Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) has made notable progress in the development of the British Army’s Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank, with two pre-series vehicles successfully completing their commissioning.
These vehicles will now undergo a series of rigorous field trials to test their performance and ensure readiness for full-rate production. The programme continues with the addition of four further pre-series vehicles, ensuring the Challenger 3’s readiness to meet the British Army’s evolving needs.
This step follows RBSL’s earlier announcement of the £800 million contract awarded to upgrade the British Army’s armoured capabilities. Despite challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Challenger 3 programme has moved forward with substantial developments in vehicle design and technology.
The upgraded Challenger 3 is set to feature advanced lethality, improved survivability, and cutting-edge surveillance and target acquisition systems, positioning it as a formidable force on the battlefield.
The programme will not only enhance the British Army’s operational effectiveness but also create substantial economic benefits within the UK. RBSL’s efforts will create and sustain 450 jobs within the UK supply chain, with additional roles at RBSL’s Telford manufacturing facility, which will lead the production efforts. Support will also come from RBSL’s sites in Washington and Bristol. Furthermore, the contract will create opportunities for training and apprenticeships, offering a further boost to the UK’s engineering and defence sectors.
The Challenger 3 will be equipped with the latest 120mm High Pressure L55A1 main gun and improved fire support technology. Its new turret design, along with advanced electronic and electrical architecture, will ensure that the vehicle remains adaptable and capable of incorporating future technological advancements.
The programme is scheduled to reach its expected in-service date of 2027, and its success is expected to lead to continued investment in armoured vehicle engineering in the UK.
Great I hope we have a secret commitment to convert all of the ch2 to ch3 and then get jigs set up to make the frames and hopefully start manufacturing more and evolve to a ch4 from there. Also get all of them to have the drone/missile protection set up and not just 60 kits.
Clearly I have drunk too much sherry over Xmas to think that 🙂
I agree. You must have!
Is there that much sherry in the world?
I agree, that a fleet of 148 ain’t enough at least another 50 is feasible.
I wonder if there is enough CH2 in viable condition to actually upgrade them. The very small donation to Ukraine makes me wonder. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are only 150 odd capable of being upgraded with the rest raided for spares.
That’s more or less what’s been reported.
The key point is that with reducing manpower count the army can only have two armoured regiments. Hence 148.
Graham, in reality manpower decline can be reversed, and people can be replaced with a new intake, after all we do have a lot of them hanging around. Once the challenger 3 production line closes after 148 there is no option to get more. We would if we ever decided going to 2 regiments was a bad idea, need to procure a whole new set of MBTs at about 20- 25million a pop and have the whole cost and faf of running two concurrent fleets..personally I think if we have the option of procuring a new 21c MBT for 5 million a pop we should be buying as many as we can ( after all that’s a saving of 15-20 million on each MBT).
Even if we drop to 2 regiments, having 200 MBTs would make fleet management a hell of a lot easier and give you a serious attritional reserve if something awful happened, like someone put a torpedo through a Point class that was carrying a squadron or two into theatre ( could happen).
We have had this conversation a few time and both agreed that In the end 148 MBTs for 2 type 56 regiments is very very tight..
1) 112 tanks deployed to regiments
2) 10-15 in deep maintenance
3) 18 for training establishment
Essentially that’s pretty much all 148 MBTs accounted for…so no attritional reserve worth the name.. personally I don’t think it’s a silly idea to keep a regiments worth of MBTs as the attritional reserve..considering this tank will probably be in active service for 30 years..56 spares just seems sensible…after all once the British army considered 100% to be the sensible level for an attritional reserve.
The question is also is chicken or egg. Was the number required reduced because of lack of man power or was it reduced because of lack of platforms resulting in less man power required.
Overall man power keeps getting dropped that’s a taken but how the mod uses the new reduced number is not always transparent.
Let us hope the Government has also been on the Sherry.
Considering all the nebulous statements about what they hope to do without any real substance as to how and when or where the cash comes from, I suspect they have been on the absinthe and wacky-baccy.
No such thing as secret commitments in the AFV procurement world. 148 it is.
