Well, what do we think of that then? The Defence Command Paper has now been published and much of the speculation of the last few months can stop, although possibly only temporarily.
We know only too well from bitter past experience that there’s usually a huge gap between what is written and what actually happens, of course, but let’s run with what the Paper says for the moment.
This article was submitted to the UK Defence Journal by Stuart Crawford.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
There’s lots of stuff to digest and comment upon across all three Services here, and I’m only to aware that others are far more qualified and competent to discuss matters RN, RAF, and most of the Army. I’ll leave it to them and look forward to reading their views. What I do feel qualified and competent to comment on, nay rant about, is tanks.
As heavily trailed in the national media over past weeks, the Challenger 2 Life Enhancement Programme (henceforth CR2 LEP) will only be applied to approximately 148 of the current UK tank fleet.
There is good news and bad news here, the latter far outweighing the former, I’m afraid. The good news is that the UK is still in the MBT game, albeit at much reduced numbers, and that we have at long last adopted – ‘Hallalujah’ – the German 120 mm smoothbore gun, something we should have done 30 odd years ago.
So at least the Royal Armoured Corps will have ammunition commonality with its main NATO allies at long last, plus a gun with higher muzzle velocity and greater penetration to boot. And we shouldn’t forget the less sexy but important other enhancements – including new sights, a new modular armour package, and an active protection system (although speculation is that only 60 each of the latter two will be procured) – which will allow the creaking CR2 to soldier on for a bit longer.
Now for the bad news, of which there is rather a lot more. Most disappointing by far is that we have once again failed to grasp the nettle and plumped for CR2 LEP rather than Leopard 2A7, thereby once again missing out on the future developments and economies of scale that the German tank would offer.
A reminder: Leopard 2 is fielded by over 20 countries in its various iterations, CR2 by two.
It is true that the £750 million allocated for the LEP programme is probably less than the cost of purchasing an equivalent number of Leo2A7 in its stead. It is difficult to get an exact figure on how much the German tank might cost to buy these days, if only because every contract seems to have different parameters, but a figure of $10 million (£7.15 million) per unit might be in the right ballpark.
So more expensive, yes, but who says we need to buy them? Leasing is an option worth exploring, as previously expounded, and has risk transfer and financial advantages for conventional military budgets.
There then arises the question of what is to become of the remaining existing CR2 which are not to be upgraded on present plans.
The UK will be left with roughly 250 of them, and it’s difficult to see what, apart from scrapping them, is likely to be their fate. The only other operator, Oman, might take a few, I suppose, to bolster its current fleet of 38, but that’s it. I’m not sure there are sufficient spares to support any sale to another operator, and indeed I’m not sure that the UK manufactures the 120 mm rounds and bag charges for the rifled gun any more either. So the 250 left may ultimately end up as razor blades.
What is undoubtedly true is that 150 odd CR2 LEP is far too few for a credible deterrent or foe for a peer or near peer enemy. It’s basically three regiments’ worth without reserve, or two with. Or possibly two regiments’ worth at 75 apiece with no reserve. However you look at it that’s not very many at all, and confirms the sad fact that our armoured brigades can only play a bit part in someone else’s military in alliance or coalition, as arguably they have had to do for the last 70 years or so.
During Britain’s last experience of intensive, continuous tank warfare against a peer enemy in NW Europe in 1944-45, attrition rates were high. During Op Goodwood for example, between 18-20 July 1944, the British and Canadians lost 470 tanks, or 34% of their overall strength in the armoured regiments. In three days. Taking into account repairs and replacements, overall tank losses during the operation were 41% of average tank strength.
It’s difficult to extrapolate this forward to today, of course, but let’s just for argument’s sake assume a likely daily loss of 10% of tank strength is any future high intensity conflict against a peer enemy. And let’s also presume that an armoured unit’s effectiveness and cohesion ends when losses reach about 50% of strength (others would say less than this). A rough calculation indicates that the UK tank fleet would last about a week but, unlike in 1944, there are no replacement vehicles immediately available.
What would we do in such circumstances? Why, we’d have to buy foreign to make up the numbers! Now, I’m not suggesting that the UK will ever enter a high-end intensity conflict alone, nor that the scenario described herein is probable; it isn’t.
But what I think we can say with some accuracy is that the armoured element of the British Army is essentially a “use once” resource. With only 148 tanks in the inventory it is unsustainable in any combat for more than a few days, and there is no backup to fill the gaps.
When I joined my regiment in 1980, the British Army of the Rhine alone had 900 tanks. Now we will have roughly 1/6th of that number. It’s far too few, and indicative I’m afraid of the decline of our land forces over successive defence reviews. How are the mighty fallen!
So they are calling Challenger 3. It isn’t. It is Challenger 2 with a new turret and I suspect it would have been cheaper and more operationally effective to buy 150 Leapard 2 A7s.
Cap badges, not everyone’s cup of tea but…
Rifles, R Scots, D Lancs & PWRR all losing a Btn to the Ranger Regt (why they can’t keep their cap badges and just be army commandos is beyond me – do we really need another Regt?), Mercians losing a Btn too. 3 Gurkhas probably going to 16 Bde.
RAC. So we will have 2 active Challenger 3 Regts and maybe 1 Trg Regt. What happens to the rest? All armoured recce? I reckon they will be putting a couple of Regts into the ISTAR role permanently.
in 20i7 the MOD dished out £7 million to review the German MUSS soft kill APS, ( Which came after the MOD spent millions reviewing if APS systems were any good) which the Germans themselves rejected the other week in favour of the Israeli trophy, to that end I wonder if the so called Challenger 3 will be fitted with one and if so which one?
Defense spending on future systems is how they keep defense firms alive, always has been, latest kit still in some kid @ college head, on his BAEs apprenticeship….
Spending on future systems is something we gave up a decade ago, which is why we are in the current mess.
Johan,
My post was about how the MOD wastes money for example in 2016 they knocked out a £7.6M contract with QinetiQ to evaluate the Hensoldt Multifunctional Self-Protection System (MUSS) soft-kill APS (note soft kill)
In 2017, they awarded Leonardo UK a contract to look into the ICARUS Active Integrated Protection Systems (AIPS) strategy to the tune of £10M. The first contract ended in 2019, the later last year
That £17 million quid to let the army see if a Soft kill army system is worth it, meanwhile 10 years ago the IDF fitted out their armour with trophy which has been successful in every engagement regards ATGM, since then the Turks Koreans, Indians, Chinese, Russians, have fitted their armour with Hard kill APS systems, the Syrians have a soft kill system in place and the US, Germans and Dutch have purchased hard kill systems, We on the other hand are still looking to see if it is worth fitting one in place. Please excuse me if I am angry at how the MOD wastes money. Bet quite a lot of money was wasted on jollies inviting that college kid back to a hotel room in which to talk about the first thing that came up
The trouble is its all army-related, the constant changing of the wally with the brolly, who asks for Magnolia, but has left before the guys have finished painting. the next wally with the brolly wants Soft White and starts again.
Defense systems are out of date as soon as the ink is dry. you only have to look at the author to see the problem. Wants to spend £10m+ per unit on new. rather than upgrading the Existing @ £2m. just because, cutting your cloth and the Army are in this position due to poor procurement.
if you let the wally with the brolly pick, we will go to war in a AMG G WAGON, rather than a Defender, Because it makes him look good.
BAe are advocating the Iron Fist APS system as shown on their Black Knight demonstration vehicle. The US have also chosen Trophy for their Abrams, which is being fitted to their tanks when they go to Poland and the Baltic states. With Trophy you have at least a battle proven system with a extremely good track record. No Merkava 4s have been lost with the system fitted, even though they have been ambush multiple times using the most up to data Russian and Chinese ATGMs.
Hi Farouk
I have posted at the top, but, can I draw your attention to this article: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/03/31/the-french-armed-forces-are-planning-for-high-intensity-war
Germany has NOT rejected MUSS. It did put MUSS on its Pumas.
It ordered less than 20 trophy systems for basically one company thats part of the Lithuania battlegroup, because they were available right now while Rheinmetall’s ADS was still ironing out some details at the time of the call for offers.
Those <20 Leo II A7A1 tanks require completely new hulls because the trophy system requires electricity like crazy, so a generator had to be fitted inside (the old hulls will become recovery vehicles or bridge layers).
The remainder of the German Leo fleet (ie 300 existing hulls) will most likely get a combined soft and hardkill system (MUSS 2.0 with ADS) for the Leo IIAX upgrade planned for 2028-30, integrated into the armor package and able to partially deflect heavy apfsds..
Hopefully including effectors against top attack munitions,
PS Hungary ordered a lightweight version of such a hybrid system called Strikeshield for its Lynx IFVs.
https://defense-update.com/20210518_hybrid-armor-for-lynx.html
Posit,
Thanks for your reply, I didn’t say German had rejected MUSS full stop. I was saying that the Germans after testing MUSS on its Leo 2 decided to pick the Israeli Trophy for its MBTs. (Maybe I should have worded a little more coherently)
Yes I know about the Puma, nice piece of kit. As is the KF41
The rest comprise 3 regiments of “Light Cavalry” on Jackal. They appear in the symbology but no details.
