certainly we know that if a tank is wandering around an urban area on it’s own with no infantry, or if you drive a column through an unsecured urban centre, then yes you can destroy them. But that’s nothing new. That was true in 1916.
Have you done an indepth study of Ukranian attacks on Russian Armour and have the numbers to back up that statement? Or are you just going off of videos on open-source?
The U.K. has a vast array of commitments, most of them happen to be on a coastal area. We all also as a nation utterly and completely dependent on sea lanes for what we eat, sleep on, build our houses with and all most everything else…we are actually an island that means everything comes by sea or air. The sea is our weakness and threat as well as our potential strength if someone else has control of the seas around this island or any sea lane that connects us to a resource we need they can potentially hold us in… Read more »
You are having a laugh surely?The French and Italian Navies combined are no match for the Royal Navy.
I would wager just our submarine force would render said Navies to Davy Jones Locker.
We ARE an island nation and surely we should ensure the protection of that island with a very powerful Navy?
We have always been pragmatci in our national military strategy . Despite being an offshore island, we have historically maintained the balance of power in Europe, leading an alliance against all who got too big for their boots and threatened European equilibrium. Our infantry and cavalry regts bear honours from Marlborough, helped by Savoy, the Dutch Republic, Austria and Hanover, beating the French under Louis XV. From the Duke of Cumberland, with the help of Hanoverian, Dutch and Hapsburg troops v the French in Flanders. And so on to the war in Spain and then Waterloo, where Wellington commanded a… Read more »
Sorry pal, but you are talking crap!!
Do please expand on your assertion John. Is my history flawed? Do we still have an Empire that requires the protection of a mega fleet? Am I wrong in thinking that the Navy gobbles up the lion’s share of the equipment budget? Give us a clue please!
Your history isn’t flawed, but it is just that, past history. I don’t know what your experience of the military is, but mine is quite substancial. It isn’t a numbers game any more, it’s about technology & power projection at range, both strategically & tactically. The UK is probably the most strategically placed country on earth, we can’t be invaded by anyone, however, we rely on the sea for most of our trade, therefore we need to control the sea & obviously the air over it. As far as land forces are concerned, an all arms battlegroup has about the… Read more »
I’m sat quietly in the corner of the room pondering Azerbaijan v Armenia and Ukraine v Russia.
🤔🤔😐
I would have to agree David, it’s a really tricky one isn’t it.
I do think we should ‘at least’ retain our current force structure, with 3 Armoured Regiments.
So all 227 converted to Chally 3.
We need a re balanced force structure across all three services, even if Poland and Germany build capable armoured formations.
The situation in Ukraine certainly shows the ongoing need for capable armoured formations within NATO.
Poland is in the process of arming and she is going great guns – there’ll be Poles on very tight leashes at the moment with regard to getting involved, they present as very capable and just as in the Battle of Britain, let off the leash, they’d be a game changer.
German Command Major, Armoured, on a train from Berlin to Hamburg 2 weeks ago said watch this space – Germany has changed direction and the Heer are onboard.
Positive news.
Excellent news, wonderful the Germans have finally woken up to the threat…
But do you want the Polish tankies let off the leash?
I’m sure they will keep professionally constrained David….
Well doubt many senior NATO commanders speak Polish… bit like the BoB 😉
On a serious note, the Poles are calling nonsense on Russian claims about directing the war at the Donbass.
Hopefully, diplomats will address things behind the scenes with Biden in Warsaw today.
Let’s hope so David. The Poles are straining at the bit!
I wonder how many have taken ‘leave’ and slipped over the border to join the international brigade?
I don’t blame them, if you’re young, have the training and drive to do something, then why not….
John, I think here you have got it about spot on. All three services are short on resource but due in main to extended commitments in Afghan and Iraq it is the Army’s conventional capability that has been run down the most Until very recently we could field two viable armoured Divisions , albeit made up of five Armd/mech Bdes not six, 4X, 7X, 20X, 1X and 12X Bde’s with 16 Air Assault effectively making up the sixth. This was not of course ideal but it did allow us to maintain a five Bde rotation and sustain a viable force… Read more »
Sorry – the failed exercise intended largely for internal PR is of course ‘ Future Soldier’ not as most spelt above.