The figure of 60 Trophy APS was bandied about a very long time ago – it may be more now.
I’ve come to the viewpoint that the people behind the CH3 programme haven’t a clue and we are being too polite to damm this ludicus fleet of just 148. In truth, it’s madness not to increase the conversion of CH2 to Ch3 by another 50 machines and thereby give the tank regiments a tangible reserve. I hope the Defence Review will recommend an increase to around 200 tanks even if it is a trickle production over three years to ease the budget adjustment.
Rheinmetall have publicly stated they can build C3’s totally from scratch. As many as ordered . I’d start with another 350 and take it from there … 🙂
What a state the UK has become. Germans manufacturing our tank components as the reality is that UK industry simply can’t manufacture a tank!
They would be built in the UK👍
Phil, I don’t think the UK can even build a military truck these days!
Yi-Ha Go get them!
Hopefully the new MTBs have anti-drone tech built in. If not they are already, ready for the heap.
Matt, there are several ways to defeat or degrade the effectiveness of drones. The tanks don’t necessarily have to have anti-drone tech built in.
Not long now for the videos of them tearing up Salisbury plain then👍
Do these two (to become six) “pre-series vehicles” count as part of the 178 to be converted, or are they in addition to?
Hi Spock, 148 CR2 tanks to be converted to CR3, not 178.
What are here being called pre-series vehicles (we used to say pre-Production) will be reworked to Production build standard after all the tests, trials and evaluations, ie they will count as part of the 148, I am sure.
Thanks, live long & prosper!
The 148 includes ALL the Prototype and Pre Production Examples sadly.
Less tanks than Spain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germány, Turkey, Switzerland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania… Ridículous númber
True but as we are not on the European mainland we have never used our land forces for primary defence of the UK that role is held by the navy and airforce.
However you are right we should have more tanks so we can have full spectrum capabilities.
Rob, True that our land forces do not major on defence of the UK homeland – they are primarily for the defence of continental Europe. It is mooted that the ARRC which includes 3 (UK) Div is SACEUR’s reserve – that is why we need more that 148 tanks.
The fact that we are not on the European mainland is irrelevant.
Graham; I agree completely. We don’t expect ‘reserves’ from the Polish (and others) navy to help us out in the North Sea and the North Atlantic so, why would our continental allies expect us to provide a significant land forces?
Sadly, a lot of commentators are ex-army who’s outlook is stuck in the 20th Century when it was NATO v Warsaw Pact. A big chunk of the former Warsaw Pact countries haven’t just left that organisation but then joined NATO; a ‘6 pointer’ to use football parlance.
The performance of the Russian forces against western equipment in Ukraine would suggest that NATO has little to currently worry about land forces to the east.
Meanwhile, the Chief of the Defence Staff (RAF so, this is a bit of a surprise) has highlighted the dangers to our society and way of life of not having enough maritime assets to protect the undersea cables for trade and electrical power!
Rob C the Polish and other navies 100% will be helping us in the North Sea. This is why Poland is building Type 31’s (and Poland is one of the least Naval Powers in Europe, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, basically every major member of European NATO has a powerful fleet that will be contributing to the Naval War).
Advocating abandoning NATO to focus on the easy back field task of the Naval War (and yes it’s easy, compared to ground combat against the Russians) is a fracturing move given, as I said, that every other Nation will be contributing to the Naval War minus very minor powers like Estonia.
Still not convinced that choosing this over the more modest Black Knight proposal from BAE was the best use of scarce funds. But it is good to see an AFV programme on schedule.and free of the turret problems that bedevilled Warrior upgrade.
It wouldn’t break the bank to increase the planned 148 to 200+, giving us either a decent reserve or the ability to equip 3 armoured BCTs..
I thought that the Black Knight option retained the Rifled 120mm Gun which pretty much made the upgrade pointless ?.
It did. Improvements were to sensors, laser warning APS, fire control.
For the limited life span of Ch3, not sure that changing the gun- the most costly part- was worth. Ukraine seems to have found the existing gun effective.
The Gun is still very effective, it was the supply of Ammunition going forward that was the major issue.
