The Ministry of Defence is taking steps to increase the speed of Challenger 3 main battle tank deliveries, according to a recent written response from Maria Eagle MP.
In a parliamentary question, Rebecca Paul, Conservative MP for Reigate, asked what plans the Ministry of Defence has to help increase the speed of the delivery of Challenger 3 main battle tanks, particularly in the context of supply chain challenges.
In response, Eagle outlined that the Ministry is actively working with the supply chain to address any potential bottlenecks. “We are engaged with the supply chain and additional resources have been directed towards ensuring the materials required for Challenger 3 main battle tanks are available to meet the delivery timescales,” she said.
The initiative follows concerns that supply chain issues could delay the delivery of the upgraded tanks, which are intended to modernise the UK’s armoured capabilities.
The Challenger 3 is the British Army’s next-generation main battle tank, developed by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL), a joint venture between BAE Systems and Germany’s Rheinmetall. The programme involves upgrading 148 existing Challenger 2 tanks to the Challenger 3 standard, enhancing firepower, protection, and interoperability with NATO allies. Key upgrades include replacing the 120mm rifled gun with the NATO-standard Rheinmetall L55A1 120mm smoothbore cannon, enabling the use of advanced programmable munitions. Additional enhancements encompass a new turret, advanced thermal imaging sights, upgraded hydrogas suspension, improved engine cooling, and the integration of the Trophy active protection system and Elbit’s laser warning system.
The Challenger 3 programme has achieved significant milestones, with the first four prototypes delivered and four more in production. Trials are scheduled to continue through 2025, with initial operational capability (IOC) anticipated in 2027 and full operational capability (FOC) by 2030. The programme has faced challenges, including supply chain delays and budgetary constraints, leading to adjustments in the delivery timeline. Despite these hurdles, the UK Ministry of Defence remains committed to the programme, emphasising its importance in modernising the Army’s armoured capabilities and ensuring interoperability with NATO forces.
The Challenger 3 aims to address the limitations of its predecessor, the Challenger 2, by significantly upgrading lethality, survivability, and situational awareness. The new smoothbore cannon, along with enhanced targeting and protection systems, will allow the Challenger 3 to engage contemporary threats more effectively.
As good as they are there is going to be nowhere near as many as we need.
Whilst we are unlikely to EVER need the numbers quoted elsewhere, 148 MBT’s wouldn’t last long in a European mainland conflict. It’s not quite a competition for numbers, are we really expecting that number to be sufficient?? The pace of present build looks pretty snail paced. Nobody expects us to have hundred of tanks in reserve, if we can’t build faster than this, we need some energy into our supply chain
Tbf they are prototypes and no doubt being tested to determine any changes before full production. Unless it’s an excuse for delays it seems decidedly sensible.
Atleast 300 would be lovely.
Brom, interesting to note that after the Cold War, MoD decided we needed to reduce our inventory to a mere 386 tanks, so that’s what was ordered.
Hi Graham, Do you think that reduced number was based on the realties at the time or wishful thinking to justify budgets ?
It still seems hard to believe 148 is suitable now, when 386 was considered necessary then, a time when they believed they were heading into quieter times and could enjoy the peace dividend.
AT John, I have and had no difficulty with a significant restructuring/downsizing after the Cold War. It would have been entirely unrealistic to maintain western structures and inventories when the Soviet Union collapsed, as did the Warsaw Pact, plus eastern Europe was ‘set free’ and democratised etc. We could not justify as much as an armoured Corps and 5 RAF bases plus all the supporting infrastructure continuing to sit in Germany. I was serving when Options for Change was announced and it was a shock to downsize but not unexpected at all. 386 CR2s were ordered (after the Cold War ended) and replaced the mixed fleet of 435 CR1s and probably about 450-500 residual Chieftains. [A mere 179 AS-90s were ordered too in the wake of the Cold War]
Cuts to the army since the Options for Change defence review (summer 1990) have been justified only on the basis of making financial savings, not because the Threat has reduced. If that is accepted by the rational observer of defence matters then we should have today an army of 120,000 regulars and 386 tanks, with an armoured division and supporting infra based in Germany.
“The Challenger 3 aims to address the limitations of its predecessor, the Challenger 2, by significantly upgrading lethality”
Then significantly downgrade the lethality again by ordering a handful.
All a tad pointless really….
Yes I see what your saying if anything with out an upgrade to powerpack! It a downgrade
Come on. We’ve got to upgrade at least 200 of the available vehicles so we could in theory deploy 3 armoured regiments. 148 tanks is like a Roman legion going to war with only one cohort.