Absolutely, there really isn’t much point in 148, too far below critical mass to be an effective force. My ‘ideal’ would be for a buy of 350 MBT’s, and field 6 Armoured Regiments with all the trappings. I would perminently base two in the Baltic States, (unless this new cold war de- escalates quickly), this seems highly unlikely unfortunately. Let Germany, Poland and the US keep heavy Armour in Central Europe, ready to defend the centre. I’m guessing that putting this amount of heavy metal back onto the army, with the additional requirements of support, RE/ REME and logistics etc… Read more »
Let’s hope these tanks come with 360 degree active protection because Russia is probably already starting to reverse engineer the Javelins and NLAWs they captured in Ukraine.
You mean active protection like well drilled, aggressive and mobile infantry? Or layered air defence? Or ECM? Or hard kill active protection systems eg Trophy?
Tbh they have had a long time to do that with Javelins in particular. Trouble is they are fundamentally a defensive weapon and whatever bs Russia talks about being in fear from NATO that’s not really what their forces are about.
There is nothing special about NLAW, Javelin, because the fire team is at heavy risk. They are just good systems in a forested country.
A bunch of Islamic state with Russian missiles also made heavy losses to Turkish Leopard 2 a tank from same era of Challenger 2..
Wait for when ATGW are cannisters deployed in field off from fire team and target designated by external source or by own cameras (with AI so there is not even need of radio connection) that will change the game.
We are entering the missile age.
Pre – deployed remotely operated ATGW are nothing new,Hezbollah used them to great effect in Southern Lebanon in 2006.
Did not know that story. How it was done?
You clearly have no idea how hollow charge jets work.
I am prying that the government is being logical. I agree that 148 modern battle tanks is not enough and would like to see all Challenger 2 tanks undergo modernisation. Yet would this be a good investment for a limited time or would it be better to save money and buy in ten years a completly new MBT. With the concept that this new tank turret is to fit into tanks of diffrent nations is it possible that it could become the turret of the Franco-German MBT project? For the future well God I wish we could have a 1… Read more »
Ron, I’d take the upgrades now, and ship an RTR to Estonia straight away taking goodies like sky sabre with them.
Must admit if I were Poland and indeed Germany I would seriously want large numbers of tanks, it’s too dangerous to simply say they have had their day in their position. But Britain I feel it’s a very different equation, one aspect being that if Germany, Poland, US, France and others can’t field enough MBTs to do the job I’m not convinced anything we can add will turn that round for it will look like a losing bet in the first placeand can’t help but feel concentration on alternative solutions to the problem would be a better way forward for… Read more »
I remember when we had a Corps in Germany (of 4 divisions to 1982) plus a brigade in Berlin, a division-equivalent in NI and a lot of troops in GB and ‘out of area’. Heady days. Are you really proposing three Corps? From a baseline where we can not today deploy a single division, that is a huge stretch. Your concept of having technically trained soldiers earning money for ‘Defence’ in peacetime is amazing and has left me speechless. Point is that in peacetime an army trains for war, maintains its kit and administers itself whilst doing personal development (fitness,… Read more »
IN FAIRNESS, the Navy does have technically trained sailors earning money for Defence in Peacetime through the Hydrographic Survey Vessels…
As an old ground pounder, I look at the latest generations of MBTs from Chally 3, A 7 Leos, upgraded Abrams, T80s, Armatas etc then I see the devastating effects of tools like the N-Laws, suicide drones, etc on said vehicles. I dont think i would want to be a Tanky or Mech Inf today. Indeed I just watch a YT video on the upgraded Charley Gustav and the new munitions it can now fire, and it confirms my fears.
👍
The tank will be obsolete when the ‘Axis of Evil’ nations (Russia, Iran, North Korea, China) give them up.