And one presumes maintaining it or replacing it. It was only really an option for looking good in peacetime, an actual major conflict it would have been as good as useless beyond the small numbers with no access to allies supplies.
Ukraine must be using up that supply of rifled gun ammo and charges pretty quickly the 13 remaining C2s in action are apparently being hard used as a night time sniper. Roll forwards, blow stuff up at 2.5-3 mile range, withdraw. They’ve destroyed hundreds of Russian military vehicles.
Peter, I wonder how long CR3 will be in service for. CR2 will have well over 30 years service before the last one is retired. I think CR3 might give about 20 years service but that’s just a guess.
I would bet on 30 years..
Depends on whether tanks are still deemed relevant I guess. I wouldn’t want to predict 15 let alone 20 to 30 years ahead.
The issue with the Challenger 2’s gun is the Ammunition supply. Nobody in NATO makes 2 (3) piece ammunition for a rifled 120mm gun anymore. Which not only means, going forwards, that we have to fund a bespoke production line for our ammunition, but we have to develop our own upgrades to the ammunition. With a Rh-120 smoothbore we can just piggyback of German and American ammunition development.
They were getting ammo from Belgium, expensive though !
Pete, pretty much I said. See the “fund a bespoke production line” bit.
Peter, CR2 had not been substantively upgraded since first fielding in 1998. No way was a mild upgrade going to cut it. It needed to be very significant.
It really was very overdue transitioning to smoothbore, not least of which because the rifled ammunition manufacture going forward was uncertain….and it is always good to have a NATO standard munition.
I get the advantage of standardizing ammunition but there are downsides. For APFSDS, the longer rod improves armour penetration but at long range, its HE accuracy is significantly lower. Also the number of rounds carried is reduced from 50 to 31. I believe that UK and Germany are developing an improved round that will compensate for the loss of the DU penetrator used in the rifled round.
The smoothbore gun will allow the option of gun launched missiles. Which aren’t really feasible with a rifled gun. What hasn’t been used from tank guns, though are used by SPGs are guided rounds. Such as the laser guided variant of the 155mm Excalibur. A 120mm variant should be more than doable. Which would give the necessary accuracy over the whole range of the HE shell.
The main advantage of the DU penetrator over a Tungsten one, is the DU’s ability to self sharpen as it passes through a material. Tungsten traditionally gets blunter the further it goes through a material. However, this is now possible for the Tungsten penetrator. S.Korea I believe were the first to publically state they had a Tungsten round that could resharpen as it passed through a material. Rheinmetall I’m pretty certain have been working on their version for years. How it does this is a closely guarded secret. Besides, we can always buy DU rounds from the US or even start producing them ourselves, as we produce the required material.
The Chally was always going to struggle to hold a similar number of one piece ammo as the rifles gun’s two part the smoothbore’s one piece ammo is nearly a meter long. So finding areas to store the ammo in the hull, would need a major redesign of the hull’s layout.
With the nearly 40% drop in rounds carried maybe some additional tanks would help to compensate for that drop? More than ever now every round fired has to count!
Not really.
Additional Tanks can’t occupy the same space as the existing Tanks. Ie we can have more tanks, but we’re not going to be upgrading a Troop from 4 tanks to 5, or a Regiment from 3 Squadrons to 4. Realistically it would mean another Regiment, which means fighting in a different physical location. It would be a good thing, but it wouldn’t really offset the ammunition loss.
Quentin, we just need to do timely resupply. No point buying extra tanks if the army does not have the manpower to crew them due to restricted headcount.
I agree at least we are back in the field of AFVs at which we used to be probably the Best. One could outsource quite a number of equipment and fittings if we have closed the specific manufacturers.
We have still heard nothing about Driver Training Tanks. Will those built for the CR2 era be modified to have the look and feel of CR3 and refurbished?
Also REME is still fielding the CRARRV (ISD was 1988) which has a hull adapted from CR1 but with CR2 automotives. The armour is non-Chobham and the vehicle is showing its age (35+ years old now). CSS at back of the queue for new kit, as usual.
T2 probably need an upgrade as well!
Considering it’s the same hull and engine, I wouldn’t imagine they’d need huge modifications.