The 4 regiments of “Armoured Cavalry” seem to be going to the Heavy BCT’s and the Deep Strike Bde CT.
How would it have been cheaper to buy and change everything for a different tank? We already have the setup for Challenger,the cost of a new turret is going to be a lot cheaper than changing a whole fleet.
What if the New Turret encounters problems similar to what has happened with the Warrior Upgrade ,sucks up Funding then itself gets canned ?.
All R&D done by Rhienmetall,ready to go it seems.
MOD won’t buy a German tank but let Rhienmetall do the upgrade to a British one…
Spot the problem.
Rheinmetall is in a JV with BAE for CR2 LEP (aka CR3). I am not seeing the problem.
oh how I hate British pride sometimes. I am mean its not a bad thing by miles but sometimes it can be our downfall. we really need to get a better grip on things. especially recruitment of personals. i mean most of my class don’t even care about the country!! some of them say they would rather work at MacDonald’s or anything other then military!.
sorry i got a bit of topic…
Work is UK Based, forgive me but isnt France and Germany doing a design for the replacement of the Lep 2.
I’d prefer the Rheinmetall turret over the Leopard 2 as total dependency on the Germans would be a mistake. At least some CH2 hulls could be placed in reserve along with complete tanks, say 50 in Ashchurch in case the UK gets embroiled in a conventional land campaign.
The key problem with this review is the number of items that will be withdrawn and even scrapped. All Mastiff and other Afganistan protection vehicles to go, all Warrior will be gone by 2030 and I assume F432s too? 24 early Typhoon, which had previously been saved, and the complete fleet of Hawk T1s lost, which could have formed a reserve of light fighters.
I just hope someone might suggest that many of these items are held in reserve. The facilities are there and such a move would underwrite the risks of withdrawing so much kit.
One message is clear, the Americans won’t be able to depend on UK land forces as they have in the past, as it won’t have sufficient resources to apply any heavy punch as shown during the Iraq War.
I agree some of CH2’s should be placed in reserve.
But aircraft like the Hawk Mk 1’s would have used up most of their airframe life, and become un-airworthly.
And the Tr1 Typhoon’s will be approaching that point as well, in the next few years.
The new review precludes the UK from being capable (from 2027) of fielding enough MBTs to a war engagement as witnessed in Iraq to support American armour. The US will have to rely on other countries to mount future heavy armour conflicts. That I know will not please some senior generals and no doubt the Foreign Office too! Retention of CH2 in modest numbers would at least give some room for maneuver, in the event such weapons were required in a crisis. There are many armies around the World reliant on MBTs that are much older than CH2.
exactly CH3 is a £1.7m pop Lep 2 is a £9m plus support.
4 to 1 ratio and CH3 doesn’t have a fixed spec.
And so you might think Jacki, I’ll make a confident prediction here, ‘ Challenger 3’ will end up costing considerably more than replacement with a proven design and they will all get the chop by 2031 anyway…
MBT’s are already extremely valuable to new loitering weapons like Spear3, by 2030 slow moving trundling armour really will be iron coffins against a peer enemy.
The Army clearly lobbied hard to keep some tanks, but in such small numbers they are virtually irrelevant, unless the UK gets invaded perhaps??!
It’s an expensive sop to keep industry and certain senior officers happy for the time being.
You don’t scrap a platform just because there is a counter to it. Every item of military capability, including the dismounted man, has one or more counters, and have for years.
Chally happens to have fewer counters as it is so well protected.
CH3 is a £1.7m unit. Lep 2 is a £9m a pop plus support. 4 CH3s = 1 lep 2
wonder why the Army procurement is slow, how much money would LEP 2 put into the UK Workforce….
The German MOD stated that the cost of a leopard A7 was 13 -15 million euros a few years ago. Hungarians signed an agreement to buy some in 2018 so current cost may be on net somewhere. would guess upgrade of CR2 to be up to 7 million ?
Its called Challenger 3, no different to Warrior CSP, which would probably have been called Warrior 2. The cost of 150 Leopard 2 A7 would have been substantially more that the cost of LEP. Two CR3 regiments plus the training fleet and trials fleet. Other units within the RAC will have Ajax and Jackle platforms.
It would be nice if it were “another” regiment, but things are just being renamed. Ranger Regiment sounds good, but the Army is still losing about 5 battalions, after losing about 8-9 after the 2010 Strategic Defense Reduction.
Boris Johnson – ‘no more cuts’………
Boris lies almost as much as Zombie Joe Biden. lol
Thats something not to be sniffed at
Not a spot off your Former POTUS!
Compulsive, at that!
24 billion extra pounds. where are they cuts?
Let’s see now – axing of C130J fleet including specialist aircraft used by Special Forces, retirement of 24 x Typhoon fighters with no replacement, retirement of Sentinnel with no replacement, cutting of E7 order to 3? Loss of 2 Frigates with no speed up in building programme to replace them, axing 8,000 troops, reducing MBT fleet from a pitiful 227 to an even more pitiful 148 and of course a proposed reduction in F35B order on the basis that we will of course develop a futuristic aircraft called Tempest which with our proven history of wasting billions on aircraft that never enter service is hardly reassuring…..cuts, cuts and more cuts
2 billion on Tempest. Lots more on money on Army equipment including new fires, speeding up production of boxer. There is an endless list. We are clearly creating a littoral group for the Baltic and Scandinavia. 6 ‘littoral’ multi purpose ships.
Replacing old Chinook, new medium lift helicopter.
The cost of equipment is astronomic.
The services are being reshaped to do useful things for the future, not the past.
Well said
Not really reduction of f35 we never bought, even the usa are slashing there buy, c130 while capable isn’t as capable as a modern a400, it’s more modern, larger, longer ranged so it’s an upgrade, if the c130 has specific capabilities we can fit to a400. Yes the 2 frigates are going with what 18 plus lined up for next 10 years on plan. And MBT ain’t great but how likely is it to be used? Once in last ten years in anger? And not really anything another armoured unit could have done with support. Come on guys cash is short so if this is how we upgrade and modernise then so be it. Yes we need better value for money and planning but we have to face it ain’t 1960 and we can’t have everything, what would u like to cut for 600 tanks? Para’s commandos? Thought not
Great answer to many vintage doomsters on this site.
“No more cuts to defence budget” I believe he said.
The catch.
Budgets increased its not a cut, removing older equipment some of which is 30-40 years old makes sense, when that was bought 4 decades ago it was vastly cheaper than replacing it with the equivalent modern day version. We would always end up with less numbers but with much higher capability and it cant happen over night.
So what retiring 2 clapped out frigates early, thats a very sensible move as opposed to wasting tens of millions refitting them to just retire them in 2-3 years anyways.
I agree James there a lot of fuss about the type 23.During LiFex we have had 3 in the shed after the first 2 years another 1/2 outside going through LiFex make 5 out of service at any time and the 2 to be scrapped haven’t been upgraded
At last someone looking to the positives, till public acceptance of 4% for defence or we teach the MOD to manage projects better it’s best we get
Its all about firepower. You could do that with 300 updated C2, or 148 updated C2 with other firepower, such as Boxer with 105mm gun + Ajax with 120mm gun, a HIMARS purchase, Spike NLOS for AAC Wildcat, 2nd hand ex USMC 155mm M777. Just having 148 C3, with the risk that the upgrade has technical or cost problems, is “brave”.
I see the French are showing off their Ascalon 140mm autoloader tank gun concept using caseless telescope ammo.
Now we are in a the little Britain era ,thanks to boris why do we need tanks we are not going anywhere with land forces lol.
More to the point, what we need is Tempest. Its absurd to have 900 tanks – doing what
We have not had 900 tanks since the 70s, Trevor. We only bought 400 CR2s and currently only have 227 in service, soon to be 148.
I know, but others harkack to that number
Who is going to invade the UK to use them against exactly?
Since we invented the tank we have only ever deployed them in anger overseas. That is where we use them – from France in WW1 to western Europe and the western desert in WW2 to Korea, Suez, Saudi Arabia/Kuwait (221 tanks to Gulf War 1), Iraq (120 tanks), Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzogovina in the post war period – and now we have CR2s on deterrence duties in Estonia.
We do not use tanks to defend the UK.
We need tanks to take on opponents who have tanks. We have used tanks (and Warriors) on hard operations more in the last 30 years than most other platforms.
I agree with you Graham I was just having a moan at the small size of the army and tanks numbers I’ve since calmed down lol.
Isn’t the best way to kill tanks is with planes. I kinder feel that we as a nation don’t really have a great need for a lot of MBTs. We should be a scalpel not a hammer any Major conflict we find ourselves in the Americans will be right there with us and they have loads of them.
Boris says we are now global Britain, not little Britain. We will always fight expeditionary wars, so why say we are not going anywhere with land forces? We nned tanks because our opponents mostly have a lot of tanks (and are upgrading or replacing their fleet).
So what we really need is tank killers, drones?
On the plus side, CR2 is well supported in service in everything from parts to tools to sqep maintainers, so its an easy win on that side and has commonality with the CRARRV and Armd Engr fleets wheras Leopard would be yet another platform type – and thats where the pain in the arse cost comes from.