Indeed surely it is only going to get worse, the potential for improvement is surely leaning substantially towards the development in anti tank weapons as against defences any tank can offer against them.
The devastating effects occur since 1967, there is nothing new. You can always makes losses to tanks.
The question is, can you stop with ATGWs a 700 tank force on the move?
It is easy to get some ATGW teams picking a column here and there. It is a very different ballpark to stop a significant force because then your thousand ATGW teams start to being very vulnerable to artillery and infantry.
I would love to see tanks rolling anywhere effectively in Cities, Towns, Forests, Marshland, Mountains etc Tanks are only effective on desert or steppes.
You mean like the US used them in Falujah? Or the Canadians in Afghan?
OUTSIDE of Falujah
Nope. USMC Tanks went into the city to provide support to the Infantry. Quoted below are just three instances from various parts of fighting in downtown Falujah, where the USMC itself says it used M1’s to support their infantry in Urban fighting: Johlan District Break In: At 1926, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, launched its as- sault into the Jolan District, following the battalion’s two main tanks through a cut in the berm west of the train station. Company K, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, provided support-by-fire from the apartment complex while Company I passed through the breach in amphib- ious tracked… Read more »
Yeah and more importantly how can you re-take ground with an army only made up of light role Infantry armed with Javelin and NLAW – however good they are. Mount them on the back of snatch Land Rover perhaps and then just sit back and watch the bad guys arty do it’s stuff? Whatever happened to the proven concept of dynamic defence. For that you need the combined arms battle consisting of SP artillery, IFV – and tanks.
Would you rather be in a Chally or a 4-tonner in a combat zone, Bill?
On foot Graham , Tanks, AFVs and trucks are just big SHOOT ME FIRST adverts. Vehicles are OK for Recce or Movement in the rear areas, But in the areas I was supposed to fight WW3 like Towns, cities , forests and mountains vehicles are just prey.
Be careful ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts when i’ve made up my mind’ 😉
Good answer!
In addition to what I have written yes I would if I could rebuild a 1 Br Corp for European defence but is that the best use of limited UK money. Not really, does the UK want to take and hold land, no, so do we need a large Army, no. We should spend the money on our defence and give the best aid possible to our NATO partners. That means sea and air capability, to protect the Atlantic sea lanes, control of the air and kill the enemies ground forces, with a small mobile hard hitting army that can… Read more »
100%
And yet, how many of the Russian Braid were spotted by our RAF int assets and the info passed on to reliable… partners… for slotting.
I hope Russian Braid get slotted as often as a casino machine in Las Vegas.
Yes I’m sure it was the RAF…
I did not mean to suggest that the RAF operated alone, however, I do think that information has been analysed, targets identified and that was passed along.
I think the challenger 3 program needs to be accelerated and expanded to upgrade all of the existing Challenger 2 to 3 standard. The quote of BoJo that the day of the tank is over . Is very sadly wrong
When did that great military strategist, BoJo, say that?
We need so much where to start? More P8s another 5 would be a start then add an anti ship missile to them all. it’s ok buying all this expensive kit with no weapons but now the shooting has started we need weapons on them they are a typical British buy all show and no blow. Sorting them out will cost a fortune and take years we don’t have 🤭🤬😢
There making a complete new turret? I does seem like a comprehensive upgrade. As much as some say there’s no place for tanks i disagree. The combined forces must have tanks and all other aspects. Be that ifv, recon vehicles, missiles, drones, artillery, infantry etc etc. Perhaps the tank could be cheaper but we are where we are.
When it replacement comes around that may be the time when the tank as we know it doesn’t get replaced. Will really depend how tech has come along. Robocop in a military uniform
No, they are finally going with the 120mm smoothbore gun that both the Abrams and Leopard tanks use, meaning the Chally 3 can share ammo with our NATO allies which we couldn’t do with the rifled gun of the Challenger 2.
Only 40 years too late….