Same engine is the issue, it was under powered before the upgrades and has suffered in Ukraine because of it. More weight just seems to be making them issues worse.
Nope the engine changes from the CV12-6A to CV1-9A.
New engine features larger turbo chargers,electric manifold heaters and higher fuel injection pressures.
The bumf also states in CAN produce 1500bhp if required but at the moment it’s staying at 1200.
Not seen anything to suggest that the engine is an issue in Ukraine just the weight for some of their infrastructure.
CV12-9A 🙄
Jackie, this story about CR2 being underpowered seems to stem from inexperienced UKR drivers bogging in occasionally in the rainy season and saying they could have got through the mud if they had more power.
The reality is that the cross country speed of CR2 is comparable to Leo2 due to its superior suspension.
To add to Graham’s point:
The story that broke the whole “scandal” of Challenger 2’s struggling in the Ukranian mud even had a line where after an inexperienced crew bogged a Challenger in, a more experienced crew went into the same conditions and recovered their tank.
I think anyone who has worked with armour has seen a tank bog in at some point. It happens.
Also new improved radiators to cope with extra heat generated, VIC’s remapped ,don’t think it will retain 1200 bhp or pointless mod’s. It would be as daft as fitting MK3 Hydro-gas with defective cylinder thread pitch clearance to meet a KPI !
Patrick, I am not sure if you were replying to me. Were you referring to DTTs, CRARRV, Titan or Trojan?
Ah yes the good.old.lets fake some trials to find the discrepancy we could fix but won’t just like the chalky two which is all the three modifications address.
Then add lots of bubble wrap and say it’s reactive armour
Dave, I think you had too much sherry at Christmas?
Good going, now let’s build 213 and retain 3 MBT regiments. Next.
Just need to persuade the Government to allocate 500 more posts to allow for that 3rd Regt and supporting Arms.
Indeed, but then I think it’s bonkers that a nation as wealthy and engaged as the UK has dropped to 2 heavy brigades. The army is our commitment to our allies and a major deterrent to a land war in Europe. In reality it’s not a vast expense to give the army the funding for 3 deployable heavy brigades with all the CS and CSS needed ( including a decent mass of long range precision fires and self propelled fires ). Three heavy brigades with deployable CS and CSS as well as a deployable mec, light and air mobile brigades should be a core not to be messed with capability. I also think the concept of equipping for fighting the deep battle should be intrinsic to each of the deployable brigades and instead of holding all the assets for fighting the deep battle held in 1st brigade, they should be part of every all the heavy brigades ( with increased cav and long range precision fires in every brigade)..if the deep battle is important it’s important for all the brigades.
Unfortunately when it comes to defence, we seem to have settled into a paradigm of managed decline..where lack of manpower or crews is a reason to cut capabilities instead of a reason to increase manpower.
I agree with you.
Lack of people is a cart before horse argument. Which is being used to limit CH3 as it is being used to strangle RN.
We can’t built materiel like we did in WW2 so we have to stockpile it.
Personally I’d invest properly in our smallish army but go big on RN and RAF. Not letting RAF or Army pour it all into Gucci stuff but in a lot of case more of what we gave that works.
I think we need to take a step back and remember that different levels of command worry about different areas of the Battle field. In general, the “Deep” battle, as envisioned by British thinking, is a divisional level of responsibility. The divisional commander uses fires and army aviation to focus on the deep battle, setting the conditions so that the Brigade Commanders can win the Close Battle.
Would need a bit more than 500 posts sadly.
Well there’s been many more on the subject on this site alone … 😉
That 3rd Regiment still exists, mind.
The KRH, and still in role as Ajax was delayed.
So it does not need to be found from zero.
I also read recently that the Batteries of 16 RA have been uplifted, so hopefully more shuffling about in the review.
Good to see ,Just another 700+ and I’ll be happy .But in the mean time off to the Pub 😀 🍺
700. 😳
There were 13 Armoured Regiments back in the day, 12 in BAOR.
They fielded around 900 Chieftain and Challenger.
So that 700 would need many additional Regiments mate, the Army is no longer set up for that without the sort of expansion needed for general war, which we know isn’t happening.