So this makes far more sense than Leopards.
Also why buy German at this point politically, are they doing anything for us?
Plus if things do transcribe such that we want >148 then just add to the contract and do it. Vs Leopards we’d have to buy more of.
Really dont get the hard on for Leopard at all.
Agree with that.
Too early to know how successful or otherwise this is. Depends heavily on what Boxer types we get and whether more are ordered, what is procured to replace the AS90, etc etc
Certainly only having 148 tanks means we can only field a token armoured force working alongside others.
The RN is definitely in the best shape. RAF will be lobbying hard for a significant additional F35 purchase.
Agreed, RN has done relatively well. RAF OK. The Army, well as you said, if we get Boxer IFV with 40mm turret and anti-tank missiles, Boxer mounted 155mm & MLRS & Boxer support vehicles not so bad but otherwise…it will be a cluster.
Cut the Ajax order, upgrade more CH3’s to at least 175 MBT’s
You do know that Ajax is a recce and now a strike vehicle, so totally different role to an MBT. We need both. Pushing for 175 CR3 rather than 148 makes little sense as that is less than one extra Regiment. It would need to be 204 tanks.
Wallace has said we will commit to further F35 purchase but no detail of when or how many.
Stuart Crawford’s most important point is the lack of MBT reserves. The non upgraded Ch2s will be incompatible so presumably get scrapped.
It would make more sense to carry out a more modest upgrade to a greater number.
Despite the lofty commitment to UK industry, our 3 main afv programmes have a massive non UK element:
* Boxer only 60% UK contribution
* Ajax with German engines, French made gun, Spanish chassis
* Ch3 presumably mostly German kit.
I assume that any AS90 successor won’t be UK built.
Was there any mention of artillery replacements in the report? With warrior being replaced by boxer and drop in challengers plus the general drop in likely f35 orders, it kinda feels like the army is going to be toothless against anything vaguely armoured.
Yes plenty. New Mobile Fires ( AS90 Replacement ) upgraded MLRS, new SHORAD and so on. No details yet.
Some of those contracts will have been signed whilst we had still been a full EU member and no doubt politics will have taken a huge influence on what was decided.
Hopefully going forward especially as seeing with shipbuilding and Tempest the UK industrial base will be put at the forefront of decisions.
Peter S.
The Ajax has MTU engines: Rolls Royce owned company
French made gun (cannon): CTAi is 50% BAe
Spanish chassis: HULLS arrive as bare fabrications at Merthyr Tydfil where assembly takes place.
CR3 will have the same ISTAR assets as Ajax, made in Glasgow and quite possibly the same or similar Electronic Infrastructure as Ajax, currently a large proportion of which is made by Williams (F1).
cheers
It’s not the ownership that matters but where the capability resides. If the production of key items is overseas, it is under the effective control of a foreign government that may not remain friendly or consent to exports. For example, UK was able to block sales of the Gripen to Argentina because so many key components are made here.
In addition to this security concern, the more we rely on foreign components, the less the UK economy benefits from the expenditure.
The Defence Industrial Strategy clearly wants to move back to more independent sovereign capability.
I approve but wanted to point out that there is a long way to go.
I remember when we designed and built kit we sold round the world.
Cheers
Im assuming the future drone technologies that will no doubt appear in the next 5-10 years will be operated under the RAF?
The RN and RAF will get additional F35s, that’s pretty much guaranteed as the two carriers are massive PR opportunities irrespective of their military value. Both services will benefit from this, as both services have a legitimate need for additional airframes.
Just skimmed through the lot.
Very vague. Little real detail apart from the cuts!
Of interest:
LPDs retained.
Puma retained then replaced by Medium Lift Helicopter
Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team
( Ajax, MLRS,AS90 ) Very interesting.
Signals “Brigade” ( Why 1, we currently have 2 )
Operational Sustainment Brigades and a Theatre Sustainment Brigade
( Currently 101, 102 Log Bdes and 104 LSB )
Combat Service Support Battalions.
( They last did this when 19 Mech Bde was converted to 19 Light Bde. The CSS formations were merged into a CSS Battalion.
This implies the RLC and RAMC Regiments and REME Battalions will merge.
Army Special Operations Brigade
( Will initially be found from the current battalions of the SIG )
Light Brigade Combat Teams
( Have intriguing symbols of what looks like a Foxhound and another unidentified vehicle. Future MRVP? )
Heavy Brigade Combat Teams
( How many? Currently 3 Armoured, was to move to 2 Armd / 2 Strike, but they seem to have merged! )
More air defence assets on the way.
Can you please send me a link for it?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971859/_CP_411__-_Defence_in_a_competitive_age.pdf
Mate from looking at this it seems the strike concept is dead, and the light BCTs will have some legavy UOR wagons such as Foxhound? The Boxers going to the heavy BCTs, which may mean NO increase in Boxer orders? What’s your thoughts Mate? Also though I did see an 800 million investment for a new wheeled gun for the RA? Certainly needed mate, wonder what type, numbers? Bloody so much to take in, and while some good ideas and planning, it’s all over the next 5-10 years, ie 2 more elections and all so easy to change and not actually deliver.
Legacy…
What was / is Strike anyway?
A mess.
I can explain at length ( again ) if you’d like Trevor. Or, I recommend looking back at Gabriel’s blog on UKAFC 2015 onwards, he explains it better and in greater depth than me.
DM, you gave me the only laugh from this clusterf***.
Morning mate. Gave myself eye strain headache reading the review yesterday so not been on and too many wails of despair here that we are now nobodies, which is clearly bollocks.
Ignoring RAF/RN and concentrating on army.
Strike is dead. And as Gab over on UKAFC Twitter has very correctly tweeted has dragged an Armoured Brigade and all the IFV’s of what remains of the other two with it!!!
There is so much no idea where to start.
The symbology in that report is typical MoD in that numbers are ignored. How many BCTs? Does a BCT correspond to a current Armoured brigade? What is their make up? Only then can we discern what battalions/regiments remain that need equipping with Boxer.
Ajax seems to have returned to the Armoured Brigades! Where it should never have flipping left! However, this “new” “Deep Recc Strike Brigade” smells suspiciously like the current 1 Artillery Brigade, and they have shoved some Ajax Regiments into it!!
Tanks. We were moving to 2 Regiments anyway, If they are properly modified on time and budget and then supplemented with unmanned versions fine by me. We don’t need 900 tanks now and the regiments don’t exist to man them.
They still call 3 UK Div as Warfighting Division. How many Brigades? 2 Armoured and the Deep Strike? So 2 manoeuvre formations at front and an Artillery Bde in rear? That is no Division is it.
Quite happy for Light BCT brigades to have Foxhound and MRVP type. There were 6 “Light Protected Mobility” Btns recently until they did away with it.
Yes, 800 million for new gun, obviously AS90 replacement But what of LG? Again how many, how many regiments? We cannot judge without these details.
Mentioned a “new” SHORAD system too. Updated HVM Stormer or new? I’d hope the latter accompanying HVM with Anti drone stuff added.
The manpower numbers actually pisses me off the least. The 10,000 cut is to official headcount, not actual numbers which are far less. I’d rather they did not cut a single body but if that saving goes into more lethality I can accept it. IF.
Lots of money going into SIGINT and EW, overlooked areas I’m Very interested in. Though I see no mention in their graphic of 1 ISR Bde or for that matter 1 RMP Bde.
CS and CSS, one of our favourite subjects. Are they going to massacre them again with these CSS Battalions comprising REME,RLC,RAMC? Considering each current bde has a Battalion or Regiment of each, each with 3 Companies/Squadrons, and in the RLC case often more, that will be SOME sized CSS Battalion. Unless they are massively reduced and it emerges same size with each reduced. No idea without details.
Global Response Force – is 16AA as I suspected.
The SP Ops Bde turns out to be the current SIG, with enhancements added gradually. Where is its CS and CSS and firepower? One idea I have seen mentioned is that 3 Cdo’s enablers might end up in it. Would be a fine place for the likes of 29RA, though 148 might need detaching as that should be with the Commandos.
No AAC enhancements mentioned.
As you know I track our ORBAT for all of the MoD, this s**t means I have to update so much of it and will take ages as we don’t yet have the details that will emerge gradually over the months before it can be pieced together.
Just a few thoughts, probably forgotten much mate. Overall I’m not in despair like 2010, I support the direction, as we have ever traditionally been a land power apart from the Cold War and the World Wars, but not the cuts, which “seem” to be less than I feared.
Another thought. Have we not just swapped sub optimal Strike Bdes for sub optimal Armoured Bdes? Although Warrior was old it was an IFV. Can Boxer do the role? Certainly not if it just has a machine gun.
Dan, I would suggest that Boxer will struggle to keep up with Challenger, if they were paired together like Warrior currently is. Boxer has comparable armour protection as Warrior and can be upgraded with additional applique armour, but by doing so its mobility will worsen. For hard surfaced ground environments/urban areas this isn’t so much of a problem, but start adding soft sand, deep mud and fresh snow it will struggle just like all the other wheeled 8x8s.
Thanks Davey.