Not really. The rifled 120mm has been a very good gun for a very long time. The Chally 2 is still a competitive tank – esp against likely opponents. Chally 2 would still mash T90s and the Chally 3 will be even better.
Correct and the advantage that CH2’s rifled gun has over smoothbore is that it can fire HESH. Ask any tanky what round he (or she) would have up the spout as first use round and they will always say HRSH. Equally good at taking out enemy armour, structures or dismounted Inf. Plus unlike APFSDS it’s effectiveness isn’t depleted with range .
Yes. Losing HESH is sad. A great all-rounder and given urban warfare the ability to make a big hole in a building ( if said building survives at all) is a highly useful breaching tool.
DM-12 is light years better.
HESH is ancient crap, utterly overmatched by modern programmable natures.
The 120mm rifled gun performed very well in conflicts such as Gulf War 1 (longest tank kill achieved) and Gulf War 2.
Many arm chair military experts have said this because of the number taken out by Ukraine. But the Russians are deploying their tanks without inventory support in closed country . Such a conclusion shows the naïveté of the commentator .
We should definitely do away with Generals as they are proving to be very vulnerable in this conflict.
Ha ha ha – very good point – and teach more LCpls ‘ Mission Command’
😂😂😂👍
Old turret could not support the 120mm smooth bore or that the ammo is much longer . The new sensor package , ammo storage.
The engine/gearbox and suspension are being upgraded under a seperate project. Which to be makes little sense . Why double handle?
Talk softly but get a bigger stick
-Make best use of existing kit eg upgrade all challenger 2s, OPVs to corvettes, keep old Apaches, Lynxes and Typhoon tranche 1
-accelerate existing programmes eg types 26, 31 and 32, Tempest, anti ship missiles etc
– get ahead of the unmanned air, surface and submarine systems, direct energy weapons, cyber offence and defencr
Works out at £5 million plus per tank!?
Am I missing something? (Support / training costs aside)…
Need these but sounds really pricey to me.
It’s not that bad when you look at the sink capital costs of a new MBT say a leopard 2. It’s also a limited work order which is always going to put the prices up. It would probably work out cheaper per tank if HMG just upgraded the whole fleet. Penny pinching really when you thinks what an extra 70 conversions would costs it really back of the sofa money from a capital expenditure for the U.K. especially as most of the money gets recycled back into either the wider economy or tax base…..always think of these things as fiscal… Read more »
Yes agreed, money spent in the UK etc…
At that price point surely cheaper to upgrade 300+ ish tanks though…that’s the bit I dont understand.
Yes I think we are getting stung by the usual Economy of scale and that fact of in year budgets and savings cost us more per unit than if we had opened the purse a bit more freely. Just like the T45s they were so expensive per unit because we only purchased 6 and not 12……short sighted all the way that our governments ( both lots blue or red).
Yes this has been short sighted ness for multiple governments….its not rocket science though.
The man in the street could have done a better job MOD procurement wise…and still ended up with a more credible force for less £
It’s not far off rocket science, procuring very complex AFVs.
Wasnt talking about the complexities of the tank, I ment buy more and save more by diluting the NRE across more vehicles.. that’s the bit the man in the street could have got right 👍
Aaagh, I see. Yes, we should have done that. We deployed 221 tanks in Gulf War 1. If we ever wanted to do that sort of operation again we would need about 300 to allow for a training fleet, repair pool etc.
👍, my fault…was a late night rant and thin on detail.
I only think we’ve 250 in use to go at anyways and some of those will be highly canabalised I’d imagine.
Does anyone have a definitive number on reserve hulls etc in storage?…
Cant imagine the other retired CR2’s have simply been cut up for scrap.
UK has declared 227 active CR2s for some time although 386 were purchased. I believe only 1 has been scrapped and none have been sold. Many in storage will have been partially stripped for spares.
Cheers Graham, no brainer to look at circa 250 to CR3 spec then to make this cost effective. Maybe we’ll do this over time, but surely cheaper as one contract (although UK follow on orders may be part of the small print?)