In my view, it is not necessary either.
But the 3rd Regiment being restained, is.
Yep just wishful thinking on my part . Have to wait and see what SDR brings next year ,but not like guys like me or yourself expect much 👍
Maybe someone with better knowledge of AFV manufacture (Graham?) can put me right, but this seems like a suspiciously quick time to have a total of 3 CH3 ready for trials? I know that it’s mostly turrets, but they’re supposed to be brand new, with new armour packages and wiring, FCS etc. plus a re-wire of the hull and fitting them together.
Unless the “skeleton” of the turret is also CH2?
The Turret is all completely new – it is based on the Leonard 2 Turret core with a UK Armour Package.
Joe, the gestation period is longer than you might think. The CR2 upgrade programme was first launched in 2005 under the name CR2 Capability & Sustainment Programme (CSP), but unfortunately was grossly under-funded. It was reshaped in 2014 into the CR2 Life Extension Programme (CR2 LEP). Four companies/expressed an interest. I joined the Rheinmetall Bid Team, Kiel in 2016 as adviser on British Military Project Management – we advocated a solution that included a new turret with a 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall cannon, although that was not in the MoD brief.
Out of the 4 bidders, both Rheinmetall and BAES won the bid (ie. were downselected) and were funded by MoD to develop a LEP prototype; BAE delivered the Black Knight TD in Oct 2018 and Rheinmetall delivered the more advanced version with new turret (done at Rheinmetall’s cost) in Jan 2019. These 2 companies formed a JV in June 2019 called RBSL. Contract Award was on 7 May 2021. First pre-production tank was unveiled on 23 Jan 24.
Arguably some 19 years of (admittedly on/off) work had gone into the project from the 2005 launch of the CR2 CSP to production of first pre-production CR3 unit.
The (Rheinmetall) CR3 turret is completely new and was largely developed Aug 2016-Jan 2019 and publically shown with the complete vehicle as a prototype at DSEI in Sep 2019; as a discussion point Rheinmetall also showed a new turret in Jul 2020 with its 130mm gun and an autoloader.
An interesting & informative insight from the coal face – Thanks !
A follow up question – if I may :
I understand the 120mm smoothbore was chosen in part for the profusion of amour available off the shelf so to speak.
However as the rifled bore of the CH2 is via my understanding a more accurate gun, did your bid , as part of the background work consider the potential to keep or enhance the existing rifled bore and consider building the associated factories and R&D facilities to be able to provide the ammunition to continue with the ‘better’ gun. or was it decided early in in the process that it just wasn’t a financially viable option.
As an aside – well sort of – it would be interesting to appreciate the history behind the two different gun choices the whys and wherefores so to speak dictating the development and subsequent mass behind the smoothbore option which has resulted in the CH3 being forced to go down that route.
In software parlance it seems its Windows vs. OS2 , one a far better more robust O/S which ultimately lost out to the marketing and ‘business acumen (aka skullduggery) of the other weaker patch happy product ..(or Betamax vs. VHS perhaps) or was it more nuanced than that?
Oh and why if we chose smoothbore – did we not go for the 130 mm you mentioned above ?
The demo of the 130mm by Rheinmetall was not part of the LEP process as I understand. It was a TD and is not in service with any army, I think. Don’t know about the performance but inituitively it must be better than 120mm. But apart from questioning the need for the better performance given the excellent development of 120mm smoothbore ammunition, there are many downsides:
1.probably a longer round and certainly heavier so could the human loader cope or would autoloading be forced on the user, 2.certainly fewer rounds could be carried and CR3 is already carrying far fewer rounds than CR2 did.
3.Clearly it would be a more expensive round.
4.CR3 turretand hull would have to be redesigned and that would add to the cost and time of the project.
5.It would not be a NATO standard round.
I am not seeing any useful advantages, just a host of disadvantages.