Well, we are where we are. In a right old pickle armour wise.
The rest, I’m optimistic.
I am very unconvinced that standard Boxer (a MIV) will be able to fill the IFV role as WR has done, and I think that WR CSP would have been an excellent Life Extender, and curse those who delayed its fielding.
Even Boxer with cannon would be hard pressed to prove it has better firepower, mobility and protection than WR CSP. Has anyone assessed these aspects? What if Boxer can’t keep up with CR3 cross country?
The army had the money in 2015 to properly upgrade the 3 Armoured Brigades along with the Ajax order. They then moved to Boxer and Strike without finishing the job first.
Your and Davey’s opinions are good enough for me. Oh well. Maybe they will order a new OTS IFV??
Yes I read a report from ex colonel in armoured unit and tests were done with boxer and other wheeled units and the current modern ones are 80-90% as capable as tracked and capable of doing “nearly” everything.
Why do you say Strike is dead? One of the BCTs will be ‘Deep Strike’; we are still buying Ajax and Boxer which have always been seen as Strike assets.
I believe that the “Deep Strike Recc BCT” is just a renamed 1 Artillery Brigade. A Divisional asset, not a manoeuvre brigade.
With only 2 brigades left they had to put the 2 “spare” Ajax regiments somewhere!! So they place them with MLRS and hopefully soon lots more deep fires and precision weapons.
The other 2 regiments of Ajax form the integral recc elements of the 2 Armoured Brigades, which was the original reason for their purchase until Strike appeared.
The Strike concept may still be around but the brigades on which it was to be formed won’t be. It seems to be merging with what armour remains.
Thank you.
“German 120 mm smoothbore gun upgrade”
I thought we might have pushed it up to the 130mm
Might make the tank too heavy for practical deployment with extra weight of 130 mm gun, iron fist and add on armour pack.
We already have ammo that nobody else uses,so why go to the other extreme? And do the same again.
But the 130 is only just been revealed hasn’t it (?). Germany are not going to upgrade all their fleet are they?
PS … I read about the 130 this morning and it was put on display (last year?) with a CH2 hull a few months ago.
And the Russians can barely produce any T14s can they?
Well there isn’t enough cash to do everything, we need to replace 2/3 of navy,them and airforce are front line. This gives us a basic capability while updating with uav, drones, force multipliers and cyber. F35 with 3 AI wing men. Or challenger and two remote control land drones. That will be the kind of future we need to embrace
Agree with your analysis.
About damn time they get the 120 mm smoothbore gun! Long overdue.
Britain will only have 148 main battle tanks?!! WTF? Another move by Boris to follow in Merkel’s footsteps and let America continue to do most of the heavy lifting. Ugh
But when you joined mate the 900 were Chieftains, spot lights, crap engines and no TOGs or still brew armour. Plus one third wouldn’t be working, a second third would break down on route to the the crash out positions and the last third would last a few days. However that said I’m totally in agreement that it’s not enough, no matter how great the end result CR3 becomes.
But….. 900 Guns worked pretty well and they could at least be in 900 places as opposed to 148 places……. just sayin like.
But most of the 900 didn’t get out the camp gate….you have to be ex army to understand just how shite most of the BAOR kit was.
But you forgot to mention the Coventry climax, now that was a good generator, just about the only reliable feature on the Chieftain..!
My Dad told me they used to fiddle with the Governor counterweights to get a bit more power.
Well, I’m just totally confused now….. RN losing two type 23’s (At Least) yet we are getting more ships……. RAF/RNAS losing 90 F35B’s…… army losing 10000 men/women/others……… Scrapping all Mine Hunters….. Scrapping all MK1 Hawks…. Scrapping 28 Typhoons……. Scrapping all Warriors…… Becoming “Global Britain” seems to be a tad odd
Hi Cap’n. It’s not certain that we lose 90 F35’s. The Statement said that we will buy definitely 48 but a supplemental question produced the answer that ‘we will purchase in excess of 48 but the actual number will be subject to regular review’. So optimism remains and I am guessing they are hedging their bets regarding the development timeline for Tempest which, to be fair, is currently unknowable.
At a recent PAC MTG , AM Knight stated that we would have 48 F35 by 2025, and we would need to purchase some more between 2025-2030, numbers unknown, but more then likely another 20-25 airframes.
The down side of this is that the RAF will lose out on the 62 Tornado s the F35 was supposed to replace, as the 48’only just fulfill CSG requirements.
Exactly.
Typhoon was originally meant to replace Phantom/Jaguar.
Ended up replacing Tornado F3 and some GR1’s/4s
F35 was to replace the “capability” of the Harriers, that is Sea and the RAF GR5/7
Tornado was to be replaced with FOAS.
Ends up with the lot cut and F35 replacing Sea Harrier only.
The Mod/HMG are great at moving the goalposts and changing things way after joe public has lost interest. With exceptions 🙂
this is old equipment it doesn’t make sense to renew with a likewise replacement at this point in time. F35b has been a dodgy procurement and the whole programme has been a bit of a nightmare globally. Would of liked to have seen a mix of b’s and A’s for the airforce. There is an increase on the numbers of f35 the air force would of had. Typhoon is such a capable platform with spear-3, brimstone, paveway IV and meteor that arming the carriers with f35b should be priority. A new mbt should be procured for when challenger 3 leaves service that will be digitally integrated in to these new systems that are starting to be procured.
At least some RAF officer will have a great new command – Space Command – we didn’t need it in 2020 so why do we need it in 2021 – a good waste of £1.6Bn.
Here is an idea for the spare challenger 2, we could keep them in a big shed somewhere in storage and bring them out if we suddenly find ourselves in need of an armoured division or two and find that no one on planet earth can make even a handful of tanks as powerful as challenger 2, then we can take some reservist and few regulars and a couple of HGV drivers and build an armoured division much like we did in 1939. Not everything has to be current, there is value in retaining out of service equipment especially considering most the the enemy tank fleets we may ever face are likely to be T55 derivatives and the CR2 has a history of cutting through those like a knife through butter even with its under performing riffled gun. Spares can always be either made or pulled out of other vehicles, the B52 has been flying for 60 years in much the same way and every time someone says we can’t make ammunition for something suddenly some contractor pops up making ammunition ( you can still get ammunition for the Boys anti tank rifle). Main battle tanks should probably be looked at like Iowa class battleships, maybe not to be needed but unlikely to ever be manufactured agin on mass so better to keep the old ones just in case.
Things are too integrated/complex for that to work in current times.
Sights need to be integrated with radios because data might be inserted into it and put in the screen. Engine management too communicate with via radio data what piece expect to need. etc…everything is part of a whole and costs spiral.
And there you get why Army Procurement is a shower, CH 3 is a £1.7m upgrade of existing chassis. Leopard 2s are a £8m a pop plus support packages. very little of this would make its way into the UK Workforce.
so supporting the UK Workforce like the Navy ships in Scotland puts money into UKS Pocket,
Army procurement is constantly run by some fool @ the end of his career looking to leave a statement, then he leaves and the next fella changes the specs, and so it goes. AKA Warrior. utter waste how many Ch 3s could have been purchased with that shite show..
its time to take the Army out of the procurement process, YOU GET WHAT YOU’RE GIVEN AND GET ON WITH THE JOB YOU TAKE THE SHILLING.
When i was young i rode horseback with a 1000 knights into the hail of arrows, GET A GRIP GRANDAD.
What good did these tanks do in the Falklands, how do we transport them.
defend the island and ignore the rest
Just imagine…
Russia rolls down its pipeline highway into GERMANY, and NATO sends in its tanks. and then there is an AMMO shortage due to the GERMAN supplies have fallen. Nato armies fighting over AMMO, Because some idiot wanted to use the same….
Sounds like a vaccine war, EU Restricts the flow of vaccine but will transport the virus without a care in the world…..
Army procurement, save on ammo means we can have more Whiskey ….and cigars…
Or some tanks use different ammo which I believe there is a shortage of anyway,or use ammo that will be in short supply because only one country uses it.(again) Sounds like a plan.
I thought we’d stopped making ammo for the 120 rifled, once we’ve used up what little we’ve got then the current Ch2 is screwed anyway… That aside the penetration of our current APFSDS is well below that of latest 120 smoothbore ammo APFSDS and as for HESH, well that’s no use at all against relatively modern MBTs, it would be good for lightly armoured vehicles if they were obliging enough to stay still though…
It’s not that bad as within NATO, the US, Belgium, Italy plus France all manufacture ammo compatible with the Rh120 L55 gun. Further afield, Israel, Japan and Korea manufacture compatible ammo.
If we are getting the 120mm L55 gun, then I’d source the M829 series APFSDS rounds from the US, as it uses a DU penetrator and generates more muzzle velocity. Then there is a large choice of programmable HE and HEAT rounds.