Realise the contract does allow for export sales which is good…but outside the very very limited overseas operators of the CR2 who would likely buy the new turret for retrofit?..
True, thats why people call them the £1bn warship.
If they do not learn the lesson of ukraine and realise we need more tanks not less then they are very foolish but as our defence policy is set by the treasury not the MOS. I won’t be surprised if we cut the defence but to south of two
Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs will be a large slice of that £800m. However it should have cost less than that.
Unusual to choose Pearsons to fabricate the turret. I only know them for making tank-fitted mine ploughs. I hope they learn how to make turrets and don’t screw it up.
Our island nation characteristic is irrelevant. As a NATO member we need to deploy forces anywhere in the NATO area (and sometimes beyond (ie Afghanistan).
As a permanent member of the Security Council we may have to deploy forces anywhere in the world. In the last 70 years how many UN actions have we fought in (or are fighting in), and how many NATO actions? Then there are bilateral, trilateral and historic commitments. Of course we need to be ready to fight for Eastern Europe, but the next flare up could be anything from protecting Cypriot gas fields to supporting French overseas territories to a peacekeeping mission following a Venezualan coup. And always, always, always the protection of trade flows. If the knock on effects… Read more »
As someone who served for 34 years (Army) in continental Europe and in 4 other continents and the Middle East, you are preaching to the converted about our global military experience.
My point about our island nation status being irrelevant was to counter a comment from JayR that we only really needed to seriously invest in the navy. Our island status is of course relevant to us having a strong navy but not that we can neglect land and air forces.
On reflection maybe we only need 150 modern MBTs, but for what is a small capital cost a wise government would just modernise all 220, get some increases savings per unit for a larger order and maybe get Oman to come in and modernise its challengers. An extra 350 million of capital outlay for a national recourse that will last 25 years is piss all money ( especially spread over say 5-10 years). When you think most of that money then gets recycled back into the economy and probably 50% returning into the tax base you start to see just… Read more »
👍
Dreaming with your 5% buddy.
Are you sure the USA can generate and deploy 1,000 tanks, from a paper strength of about 10 Armor BCTs? Also, how long will it take those tanks to reach the front lines of Europe from across North America and across the Atlantic?
For an all out war yes as they have a paper strength of 11 armour BCTs each with 88 tanks, as well as 5 ABCTs in national guard, for a sustained deployment probably only about 500. A lot of their equipment is pre deployed in Europe so not too long travel time.
Yeah, 500 is not 1,000. I’m not sure there’s still lots of pre-positioned stuff in Europe.
Yes but it’s not just about that tip of the spear. As far as I’m aware even tanks work on the rule of three, so yes 50 is the max sustained effort with 150. But that’s not what I’m taking about. What that 150 is not considering is the risk over 30 years so what I’m considered with is that 50 being deployed in 30 years time…it is not really taking into account the fact that is the lot for 25-30 years ( no chance to buy more challengers when they are used up or suffered attrition to the fleet).… Read more »
If the UK could regain a design and production capability for MBTs, virtually all of the money spent would stay in the UK economy in the future, and act as a heavy-industry stimulus as you correctly say. If we rely on German or American-owned companies, then all the profit goes to others.
As long as we dont go below 147 – cus we’d be snookered then
Lord Younger said:
“It is very important to say, first, that our current capability is absolutely fine and, secondly, that we will have two types of frigate on stream by the end of the decade.”
Does the Type 45 have the Cooperative Engagement Capability yet?
I think it would be a good time for parties to start writing up their manifestos, I feel like some window shopping.
We should have three types of frigate in service at the end of the decade, and a fourth under construction. Need I say more about Lord Younger’s grasp of detail?