Hi Grizzler, I think when CR1 was being developed that 120mm smoothbore was briefly considered but it was said that we had ample stocks of ‘rifled’ ammunition, so may as well continue with a rifled gun. Think there were similar discussions during the gestation of CR2. Also the thought of course that rifled was superior in terms of projectile stabilisation and hence accuracy; it was with CR1 that we got the record for longest tank kill ever in GW1. CR2 had a L30A1 to replace the L11A5 ie a bteer rifled cannon than that which had achieved such a record. We also liked the secondary round HESH and had good stocks.
However we were swimming against the tide. The US replaced their British rifled 105mm in Abrams with a 120mm smoothbore…and pretty much everyone was going or had gone for smoothbore.
I was working for Rheinmetall for the short period on CR2 LEP Bid and we did not consider further development of a rifled (non-German!) gun. It was a puzzle that the MoD had not stipulated a smoothbore (they left the cannon choice to the bidder as I recall), particularly as they had successfully trialled a Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore many years before on CR2, and most RAC officers were ready to move on to smoothbore. Ammunition supply was always going to be a problem for the rifled gun – I understand that we had to go to Belgium to get it as UK manufacture of rifled ammunition had ceased.
Smoothbore technology has advanced over the years and accuracy at long range is very good, with fin stabilisation alone. There are many advantages of smoothbore cannon, one being that other munitions (ATGMs etc) can be fired. Barrel life is longer so barrrel changes (not that easy) are less frequent. Muzzle velocity can be higher, increasing penetration with a similar proj. HEAT is an effective secondary ammunition. Barrel is easier and cheaper to manufacture (and UK manufacture has ceased, I think). NATO standardisation is achieved.
Finally there is a comment to be made that the UK DU 120mm rifled proj was a far better penetrator than Tungsten smoothbore proj. True…as DU is much denser and is less likely to blunt as it penetrates…but I am told that the latest Rheinmetall Tungsten proj is as good as the Brit DU..
Worth noting as well that while Rheinmetall produces Tungsten penetrators, the US makes DU penetrators that are compatible with Rh-120 guns.
Will the new ones have blowout panels? It seems that it’s the biggest downside of c2 compared to other western tanks in terms of survivability.
Jonny, The lack of blow-off panels is not a downside in CR2. As it has 3-piece ammunition, it has a different design solution to prevent or dramatically reduce the chance of ammunition burning or exploding following an enemy strike.
Anybody know how C3 would stack up against the German Leopard ?
The ideal people to answer that question would be the Ukrainian Army 🙄.
Ukrainian Army have C2 not C3 so 🙄 like wise
Obviously it was a theoretical question – Ukraine is the only Country that has valid Operational Experience of Leopard 2 ( many versions thereof ) and CR2. There will be some similarities in how CR2 and CR3 are deployed and used, the shared DNA will be apparent.
You mean besides Canada, Denmark and Turkey?
Do we have any news on what horsepower the Challenger 3 will have?
I have seen 1500/1350/1200 stated, but never a certain figure given
Perkins CV12-9A engine capable of 1500 but at the moment restricted at 1200bhp.
Thanks Jacko. That’s correct. CR3 is said by RBSL to weigh just 1 tonne more than CR2 at factory weight, so very similar P/W when engine is set to deliver 1200bhp.
I’m curious as to what the largish looking covered mount is on the back centre top of the turret? Is this something new?
Hi Quentin, that will be the Primary sight hood. It’s a 360 degree cimbined visual and TI sight basically same as AJAX.
Combined!🫣
Thanks Ian. I was hoping it was some swish micro wave anti drone device….LOL.
I thought it was a target….
A very common sense request for more Trophy kits along with increasing the number of upgraded tanks to help increase the “quantity” of lethality of the Army.
A large problem is we don’t do mid-life upgrades.
Hence, a very large amount of equipment— AS90, Bulldog, Warrior, Challenger 2 et al— is obsolete at roughly the same time and in urgent need of replacement.
That plus the war in Ukraine has left us desperately short of equipment and near term funds to replace it.
I hope in future there is a more stable long term procurement plan and a focus upon mid-life upgrades, which we do comparatively worse than other similar nations.
A few hundred more & we might be credible.
Unless they’re building new tanks, that’s not going to happen.
The number quoted as active is 227, but plenty of those have probably been cannabalised for parts.