It’s madness, mind numbingly stupid madness.
The maximum number of available extra hulls to convert is 50 to 60. Even if half are in good enough condition, an extra 25-30 C3 conversions could give you enough for a short conflict.
Zero stopping them fabricating new hulls from scratch, I with modern CAD/CAM it is not a costly exercise.
Rheinmetall have publicly stated they have the capability and willingness to build C3’s absolutely brand new from scratch , as many as ordered , and have offered to do so. Unfortunately at the moment that offer hasn’t been taken up….
Not just that by Rheinmetall have already stated they could put the C3 into full rate production if the UK had a requirement to do so. Obviously at a cost but it’s there as an option.
Could we buy back whatever’s left of the 38 Omani Challenger 2s to increase numbers? They are replacing theirs with K2s anyway.
Others have said on here that new hulls are reportedly possible and have been offered.
Well let’s see what transpires, it’s already leaked that the KRH will remain an MBT Regiment and Ajax Regiments will be three, not four.
So a small expansion incoming or Regiments will drop to, what, Type 44?
I assumed reading the RAC announcement a few weeks ago that the tank regiments would go from 4 to 3 MBT squadrons in order to spread out the available 112 or so operational CR3’s across three rather than two regiments whilst the fourth squadron in each regiment would be re-equipped with Ajax – these being freed up by having only 3 rather than 4 Ajax equipped recon regiments. The remaining c.36 CR3’s will be needed for testing & trials, training (a squadron’s worth deployed to BATUS or OBJTA?), heavy maintenance/repairs and a small attrition reserve. So basically just a shuffling of the deckchairs (albeit probably a sensible one), with a zero net uplift in overall force levels. But that is just speculation, maybe SDR2025 will prove me wrong.
Hi RB.
Funnily enough, although I read the same report as you I’d not given it that level of thought.
Makes sense to me?
Hi RB, trouble is 112 tanks is insufficient to equip three Type 44 regiments. 20 tanks short.
Daniele, UK Defence Forum dot net recently expressed a desire that KRH stay as an armoured (MBT) regt but where does the leak come from that you reference? Is it official?
Morning Graham.
An article about the RAC, which I took to be written by the RAC.
I’ll try and find it.
Said 3 Regs of Ajax, not 4. Named KRH to be MBT Reg.
You should get on Twitter and follow certain people, lots of juicy info appears there, and that’s where the link was to the article.
Cannot find the wider article.
On the RAC own Twitter feed, sevetal posts, quoted repeatedly”
“Ajax will be used by the 3 Armoured Cavalry Regiments, HCav, RDG, TRL, and Recc Troops of Armoured Regiments”
No mention of the KRH, who should be included with the wording “will be used by.”
Daniele, thanks for looking. My observation is that some cuts (to RN/RFA platforms etc) have been officially announced before SDR release but not enhancements. I would have thought that if KRH is really retaining its armoured (MBT) regiment role that press release would be when SDR is released to create positive PR spin on SDR.
To be fair, It’s only been 20 years since CSP , you can’t rush these things.
“Tanks for the memories.”
We can only dream of a scenario whereby 500+ brand new Challenger 3’s are ordered with spare parts and the remaining Challenger 2’s sent to help Ukraine. But in the real world a slightly faster timeline of a small order seems to be the best we can hope for.
Yes, a small top up hopefully happens.
500 Tanks would need several new Regiments, which with no extra manpower isn’t happening.
And then all the requisite CSS to support them, like HET, and space around SPTA to house them.
yep, a lot of additional expense
Sad but true 500 I wish 🙏
I would be a lot more convinced any of this was serious if there was a plan to manufacture new builds.
Any sensible Government would be thinking of that if for nothing else so Putin might take us more seriously. 148 is a token force. 2 Battalions is not credible for a possible war.
Dream? sounds like a nightmare of an oversized army designed to fight a non existent threat with last century’s technology.
I think heavy armour has a place but everything points to it being a niche capability on the modern battlefield.
Like the battleships of old it’s increasingly vulnerable to cheap threats and its primary weapon system will always suffer from very limited range.
That is what i have been saying. The increase in indirect fires precision and its proliferation kills the tank as we know.
And yet both Ukraine and the Orcs want more tanks!
As always, as seen with airpower, it’s troops on the ground that hold territory, not airpower and not drones. And troops on the ground want armour. Tanks will evolve but won’t disappear any time soon.