Tomartyr, thanks for pointing me to that debate, but you missed the most important part of the discussion. On current plans, the average delivery rate for vessel acceptance for the Type 26 batch 1 ships is the optimum that can be achieved, considering all relevant factors. It is expected to be one ship every 18 months. This is a most welcome speed up compared to the first batch. I lobbied my MP for annual, but I would settle for a “realistic” 15 months. I still hope we can press the government to speed it further. And three cheers to Lord… Read more »
My point was that by highlighting Jam Next Decade he was avoiding the very real and immediately fixable issues we currently face, such as our Type 45 not being capable of performing its mission.
Of course you are right. But the speed of build of Type 26 is so crucial to the next twenty years procurement, it sometimes overshadows other immediate issues (not much point in discussing cooperative engagement or NIFC-CA when you still can’t link to your rotaries).
Ach. I misread it. That’s batch 1 he’s talking about. So he’s just saying that the third ship should be accepted in 2030, not 2031.
Comprehensive article over at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44927/british-armys-next-generation-challenger-3-tank-is-now-under-construction
Ukraine proven Tanks are metal coffins cannon fodder up again javelin ..Tanks are easy targets for tools like apache or A10 or fast moving small teams with NATO standard anti tank weapons .
Russian tanks don’t have APS so not exactly relevant to the Challenger 3
Peter, You sound like you think tanks are obsolete because there is a counter to them (as there has been since 1918 – http://www.antitank.co.uk/ww1_anti-tank_rifles1.htm).
Well there is a counter to every weapon system ever produced and several that can kill or main the dismounted soldier. Doesn’t mean tanks are obsolete.
True, very true. Many an MM, MC or VC was won in WW2 taking out a Panther or Tiger with a PIAT. Used a very similar shaped charge warhead to NLAW in fact, just not 150mm or top attack .
Seriously sick now to put troops in a mental coffin just waiting to be destroyed Tanks 20th century dinosaurs waiting to be killed with 21 st century weapons .Russian army stuck in the 20 century and no real problem for any small modern army .
Every item of military kit is vulnerable in war and will suffer losses – frigates, destroyers, fighter aircraft, armoured vehicles, UAVs, etc, etc. And especially large targets llike the carriers and amphib ships. The rate of potential loss is governed by a load of factors – detection and defence capabilities, equipment maintenance standards, personnel and skill levels, deployment and tactics, logistic re-supply efficacy, etc, etc, . You single out the tank as being vulnerable, based no doubt on clips from Azerbaijan and Russian losses in Ukraine. They bear little relevance to how NATO deploys and uses armour in a combined… Read more »
Under your logic we should scrap all ships, submarines, fighter jets, helicopters, AFVs (in addition to tanks), dismpunted infantrymen. In fact – to scrap everything that has a counter to it.
For discussion. Tanks are obsolete – like the battleship. Offensive power now lies in the hands of Tommy armed with lethal, highly accurate, high tech, relatively cheap, anti-tank weapons, anti- aircraft missiles and drones. The battle of Kursk was fought tank against tank. And if the opposing tank isn’t there but Tommy hidden in ditches and hedgerows, in depth with planned dispersal routes and points, the tank will not know where to point it’s high tech gun. As for attack from the air it’s expensive to fire brimstone missiles at a ditch to try and catch Tommy. I would even… Read more »
I’m not au fait with military tactics so forgive me if I’ve misunderstood. Surely your Tommys won’t only be vulnerable to expensive precision missiles or suicide drone attacks. We’ve all seen footage of police helicopters’ IR chasing down individuals. These days that kind of facility can put in a £500 quadcopter. Have a look at the kind of commercial ISTAR that can be bought off the shelf for under £20K; ‘copter, imaging and targetting for less than the price of a one-shot NLAW. And the price continues to fall. If that’s what’s available commercially today, ask what will be available… Read more »
Fire and scoot is one answer. Keep on the move and keep your distance. Helicopters you mention are themselves vulnerable to missiles from Tommy (Kiplings poem about Tommy Atkins is a wonderful read). One thing is certain, this war is going to lead to a lot of re-thinking on tactics and equipment.