In reality they are only reusing the hull everything else will essentially be new. The Russians can reactivate essentially a 60 year old rusting hulk, we can do the same with some stripped down challlenger 2 hulls…
If there are any remaining hulls.
There are.
Sorry guys I’m going to throw some cold water on Cr3:
I worked on Cr2 for many years on trials and development so I think I have some cred.
The new turret will be very good I’m sure but the automotives will be archaic CV12 TN54!!!
M
Keith, A newer version of the CV12 will be fitted to CR3, the 9A, which can be increased from 1200 to 1500bhp…and a newer version of the TN54E will be fitted which has some newer internal components and can take that 1500bhp.
I recall a golden rule from aviation design. A new aircraft should have a newly developed engine or a newly developed airframe but not both.
I reserve judgement until the 2024 British army equipment and formations are finally published, which have already been delayed twice.
It was said originally that one of the.Ch 3 improvements would be a more powerful engine. This seemed essential, Challenger 2 followed a long line of underpowered British tanks from WW2 up to Chieftain and Challenger 1. Leopard, Abrams and Leclerc all generate 1500 hp, Challenger 2.rates 1200 hp.
As Challenger 2 is a good bit heavier than other Western tanks, surely it must have a much poorer power to weight ratio? We can put a Chally getting bogged down in the mud as ‘inexperienced crew’, but usn’t it just as likely that we have a very heavy tank with an underpowered engine? I am not an automotive engineer, but don’t understand how a1200 hp power pack CAN generate 1500 hp, as per the bumf.
Hence disappointment that the engine upgrade initially mooted has not come to pass. No doubt this is a cost-saving bit of corner cutting.
Bigger turbos and more efficient radiators for the extra heat.
Great to have some quick progress on Chally 3. The numbers though are abysmally small and woefully inadequate.
HMG and MOD consistently forget to mention that our commitment to NATO is an armoured infantry corps of two divisions, comprising 6 manoeuvre brigades. That means 6 heavy brigades, armed with main battle tanks, tracked self-propelled howitzers, etc, not Foxhounds and Land Rovers. That would require 6 tank regiments which, with training units and even a minimalisr 25% war reserve, would total a bit over 500 tanks.
With 148, we will have about 30% of what is needed.
HMG and MOD duck that NATO commitment and now talk about just one warfighting division. Even that would need 300 tanks.*
If we only have about 150 Chally 2s in running order out of the remaining 213 (the other 14 were gifted to Ukraine), it looks like an insuperable obstacle. It is not really. Options are (a) give all non-running tanks to an automotive engineering company, tasked with procuring or manufacturing parts to get them in working order, (b) place an order with Rheinmetal BAE for 150 new-build models or (c) order enough Leopard 2s to equip a third regiment based in Germany and the EFP battlegroup in Estonia.
There is a thought from Dern that there are additional Chally 2s stored at Ashchurch, over and above the declared total of 213. If so,.then it’s a basic task of getting non-runnets running, with a big programme of new component parts being manufactured.
It could be done, but MOD has raided and frittered away the AFV budget in the past and is using it to acquire anything but AFVs.
* 3 regiments each with 56 tanks, Estonia squadron with 20, field training squadron (ex Suffield) with 20, 22 for trials, tests and Phase 2 training at RAC Centre, plus 25% war reserve.
Hi Cripes, we have not declared two armoured (or armoured infantry) divisions to NATO because we have not had that since 1994 when BAOR was disbanded following implementation of the Summer 1990 Options for Change defence review, which left just one armoured division in the Field Army (then 1 Div based in Germany and this is now 3 Div based in the UK).
Some of the 213 CR2 tanks on the active list are stored at Ashchurch – they will be the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve tanks.
Dern is right that there are additional tanks there, these being the residue of the non-active fleet, which are no longer officially on ‘MoD’s books’ and are likely to be in a terrible state (zero maintenance and exercise for 14 years) and heavily cannibalised, as they were parked up and abandoned as a consequence of Cameron’s 2010 cuts.