Doesn’t take long for all leopard fan boys to jump out, the only advantage a leopard holds over CR2 is it’s compatibility with the standard NATO round, the leopard’s performance in Syria was less than abysmal and before people shout tactics, remember plenty of CR2’s were left with their balls hanging out in Iraq and shrugged off the kind ordinance that would leave a leopard a twisted wreck, the LEP is the correct choice, the numbers being done are questionable
Some sense might take hold! With the spare hulls they might decide to go for a few more
I think they are rolling the dice that we will not get in to the kind of conflict that requires large numbers of MBTs until after the timeframe for CR2’s replacement which we should seriously be looking in to now, we need to do a deal with the Polish and the South Koreans, these are the countries that will be buying big numbers of tanks in the same timeframe, we can supply some of the tech and they can supply the numbers to make it a viable world wide fleet
Poland and S Korea yes… But also USA. Certainly we don’t need to to build a tank on our own.
I seem to recall that about 30% of the Grippen is British.
But the Army has made a right horlicks of its procurement and strategy for years.
Overwhelmingly the important thing is to control the air and the seas.
Other than the idiotic procurement decisions the army has a unique problem that the other services don’t, that being when in times of desperate need it is pretty easy to ramp up the army thus giving it a lower priority in times of relative peace
Not sure I follow that since it takes time to train soldiers from scratch. personal would suggest more integration with reserves.
A soldier can be trained in 12 weeks, we still have enough car manufacturing capacity to start producing more than enough of all types of vehicles in an emergency and to do it quickly, ships take a long time to build and there are hardly any Yards left to do it in, aircraft production and sites to do it in barely exist, yes the Army can be ramped up a lot quicker than the other 2 services in time of desperate need, this is without going in to the vast amount of weaponry that the army hold in stores
You are having a laugh. You can train a soldier in 12 weeks?
Ha. Do you really think you can train a battalion in 12 weeks? It took Kitchiners New Armies 2 years. How long does it take to train a sergeant?
Your attitude shows how way off the mark it is that so many infants can talk on military topics.
12 weeks? What! Maybe a NK soldier with no skills, tactical or technical knowledge, or any other skills such as JTAC/Sniper/MFC/Assault Pioneer/D&D/Recce….in fact I could go on and on with just Infantry skills and technical course never mind trades persons and CSS arms. 12 weeks……Come on! Behave!
Alas no. The plan clearly states that the remaining Ch2 will be retired. So just 148 and no reserve. The plan also states we will commit £1.3 b to the upgrade, or more than £8m per vehicle. Other reports have referred to a Rheinmetall contract for £750m or $1.4b.
I’m not knocking CR2, but just a couple of comments about the Leopards in Syria:
They were A5 models, not the A7 models discussed as replacements for the CR2 here. Out of date armour etc.
The ordnance that they were hit by was not the same as what the CR2s shrugged off in Iraq. RPGs, mostly the basic variety were what we faced in southern Iraq (a lot of them, admittedly), and a single Milan ATGM. The Leopards in Syria were hit by TOW and Kornet ATGMs, which are newer and also a lot bigger than the RPGs and Milans. US Abrams hit by Kornets in Iraq were also disabled, so I wouldn’t bet on a CR2 shrugging them off, especially if they were hit in the rear/side quarter like happened to the Leopards in Syria.
“CR2’s were left with their balls hanging out in Iraq and shrugged off the kind ordinance that would leave a leopard a twisted wreck”
Sorry but you have no sense of what tanks are capable or not and the anti tank missile overmatch over anything but the front.
No tank in the world can be fully protected against a Kornet from the side or rear.
Even the reportedly most armored AFV in the world, the Israeli Namer heavy infantry carrier have an APS.
Stuart Crawford makes much of the lack of commonality of the rifled ammunition but was it ever a real problem? So we supply ammunition through national and not NATO supply lines – we have made it work for decades.
In a more intense or sudden conflict, I think it would probably make more of a difference than we’ve seen in Iraq; we knew we were going to be kicking in the door and had weeks to get stocks in place. We also had a very specific and separate AO (southern Iraq), which had shorter logisitics trail to our bases over the border in Kuwait. None of the above is guaranteed if we’re rushing to a front in the Baltics, where we’re sharing AOs with other NATO armoured formations and the logistics lines are likely to be limited by enemy action.
Don’t quote me on it, but I am also of the understanding that we’re not making the two-part ammunition anymore. So, if we were to continue with the rifled gun we’d have to restart production and continue to develop competitive rounds alone to keep up with the pack.
A lot is made about this longest recorded kill stuff, and I absolutely don’t want to detract from the skills of the guys taking the shot, but I believe that even he felt it was a lucky hit at that range. If a smoothbore 120 mm gun firing APFDS had hit, then it would have killed the T62 as well- the rifled barrel gives no range or other performance advantage when using sabot. The kill was purely down to the skill of the gunner, quality of optics, and some good fortune (never to be dicounted in battle), it should not be used as justification for sticking with a rifled gun over a smoothbore.
I must suggest that this article is illiterate.
Many of the Leopards exported are inferior vehicles.
It suggests it’s better to have 100 Leopards of marginal better utility to 148 CR3s.
The author forgets that the border of West is not the Elbe, it no longer faces East Germany, its now beyond the Oder, even realistically beyond Poland and into Ukraine.
Britains role now is different. And as such it does not justify more tanks, if any.
Thanks for contributing Stuart.
I don’t think national pride would allow either buying or renting foreign made tanks, especially German ones.
I do so wish the government would stop making cuts. With the gleeful shelling out of billions to support the government’s approach to covid, one had hoped that the money taps would have been turned on a bit more for the armed forces.
Not being too familiar with the army, I wonder what a feasible number of modern tanks would be? (This is assuming we have significantly well provisioned air and naval forces, which I appreciate is not really the case)
I understand that being an island, they do have to be transported over large distances, which does limit their number (due to logistic constraints) unless we forward deploy them, like we used to do in Germany. However I also understand that it could be argued why should we provide such a rich country as germany with tanks which they could well afford themselves?
I suppose that leaves the political capital to be gained from forward deploying tanks wrt Europe and so raises the question what the minimum amount of tanks to achieve this would be. Around 50 plus/including reserves? I’m sure this would be appreciated by our Eastern European allies and show willing to the rest of NATO whilst leaving the majority of the tank-wise heavy lifting to the countries on the continent
Then I guess you would ask where best else to forward deploy tanks, or how much capacity would you want to have to forward deploy if the need so arose. I would struggle how best to answer this.
The other big peer adversary is China, but there isn’t really any NATO like structure created to counter them yet, so I fail to see the benefit of forward deploying tanks anywhere near them as things stand at the moment. If India were a better ally perhaps they could be a candidate but even then I’m not sure how well the tanks would mix with the mountains on Indias border.
Perhaps some could be forward deployed in the middle East. However it is such a political quagmire over there it’s hard to see if there would be any benefit to this.
Or there could be more scope for deploying some in Africa. As China and Russia are busting a gut to build ties with Africa I’m sure one of our African allies would really appreciate the gesture of a small force of challenger 2 tanks?
So with all that in mind, maybe have another 50 (plus reserves) for potential forward deployments to other countries, for if the need arose/ politics allowed.
That leaves defence of the British isles and overseas territories and a force to deploy en masse in the event of a major war-like situation occurring.
Honestly, I can’t see any benefit of having any tanks remaining in the UK for the countries defence, I believe our navy and air force are best suited to that job. The same goes for the falklands, although it might cheers the islanders up to have a couple of tanks located there.
So after that, all that remains is how many tanks should we keep in store with the intention of moving them abroad for involvement in a large scale conflict?
After the Armenian Azerbaijan war I understand a lot of focus was on the ease with which drones could destroy armour. Maybe the technology is now such that large armour forces are now pointless against a peer adversary? Maybe this has been what has driven the governments cuts?
What about UGVs – are not tanks supposed to be operating with 3-4 UGVs for mass by 2030?
How much of your money reinjected by the CR2 upgrade in comparison of the buy or leasing of the Leo ?
Cost is not everything, if the CR2 redirect 60% of its cost in the british economy while the leo give nothing for half the price, the CR2 upgrade is a better choice.
That’s because the brits have dismantle the biggest part of their defense industry that everything is so hard to do nowadays…
I talk as a french, and what I see happen to the british is what I really want to avoid to France with the German “cooperation”.
Dont underestime the cost of a system just because 20 countries (where 15 to 17 of them have just buy used Leo from the Bundeswehr) use it.
The real cost is not what you spend, its what your country lose.
My hand the leo must cost a biggest price than what you can do for the Chally…
Buy some smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall or Nexter is not the biggest sacrifice.
PS: I know my english can make your eyes bleed, I do my best to write correctly at 04:27 AM, sorry.
Yes I get where you’re coming form Hermes. I think the CR2 upgrade is the way to go – an interim solution until the 2030’s when the UK will think about the next generation MBT which (providing MBT’s are still worth investing in) they are likely to look at a ‘Euro’ or ‘US’ tank – possibly as part of consortium.