Fire and scoot? I’m not buying that. What would the infantryman fire at? And what would they keep their distance from? I didn’t mention helicopters. I talked about cheap quadcopters in the 5-10kg bracket (did you follow the link?). Hard to spot, harder to target, but still capable of laser pinpointing a scooting infantryman from a kilometre away. Put a couple of recharge pads on the back of a tank/IFV and it could always move forward with at least one set of eyes in the sky. Something much harder for an infantryman to emulate on a quadbike. I think in… Read more »
Why bother with infantry then? Clear them off the battlefield. He is either in a vehicle or on foot. He fires at anything that moves. Very difficult to hit a moving target. Expensive way of knocking out one soldier.
Kursk wasn’t fought tank against tank. Kursk was fought with Mines, Aircraft, Artillery, and dug in infantry against Tank, followed up with a counter attack with Tanks.
As I understand it the Kursk battle has always been known as the biggest tank battle ever – T34’s against Tiger and Panther tanks en mass. Of course it also involved the other things you mention as well.
What it has been known as, and what it actually was are almost always two very different things. The Soviet defence hinged on well prepared and dug in defences, a ridiculous amount of mines and AT guns, and these accounted for the vast majority of Wehrmacht and SS tank losses. Even Prokarovka (which is the battle you’re thinking of, and it’s worth noting that Prokarovka was only one small part of Kursk, an attempt by the Soviets to launch a premature counter-attack before the Wehrmacht had exhausted itself) was exagerated in post war accounts, German records show only ~50 tanks… Read more »
Darn. Please see above about Wikki info – I inadvertently replied to myself! It would be interesting to know what historical source and research you are quoting?
Just found this debate days late. As a student and researcher of the eastern front you are spot on.
From wiki info. In the battle of Kursk the Germans lost 500 tanks and the Russians 1500.
You’re going off the numbers for the entirety of Operation Citadel which as I pointed out was laregly not Tank on Tank, as the Soviets where fighting from prepared defensive positions for most of it. While I don’t doubt Glantz and House’s numbers at face value, simply put: It doesn’t distinguish what killed a tank (or even what was lost due to mechanical breakdown). My numbers refer to Prokharovka, which was for a long time considered the largest “tank on tank” battle in history (It wasn’t, but history gets mixed up in pop-culture), and sometimes gets incorrectly spoken about as… Read more »
Even if only a small proportion of the total tanks lost were by direct tank on tank action it is still considered the largest tank battle in history. The German Panther tank, built by Porsche, was over complicated and unreliable. The T34 was very basic and simple to operate but expendable because of the huge numbers involved in the battle. I had certainly no intention of correcting your numbers on Prokharovka; I am talking about the battle that goes under the name of Kursk.
Biggest Tank Battle does not mean “biggest tank on tank battle.” Which is the difference I’m trying to point out to you. I know you are talking about Kursk, but Prokharovka is part of Kursk and the only time major German and Soviet armoured formations clashed directly, and where the myth of Kursk being Tank-on-Tank largely comes from, which is why im focusing on it and why its actually quite a small part of thr overall offensive. Also can we please not do the T34/Panther comparison. Ignoring the fact that panthers where only ever a minority, there was a reason… Read more »
If Kursk wasn’t the largest tank on tank battle could you quote me one that was. The battle of Wounded Knee perhaps? In the end it all comes down to definitions and semantics. I’m a retired Chartered Engineer and have every right to do T34/Panther comparison without a bye your leave from you.
Hey everyone we’ve got a chartered engineer here! We’ve got a chartered engineer here! See? nobody cares. At the end of the day your comparison was nothing but myths and sterotypes, which is why I dismiss it, and your profession being an engineer does not qualify your opinions unless you happen to have specificially studied the Panther and T-34, and from your comments it’s clear that you haven’t. Which is why you are getting spitty, it’s not a good look. If you want to have a grown up discussion I’m happy too. I’ll point out once again, that Kursk wasn’t… Read more »
You really are getting worked up you arrogant, rude little man. A pedant would be a good description of you. What qualifications do you have? Probably an O level in divinity. A non-entity posturing as a defence expert. How dare I question your undoubted superior knowledge in all things. I am indeed a very naughty boy! Now, how about a friendly tête-à-tête on a T34/Panther comparison over a nice cup of tea and some Osborne biscuits.