It is interesting to ponder on the fact that ‘Options’ decided after very careful analysis that the post-Cold War army required only a small tank fleet, a mere 386 CR2s (and 22 DTTs) and these were duly ordered – since the early 90s the world has become a more dangereous place.
Hi Jonathan, no reply button under your post for some reason! Manpower decline can be reversed, you say. Your Christmas glass must still be half full! The Regular Army has been reduced continually (once or twice each and every decade) since 1953 (and that includes during the Cold War).
Not sure what you mean by people hanging around – who are these people and why are they hanging around?
Your attribution of the fleet to roles is questionable. You cannot have and deploy a warfighting div with no Attrition Reserve (AR) of key battle-winning equipment’ – that is not credible. There will be an AR, just not as big a one as we have previously had. The Repair Pool exists to replace equipment held by field force units that has been called up for Base Overhaul (BOH) – in my day equipments had a BOH roughly every 7 years depending on usage, thus there will not be a need to use any in this Pool until c.2034, ie 7 years after IOC. Your figure for equipments in the Trg Org seems very high – maybe that is the figure in the CR2 era but that was set against a fleet of 386 tanks procured. All (or mostly all) driver trg is done on driving simulators and DTTs, not MBTs. I imagine loader and gunner trades are mainly, if not exclusively, taught using special rigs. I am sure that tank commanders will be trained on both simulators or training rigs as well as actual MBTs. I don’t know if any collective training is done at Bovvy at Troop or Squadron level (I doubt the latter). But I am not an expert on the RAC Trg Centre and the courses they offer tgether with the resources needed. The REME Trg Centre at Lyneham will probably have 1 or 2 MBTs.
If I were still an Equipment Support Manager in the Tank Systems IPT, I would double-hat RP and AR, given the small numbers available.
Hi Sam, Of course we used to do significant upgrades, as and when they were required )often during a Base Overhaul), not just a single mid-life upgrade (MLU). A glance at the Wiki entry for Chieftain is informative. The Chieftain upgrades were so significant that a different Mk number was assigned each time.
Sadly, and strangely, upgrades became more infrequent and also were not a significant package each time, so new Mk numbers were not generally allocated. Exceptions are Scimitar which had a Mk2 version and also FV432, which when upgraded to Bulldog was allocated a new Mk number ie it became FV432 Mk3 etc.
You are right about the poor sequencing or timing of replacements. After each equipment had done 30 years service from ISD, then we should have started (in theory) to replace FV430Mk2 in 1993, CVR(T) Scimitar in 2002, Warrior in 2017, AS90 in 2022, and CR2 in 2028. Thus spreading out the programmes and the cost.
Instead:
1. Many but not all 430s were upgraded (to Mk3 Bulldog) instead of being replaced but not until 2006+. There is no certainty over their eventual replacement, but I assume it will be by Boxer.
2. Many but not all Scimitars were belatedly upgraded to Mk2 in 2012. Replacement by Ajax has been severely delayed.
3. Warrior continued in service past 2017 virtually unmodified (just Bowman and BGTI having been previously fitted). Upgrade (WCSP) was belated and then cancelled. Replacement belatedly is by an inappropriate vehicle – Boxer APC rather than an upgraded or new IFV, although there is now, belatedly, talk of some ARES being converted to IFVs.
4. AS90 upgrade to Braveheart spec was cancelled some 20 years ago and the equipment will now be replaced without a proper competition by Boxer RCH-155. A few (14) wheeled Archers bought as interim units.
5. CR2 – we all know about the upgrade story and its replacement by a belated upgrade!
Thanks for the information Graham and very interesting.
I hope they learn from past mistakes to never be in this situation again and with the modular nature of Boxer in particular, continuous upgrades might be more straightforward.
Hi Steve, the starting point for creating ORBAT is thd headcount, which politicians decide with their Treasury ‘colleagues’. Army staff then build an ORBAT mindful of the Threat, politically decided Defence roles/Military Tasks/DCPs etc.
The ORBAT has to cover the entire Spectrum of Armed Conflict and to be cognisant of the equipment they have today and what is in the delivery pipeline. They can never start with a blank sheet of paper. If there is only enough manpower for two armoured regiments, then a small tank order will result.