I really don’t get the affinity people have the the Leopard 2 platform, it’s as much a legacy tank as Challenger 2. It’s a heavily upgraded Leopard 2 and as I am aware there is currently no open production line for the tank, the current A7s being remanufactured from existing tank inventories. We truely missed the boat on the mid 2000s for cheap Leopards when the Germans and Dutch sold off their surplus and while the Germans would be more than happy to restart production and build new vehicles for us there is no guarantee it would be cheaper than the Challenger 2 upgrade. The Challenger ‘3’ upgrade as its now being called will keep the tank relevant for years to come, in its current form its still one of the best protected tanks in Nato and couple that with a rebuilt turret and L55 gun it should be more that enough to see off any armoured threat. The only gutting thing is the ever decreasing numbers, but we saw this coming. Even since the 2010 defence review we knew the army was going to down to 2 tank regiments, and while I hate that you have to ask with the army going down to 72000, how many tank regiments do you need?
Im fairly sure if Germany did re-open the production line they would only be available with the now standard AMG package whacking the price way up!
Plus the random nonsense specifications the Mod seem to insist on whenever buying something ‘off the shelf’. Let’s be honest with ourselves here, you will not get a brand new Leopard 2A7 plus the logistics chain cheaper than the Challenger ‘3’.
I think the Leopard 2 Production Lines are still open – Hungary being the Latest Buyer ,the Supply of Used Examples has dried up to my knowledge.
I don’t know what is the right decision on MBT. In the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan cheap drones decimated Armenian armoured formations. We know from our own experience how in Libya a single Tornado stopped an armoured column in its tracks using Brimstone. WW2 era battleships were made obsolete by aircraft. I think we may be seeing a similar phenomenon. We will not be able to deploy armoured vehicles unless they have self defence or we have control of the air.
That said, when you do deploy them they have to win so the C2 turret upgrade makes sense. Pity we can’t afford more but I think it is better for the UK than buying Leopard or Abrams.
So what’s this rumour on “The YouTube” abut the UK joining in with the development of the next generation Franco-German “EU-Tank”?
I’ve argued here before about the need for the UK to retain and develop certain strategic capabilities, and a MBT capability is one of them. As we have seen in recent events, when push to comes to shove we need our own capabilities. Governments and circumstances change but we must, long-term keep certain capabilities and spend within the UK and not fritter our hard-earned £dosh away to others.
The UK has sort of Joined the Euro – Tank Project on an Observer Status Role only ( for now anyway).
Thanks PaulT..
Oh bums. 🙁
I believe this is to see which way gun development goes. One of the specifications for the new tank, is that it has a main gun which outperforms the existing Rh120/L55 by at least 50%.
To do that both, Giat (Nexter) and Rheinmetall have developed two guns with increased bore sizes. The Giat is 140mm (can’t find the calibre), whilst Rheinmetall opted for a 130mm L52 gun using one piece rounds. Rheinmetall believe the 130mm is the best compromise for performance and actually trying to store the rounds in the tank. The Giat 140 uses two piece rounds. Both use an autoloader due to the weight of the shell/cartridge. Nexter have a prototype Leclerc mounting the gun, which they call the Terminator. It has a enlarged rear turret bustle for the larger rounds. But overall the tank can only hold 31 rounds, 9 fewer than standard. The 140 shells weighed over 50kg.
The main reason for upping the bore size, is so that the chamber volume is proportionally increased thereby generating a greater muzzle energy potential. But it also means your chamber length can be longer. For example the German DM53 APFSDS rod is about 800mm long. Whereas, the one used in the 130mm gun is about 1000mm long. By having a much longer rod, you can overmatch spaced armour. Which is designed to cause a yawing moment on the rod as it passes through the 1st stage armour. By imparting some yaw on the rod the 2nd stage armour is more likely to deflect it. The longer rod is designed to counter this effect, thus hitting the 2nd stage armour square on.
I have a feeling the Rheinmetall gun will be chosen as its a good compromise offering significantly better performance than the current 120mm gun.
The L55 used with the A6 added about 20% more energy over the L444.
The A7 upgrade now sports the L55A1, which again has 20% more power (at muzzle) than the L55 of the A6.
For the AX upgrade currently being researched (will become A8, planned for 2028-30), a L55A2 is already in the works, probably with another 20% increase of power, depending on ammo.
Like the US, RM is also working on a E.T.C. gun, adding even more power.
All of that fitting in the current turrets of the 1500 Leos or so available in Europe.
Meanwhile, the Russians still havent built more than a company’s or two worth of Armatas, despite yearly announcements that “next year” they’ll go ahead and build it. .
Until that changes in a big way (say, if India orders a thousand so Russia can jump on that order to replace its fleet of T72s),
most of Europe will stick with the 120mm upgrades for its existing tank fleet.
The 130 or 140 mm guns will only come into play for new hulls, be they Leo II A9, Leo III or lighter MGCS vehicles.
Personally, I am hoping for two seperate vehicles coming out of the MGCS program:
A heavy Leo III for the Eastern plains (<70t)
and a 50t medium tank / expeditionary vehicle, both using lots of common parts (esp computers and communication).
Most Asian countries use two different tanks. Same with Eastern Europe.
I dont see why GER, FRA and UK couldnt do the same: have one brigade/division use the heavy, one the medium tanks. Then upgrade them in turns, so that you always have one unit equipped with the most modern stuff, and one being well trained with its slightly older equipment.
No comment on whether they’re getting the power pack upgrade too? All well and good fitting them with new armour, APS, different gun with larger ammunition (larger turret, I presume?), but it’s been underpowered compared to the Leopard and Abrams for years. If we’re talking about rapid responses to competitor agression and/or expeditionary warfare, having the slowest MBT in the world is hardly helpful…
Disclaimer: I don’t know if it actually is the slowest MBT in the world, but I can’t think of may other contenders for the title!
Don’t quote me Joe, but I think that Catapiller are progressing that option, or are certainly working towards it!
That’s good news!
Before the LEP program was announced, there was another program running looking at increasing the power of the Condor engine. They were also looking at upgrading the gearbox and final drives, which have taken a pounding due to the extra applique armour fitted.
The Perkins Condor V12, is quite a small engine by tank standards at 26.1L. Whilst the Leopard uses the MTU V12 at 47.7L. The current Condor pushes out 1200bhp, whilst the MTU is at 1479bhp. This may not seem a massive difference. Its not, the torque though is, as the MTU develops 4,700Nm (3,466lbs/ft) at 1600 to 1700rpm, whilst the Condor develops 4,126Nm (3,043lns/ft). Both tanks can reach a similar top speed. However, the higher torque of the MTU will accelerate the tank quicker.
Perkins were bought out by Caterpillar. They have a power upgrade for the Condor. This includes changing it to a common rail diesel and replacing the turbos, with a more up to date design. They have said the power is ramped up to 1500bhp.
However, torque won’t ramp up as much to match the MTU, as this is still a smaller bore x stroke engine. MTU have also got a power upgrade for their engine, which pushes it up near 1700bhp. What the Chally needs is a bigger bore engine, rather than just a hp upgrade, as its torque that helps acceleration not hp. That or go diesel-electric hybrid. Where you have a much smaller engine spinning a generator that powers an induction motor. Thereby generating linear acceleration from maximum torque at next to zero mph = much faster acceleration!
Thanks Davey, that is a significant difference in engine displacment! I can immediately see that there’s a limitation there, regardless of tuning and modification done by Caterpillar.
I do like the idea of having our tanks run like our old good trains, on a diesel electric set up, but maybe that’s a solution for whatever comes after CR3? For the next 10-15 years an upgrade to 1500 hp and whatever extra torque we can get may be enough without breaking the budget on R&D.
Maybe a couple of the CR2s that don’t go to the scrap heap could be used in partnership with Caterpillar et al for testing diesel electric and other future power packs?! Or is that too much to hope for from our new land industrial strategy…?
Top end speed X country is pretty good, acceleration is a bigger problem for CR2. I think this will be addressed with CR3.
I hope so, powerplant is also important for power generation for onboard systems- which is getting more and more important these days.
Thankyou for your view.
Having been a project engineer for DE&S working alongside the program managers. I only know too well the financial pitfalls that comes with leasing. When more and more of the program becomes “out of scope” of the original contract, we either have to pay additional costs for these to be considered or look at the snails pace seesawing that is contract renegotiation. Simple little things like having a drawing opened up to amend a word costing thousands of pounds or trying to get the OEM to admit that the drawing is in error. These were some of the issues that seriously frustrated me and in the end made me leave. As soon as the contract lawyers got involved all verbal and pre-existing agreements went out the window and they’d start adding the zeros onto the price.
The best value for money method, is to buy the item outright, then have a scheduled program that includes modifications and upgrades throughout the life of the asset.
With the draw down of the tank fleet, I find it shocking if not down right inept of the MoD to state these numbers will be enough. How? And in what Unicorn World are they living?
What is the purpose of the MBT? Its primary role is to kill other MBTs, either when placed defensively or pushing ahead offensively. However, it is also very good at taking and holding ground, as it has the armour to soak up damage. But it cannot do it alone, it needs infantry support, to protect its rear and flanks. Which means the infantry need to go wherever the tank goes. The traditional way is to ferry them in an armoured vehicle, which has sufficient armour to protect them when deliberately going in harms way. But because a MBT has such great mobility a lot of these types of vehicle struggle to keep up. Therefore, these types of vehicle were required to be tracked. What has changed? Has the geography that wars are fought over, now only going to be urban or on hard packed surfaces? No.