Oh no. Name calling. Whatever shall I do (it’s about as intelligent as the rest of your ranting).
Billy, comment in a civil manner or do not comment.
You’re German aren’t you – a name of Dern. I’ve looked up it’s meaning, it suits you. As I’m not allowed by you to do a T34/Panther comparison, as you have already done it, I shall instead do an Elephant/dung beetle comparison. Much much simpler. I intend to publish a scientific paper when I’m finished. I will let you know when that happens and then we can compare notes. How to wind up a German.
Funny, again you’re wrong. 🙂
I’ll point out you’re the one who is wound up and upset.
Also thanks: I picked the name myself (although it’s English not German so you can’t even do that little bit of research it seems).
This is over.
I agree – it is.
Sorry George but if somebody is so arrogant and pompous that they consider themselves the only expert in town then I have a right to reply.
An addition to my recent post. Thousands of sniper rifles. Totally demoralising for an enemy.
This turret appears to be a mistake, it should have been designed as like the M1 one to take all ammunition from the hull.
Taking a step back, everything seems to have gone very quiet on Ajax. Is no news good news?
Good point Paul, every statement I have read from Government is bland. No hint of a timeline for resolution or a Plan B if this poor and unsuitable vehicle cannot be fixed. I am suspicious. I bet any very bad news breaks on the
next day Parliament is dissolved for a holiday so it can’t be discussed – Easter?
Huge amount of work, financial and political consequences whichever way it goes. Got to believe they now understand the root causes and options. If, as seems likely, Ajax cannot meet its original design requirements the decision is whether to accept a best endeavours but maybe ‘good enough’ Ajax or buy brand new OTS. Lots of humble pie to be eaten either way. I suppose there is a 3rd option to commission a new project, son of Ajax, to fit the CTA turret onto a current offering….
CTA 40 should go on the Boxers. It’s not without risk, but it’s probably a good solution to proceed with, whether or not the Ajax project is killed. No point in waiting to figure out what will happen. Get stuck in and try it out. Just pick Lockheed Martin or Nexter as the turret provider and get some samples sorted. If I recall correctly, Nexter already claims to have done it, but their turret is manned, which the LM one wouldn’t be.
As a chartered engineer with 34 years army experience (REME) much of it on A Vehs, plus 2 years as a civvy on contract at DE&S, I cannot believe that a comprehensive Root Cause Analysis has not been done quite a time ago (particularly as most if not alll problesm were evident some years ago) and that Solutions experts will have devised solutions. I would not mind guessing that what what is now happening is discussions between MoD, GDUK, GDUS involving very senior staff and lawyers and commercial/contract staff and finance staff. They take longer than engineers to sort things… Read more »
Morning Graham, what you say sounds very probable. The second hand vehicles option is thought provoking. I imagine the press would have a field day.
RCA carried out, enhancements proposed and trialled, platforms undergoing acceptance testing.
We are talking about Ajax, right?
Why has the MoD not announced this fantastic news? Sounds like all the problems are over then?
Last I heard, it will take to the end of this year just to figure out what will be needed to fix it. I can’t see a decision coming before then and it’ll probably be announced some time after that. Nobody in the MoD would take a decision when they have a perfectly good excuse not to. So I’d keep a look out maybe January next year.
Hi Jon,
As per Graham Moore’s post above; RCA has been carried out, solutions / enhancements proposed and trialled.
Tanks belong in the museums only any good up against 3 rd world armies .
New challenger 3. What a load of rubbish. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in one on the battle field. 3 years in the design, your joking. My 6 year old grandson designs are better. I asked him why have you drawn a tank with slanted turret sides. Because the shell has nowhere to land . Looking now at other designs i understand. 800 million for a tank going back to the 2nd world war. Such a waste of tax payers money