The time I served in the Military, I have been in three conflicts from the Former Yugoslavia campaigns, Iraq and Afghanistan. Each environment different to the last. Former Yugoslavia, where it was incredibly fertile land and very hilly. Iraq, everything was either sandy brown or concrete grey, with bits of green alongside the rivers. The sand was either very soft or as hard as concrete. Afghan, similar in some respects to Iraq, with a huge red desert in the south surrounded by mountains and lots of greenery surrounding the rivers, with land getting less fertile the further away it was from the river. There are a few metalled roads, but in the main, mostly earthen tracks. In the summer months the ground in both Iraq and Afghan became rock hard, but as soon as the rains came, they would quickly turn into a quagmire. With it you would quickly find hull down 6×6 and 8×8 vehicles up to their axles and stuck. The funniest one I saw in Iraq, was where three USMC LAVs tried to pull each other out and all got stuck. They were pulled out by a pair of linked Scimitars, they literally just floated over the mud. It was a similar thing in Afghan, where some German Fuchs 6x6s got stuck and had to be rescued by some Dutch CV90s. For tactical mobility, a tracked vehicle will always have better mobility than a wheeled vehicle as it generates a greater surface area to support its weight. Have those in charge forgotten this simple fact? Or are they more interested in strategic mobility, in getting troops to the conflict zone as fast as possible. Forgetting they will have to fight and manoeuvre when they get there.
I really do support the Army’s buy of Boxer. I believe it is the right vehicle for certain types of operations and as a replacement for a heavy MRAP vehicle. But not as an IFV to directly support a MBT. Warrior although old could at least keep up with a Challenger cross country. Perhaps the mechanised infantry require a version of the Ajax? The base Ascod vehicle carries a crew of 3 plus 8 dismounts, which is one more than Warrior. Would it really be that hard to build a IFV version?
A lot of talk has been on the requirement of a MBT and why as an island Nation do we need them? Basically there is nothing else in our inventory that can do its job or as well. Which is demonstrably firepower, persistence and durability, oh and playing on the psychological effect that 70t of tank generates.
However, all these points are very valid. Except today, we now have a counter that can protect a MBT against all if not most of these weapon systems, namely the active protective system (APS). The Isreali Trophy system is perhaps the best known, but also the most battle proven. There have been numerous actions caught on video showing Trophy defending a Merkava MBT against multiple attacks from ATGMs in urban and open areas. So far, no attack has managed to knock out a Merkava with Trophy fitted. These attacks have been conducted using the humble but plentiful RPG7, right up to the latest offerings from Russia and China. Trophy has a possibly weakness against a large swarm attack, where its reloading speed may be overwhelmed. However, because it uses two independent rotating turrets, it can provide 360 degree protection, as well as top attack protection (unlike the Russian Afghanit system).
Trophy’s major weakness is that it cannot protect the tank against amour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds (Fin). This is because like a Claymore it fires a sheet of fragmented tungsten cubes at the incoming threat. Due to the very small frontal area of a Fin round, these cubes will not effect the round’s flight path.
Therefore, I believe the MoD have gone in the wrong direction regarding MBTs. Rather than cutting the numbers, they should have been increased. As I’ve alluded to, a Fin round is one of the few weapons that still has not only a greater chance of hitting the target, but also knocking it out. With the adoption of better APS on MBTs, it will be harder and harder for missiles to get through this protective layer. Meaning you will have to fire a lot more per target, to at least have a chance of scoring a hit. Therefore you will a shed more missile stockpiled and carried. You may need something like 3 Hellfires per tank fairly soon, which have a unit price of between $45,000 and $76,000 depending on the model. Whereas a M829A3 round costs just under $10,000. Surely the cost justifies the need alone?
The MBT is still the best option of killing another MBT! It is the only vehicle that can offer any chance of survival against large calibre artillery near misses, whilst providing battlefield durability due its very thick armour. Strategic mobility, well that’s another discussion after a brew.
Well said Daveyb.
Great post. Taught me a lot.
So Strike has now screwed our armoured Brigades as well.
Not spending those billions on Boxers could have paid for Warrior, Ajax, and Challenger.
I used to wonder who the UKs greatest enemy was. Russia, China, maybe some combined force of nations somewhere? But no. By far the most damage and lose ever inflicted on HM Forces is by HM Government. I think it’s true to say that our glorious treasury has sunk the most ships, grounded the most aircraft and confined the most tanks to the scrap yard. I really, really, really hope the government are justifiably proud of what they have dismantled. Not even Hitler could manage such a feat. What took our forebears a multitude of centuries to achieve is gone with a scribbled signature on yet another force reduction review. Pats on backs chaps. To say that I am ‘disappointed’ with our political masters and betters is the largest understatement ever.
I am thinking of the parallel with the Covid pandemic, when the nation does not prepare against the most serious threat.
No PPE in stock beforehand, no serious exercises or training, no surge capacity, not enough ventilator beds. Then the pandemic hits. UK economy hit by £251bn, cost of government funding £192bn, 126,000 KIA.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees thing like this. The military masters in my day taught me ‘Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance’. I hope the pandemic teaches us some important lessons about being prepared. But the WW2 taught us that. Least we forgot.
Rant over. Lol
I believe CR3 is the right choice for a UK MBT. I am rather hoping the final specification for CR3 will surprise us for better.
Rather have the Challenger…Leopard 2 has been destroyed in combat – it has weaker armour. Not one Challenger has been lost to the enemy – EVER. This includes being hit by 70 RPGs, a Milan anti tank missiles … etc.
I think our troops would rather have the Challenger. Also I am not sure we would be happy buying from the EU these days… they may ban shipments if the did not get their way… at least the turret factory is in the UK!
“Rather have the Challenger…Leopard 2 has been destroyed in combat – it has weaker armour. Not one Challenger has been lost to the enemy – EVER. This includes being hit by 70 RPGs, a Milan anti tank missiles … etc.”
So? Every tank is very vulnerable to side and rear shots and can be destroyed.
Those are small fry, not Kornets, or TOW.
There is a reason Israelis have APS in field and Russians and others are developing.
While no tank is indestructible some are more vulnerable then others.
like me you do not know what a hit from a Kornets would do to a Challenger 2. It is speculation as it has not happened. We can only let history inform us and Leopard has been lost in action and Challenger has not. The immobilised Challenger was surrounded and hit from all sides it was recovered and only needed its sites replacing it was back in action in 6 hots.
of course it is better not to get hit so the upgrade should be given a hard kill system. But gge UK is also doing research into pre-detonating inbound missiles before they hit. This type of defence could be added when it is ready.
you say that the back and sides of tanks are tge weakest areas and I agree. However this fact is recognised in Challenger 2 with is up-armoured before it enters the battle x
zone with add-ons appropriate for the threat. So we have seen added side armour and bar armour on turret rear and back of the tank. This has kept Challenger 2 safe.
Also Cobham armour was designed to deal with HEAT attack as this was seen as the emerging threat. We now have improved Dorchester armour. We cannot say how effective ir would be against Kornets but if any armour in the world can resist such an attack it is likely to be tgjs armour. Only UK tanks have Dorchester, the M1 uses the first generation Cobham. There have been cases were Kornets has hit M1s and penetrated side or rear armour however I suspect these areas were not covered by Cobham. Challenger crews who have looked over M1 have commented that Challenger has thicker armour, when crews were asked would they rather have Leopard 2 or M1 they all said they would rather stick with Challenger.
Also I think we should limit our dependancy on EU countries as the EU has shown that it will always put its interests first over free commerce and such political posturing may affect military items. The Germans could withhold spar parts etc because we annoyed them in some way. That is why I am glad to see that most of the upgrade will be in the
UK. It is sad that when the Challenger 2 had its turret redesigned it was not made larger to allow for modern ammunition. At that time they could have made a 120mm smoothbore rather than playing catch up now.
I am sorry but you don’t have thickness and weight to protect a tank all around. It’s physics. Let’s suppose your armor have a 2:1 advantage in relation to steel, that means an half meter is necessary to protect to an 1000mm RHA capable missile. Last Kornets go to 1300mm RHA.
I’ll give a Challenger edge for the frontal aspect in relation to the Leo 2A4 but that is it. Extra armor you can put in both and Leo has engine power edge so in theory could get heavier.
Then what about top armor? only Merkava 4 turret and even better Armata do to unmmaned turret seems to be somewhat protected from drone missiles.
The point is that Dorchester is Secret we do not know how good it is against HEAT. So to say it cannot protect to 13000mm is speculation. We do know it is lighter then traditional armour so you can either have less for the same protection or the same amount for more protection. The fact that it is said to have more and thicker then M1 suggests the level of protection should be better then M1. The M1 does sport DU in its armour but this is on the frontal arc.
My point is that the Challenger 2 is heavily up armoured when goung on operations this gives it unmatched survivability.
Also you are not considering the different design priorities between the Leopard and the Challenger 2. The Leopard was designed with firepower first, then mobility and then protection. Challenger put firepower first, then protection and then modality. These priorities were reflected in the MBT armour protection,
i think we all now recognise that speed is to much of a protection against modern missiles, modern tank fire control systems etc. This fact has been recognised by the Leopards manufacturer who are upgrading the armour of the latest Leopards. Challenger was designed from the start with armour as a high priority.
on modality Challenger is set to get a new power pack of 1500 – 1600bph also an upgraded suspension so even if it carries more armour it will still be mobile.
I have already said that I think an active protection system would be a vital upgrade for Challenger no tank is impregnable so it is better off not being hit. A mix of soft and hard kill systems should be used.
I do know one thing if I had to brave the modern battlefield I would rather be in an upgraded Challenger then in a
Leopard that has a history of combat losses (along with the M1)!
P.S. You have still avoided the issue of buying a foreign tank from the EU. Is this a weak spot in your plan for Leopard Euro-tank domination…
It is highly unlikely Oman would be taking any surplus CR2 considering they have been seeking a replacement, apparently the Hyundai Rotem K2 Black Panther was favoured but things have gone a bit quiet about that.
https://www.aresdifesa.it/rheinmetall-ammodernera-i-challenger-2-britannici
Says that 60 Trophy APS kits will procured. Any idea if that is “creative writing” from the Italian site or is it already established?
Perhaps we should jump a couple of generations and go for the M5 Ripsaw with a combination of 105 and 130mm guns.
then we can have Ajax, Boxer and Vikings running these as loyal wingmen.
It would certainly help relieve the troop requirement as well as probably being cheaper than the proposed challenger upgrade.
nothing against challenger, but would we not be bette off with a version of this?
So Stuart you would rather us purchase a system that the Germans are looking to replace in the near future? Surely it has made sense to upgrade what we have and then maybe join in with the future tank program. Mind you Franco/ German cooperation doesn’t usually end well and they end up going their separate ways!
“Mind you Franco/ German cooperation doesn’t usually end well and they end up going their separate ways!”
That’s overstating things. There were a bunch of GER-FRA programs that worked out quite well.
EG Alphajet, Transall, lots of missiles (HOT, MILAN, ROLAND); Airbus MRTT, … A400M is also getting decent.
Also remember that MGCS has a system of system approach – we thus might see both a heavy Leo III built by RM and BAE, and a medium 50t tank, built by KMW and Nexter, come out of it, with common electronics, optics etc..
its really a shame. British tanks are ment for long range support I mean the challenger is know for the longest tank to tank kill. To be honest the new upgrades don’t make it effective for its intended role. sure the new gun can fire fancy rounds like HESH or ATG or even APFSDS, but smoothbores aren’t famous for their range. and the new guidance system might help a bit. but really what we need is a better engine. this along with the new gun and protection system would have made the challenger the best MBT on the planet and make a plausible deterrent.
Do we realistically have the capability to deploy large numbers of MBTs in theatres beyond Europe? In what scenario would that be useful anyway? The author refers to the force that BAOR used to field, but the heavy focus on facing off against the Soviet Union in Europe curtailed the available funding for power projection in other theatres- hence the poor state of readiness to fight the Falklands War. The only ‘peer’ threat scenario where I can envisage the use of MBTs is a NATO action against Russia, in which case isn’t it about time the land powers closest to the threat- particularly Germany- pulled their weight?
Germany fields 2 armoured infantry divisions, with 7 well-armed combat brigades. Britain can manage one weak division with just 2 combat brigades and the lightly-equipped Air Aslt bdes Spot the difference.
We have, at least on paper, two light infantry brigades with Jackal and Foxhound , but they would have next to no military efficacy on the battlefield .
Our army is actually now the weakest of the main Western European NATO nations, behind Italy, Spain, France and Germany in the number of combat brigades it can field.
They are all professional forces now and none as poorly-equipped as the British. What a horlicks HMG has made of the army since 2010.
One other alternative would be to keep all of the 250 Challengers in service while purchasing a few couple hundred Leopard 2s from Germany, since it seems that Germany doesn’t appear to be very interested in having a military anymore.
Unlike the UK, the Bundeswehr is curently increasing its tank force from 228 to 332 with 104 additional Leo IIA7s coming in, and is looking for another 80 old hulls to buy back and upgrade as a reserve, for 400 tanks overall.
Currently, there are no such hulls lying around, but maybe Norway will go Korean (makes sense in the Fjords) or Poland will get lots of Abrams …
Just two weeks ago, a 20 billion investment package was launched by German parliament. Thats an additional 5 billion for each of the next 4 years.
Most of that is going to the navy (2 new subs, new tankers, spy ships etc) and air force (FCAS, 5 Orions), but the army is still getting an almost 2 billion EUR upgrade for its Puma IFVs, among other things.
Surprised they are staying with the 120mm although at long last a smoothbore ,since there is an awful lot of talk of moving to 130mm
Hi Stu, glad to see you haven’t lost your talent for stirring the pot!
Some very interesting comments here; all more informed and up to date than anything I could contribute. However, you may be interested to hear about my last job for 4RTR before retiring to Aus. I was OC 12 Armd Wksp and was ordered to strip every useful part out of the Regiment’s Chieftains so that they could be sent to Iraq. Trust me when I say that there wasn’t much left on the tank park when we had finished and it would have taken a very long time to bring the Regiment back up to operational readiness. Maybe Stu could fill in that gap?
Anyway, my point is that it doesn’t matter what MBT you have if you can only afford 150 then you are wasting your money unless you buy all the necessary spares and support equipment that goes with it. A regimental lift would cost almost a much as a a couple of squadrons plus first and second line support. Probably not an economic proposition for 150 tanks. The Australian Army has a regiment of Abraham’s and relies on the Yanks for everything, including vehicles, on deployment, not a bad model.
Since the British Government has never had a very good track record in this area (remember the reintroduction of Centurion ARV in the early 80’s) my guess is that the whole thing is a political stunt.
Sorry gents the money would be better spent on some drones and boots on the ground.
Bluebell
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/03/31/the-french-armed-forces-are-planning-for-high-intensity-war
Worth reading.
This continual worship of Leo2 by RAC officers baffles me. Sure, other nations have bought them, but is that a reason for us to buy them, when we have already developed a very good LEP for CR2, and have already invested in the support arrangements and training for CR2.
Besides I have seen a lot of photos of very dead Leo 2s (admittedly older A4s), which gives little faith in their protection levels. A key problem is that tank ammunition is stored close to the lightly armoured side.
Mere terrorists (ISIS) destroyed ten of the Turkish Army’s Leopard 2s in Syria in Dec 2016; five reportedly by antitank missiles (AT-7 Metis, AT-5 Konkurs and maybe AT-4 Spigot (a 1972-era weapon)), two by mines/IEDs, one to rocket or mortar fire.
Others were destroyed by ancient Kurdish T55s.
No CR2 has ever been destroyed by enemy action.
Arguing from a destroyed early 1980s version A4 and using it to judge the 2020 A7V? Seriously?
You might want to watch this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noLHC_7KhsM
If you then still feel under-protected, add MUSS 2.0 (softkill system plus integrated hardkill ADS elements)
https://www.hensoldt.net/news/hensoldt-further-develops-its-self-protection-system-muss/
and upgrade later to the next gen APS from Rheinmetall that is supposed to be available for the LeoII A8 (2028-30) and will protect against top attack munitions as well as APFSDs …
Does anyone really think any future war is going to involve large scale tank battles?
Yes. Russia is not going to push into the Baltic republics or elsewhere with Toyota trucks mate.
There is a reason China, Russia and the other hostile autocracies have very large tank fleets, it is to swamp and overwhelm flimsy opponents like us.
Precision fires and ATGW will not stop an armoured thrust of 300-400 tanks, particularly when they are prepared to accept high losses and have ample, expendae MBTs in reserve.
Ok, mate.
The Russians sure do. Which is why they constantly upgrading theirs and build new T90s. And would build Armatas if they had the money.
Which is why the Poles also believe so. Which is why they want to buy lots of Abrams, in addition to their Leos.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/07/09/poland-could-purchase-m1-abrams-tanks-from-us/
The Chinese are constantly introducing new tank classes, and building lots of them. And putting them into position vs India.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202102/1215047.shtml
So the Indians do, too. Looking at buying 1800 new tanks, with Armata being one option.
https://eurasiantimes.com/russian-t-14-armata-the-ideal-futuristic-tanks-for-the-indian-army-but-not-against-china/
Which would allow Russia to piggyback on that order.
Germany is increasing its tank fleet from 228 to 332.
France is looking at increasing their tank fleet. Both are working on the MGCS.
Italy is soon fielding its new Centauro II. A similar vehicle based on a modified Boxer chassi might make a lot of sense for the UK, imO.
Equip a regiment with
1 company Centauro II turret on a lowered Boxer hull (not modular, but able to take different turrets),
1 company Boxer CRV
1 company Boxer NEMO / AMOS
3 company Boxer IFV
and you have both a great recce force and a pretty decent strike force.
We are clearly refocusing away from a continental land force. Given that Russia has proved to be a spent force paper tiger and the Europeans are beefing up their land forces this is not unreasonable. I think the UK was also stung by how we were used by the US in the ME in an almost abusive relationship. You can’t be bullied into using forces you haven’t got. We just need to careful we don’t get dragged into a naval war with China unless it was to back up Australia.