And the royal navy still wanted more battleships in 1942, didn’t mean they were right.
Tanks are still useful they are just much more niche. Required in smaller numbers for more specific tasks. In direct fire and deep precision strike are more capable of taking on many roles with a reduced logistic foot print.
Agreed. All systems have their place.
The priority now remains, for me, the Royal Artillery, GBAD, Drones, and wider ISTAR.
That does not make infantry or armour obsolete.
Well that’s not true on either front Jim. The Royal Navy got delivery of it’s last Battleship of the War in August 1942, and deliberately rediverted construction efforts from the Lion Class to aircraft carriers. But also: Very worth remembering that the whole “Battleships where obsolete in WW2” is an American Pacific centric thing (even then the US did actually get solid use out of it’s Battleships in surface actions), and there is no shortage of engagements where the RN used it’s battleships to great effect. (In fact in the Atlantic more carriers where sunk at sea by Battleships than the reverse).
Also IDF doesn’t have a lower logisitcal burden than armour, in fact due to the ammunition hunger of IDF, it’s one of the most logistically intensive forms of warfare.
@ Dern yes indeed in the enclosed waters of the high north as well as the Atlantic just look at the cost a very small number of German heavy surface raiders managed to inflict as well as the lengths the RN had to go to destroy and hunt them down. Submarines could be destroyed or driven away by small escorts but a heavy surface raider needed multiple heavy surface combatants or a carrier group.
@Jonathan Also in the Med. arguably the most important Battle of the Mediterranean was Matapan where the Royal Navy Battle-line annihilated the Regia Marinas heavy cruiser force.
But yes, the list of surface engagements where RN Battleships made a big difference in the Atlantic, North Sea and Arctic is actually rather long. Weirdly, I also believe that more Aircraft Carriers where sunk at sea by Battleships in European Waters than Battleships where by Aircraft Carriers (Before someone says Taranto A) I said at sea, and B) the RN didn’t actually sink any Italian Battleships at Taranto, two of the three hit where back in service shortly and the third was still under repair when Italy surrendered.).
“Also in the Med. arguably the most important Battle of the Mediterranean was Matapan where the Royal Navy Battle-line annihilated the Regia Marinas heavy cruiser force.”
What a ridiculous thing to say. 3 CA remained plus the BB force except Cavour(Taranto damaged, never returned to service)
Winter of 1941: Ark Royal sunk, Force K heavily damaged in a minefield, 2 RN battleships heavily damaged in Alexandria by frogmen. After this the RN presence in Med until Torch were the submarine force and the convoys to Malta.
Oh look. Alex shoeing another subject he doesn’t know Jack about.
As usual you don’t contest arguments just ad hominem.
I can’t help thinking watching Ukraine war with all the Cope Cages , add on armour and the general close range of battle . That maybe a redesign is in order somewhere in between an ifv and a tank , something closer to 50 tons , 40mm or 50mm turret that is well protected and can even carry a few troops and just build regiments around these vehicles , with good modular capability and build lots of them
It needs capability of destroying the enemy with indirect fires otherwise as said above it will be increasingly niche.
The WW2 aircraft carrier was able to destroy the enemy at 10x the distance a battleship was and it was not too much expensive compared to a battleship.
As it’s been told to you more than once Ukraine is at the moment a static war where obviously drones and indirect fire rule!
Now what happens if the Ukrainians have a breakthrough (possible) or the orcs (unlikely) IDF will have lost its advantage on the battlefield and then AFVs will rule,after all the PBI are not going to be able to walk and wait around for drone and artillery units to deploy are they? All have their time and space on the battlefield!
Alex is talking pretty much gumpf at this point, the issues with IDF (and with desiging armour for anything more than IDF) has been explained to him many times by people who know better than him, but he ignores that.
Anyway, the issue with an IFV/tank hybrid is you still need to carry a section in the vehicle for it to be managable as a combined fighting platform, at which point youre kind of just building a very heavy IFV.
Infact the Israeli Merkava With its rear access doors is essential designed as a combination IFV/MBT/command post/ambulance and self propelled artillery.. remove its ammunition storage is removable and rear area configurable to either carry 4 stretchers, 10 dismounts or act as a command vehicle.. it’s even got a 60mm mortar for indirect fire support. They have now actually taken all their MK2s out of storage removed the fogging compartment/turret and turned them into tracked APCs with the armour of a 60ton MBT… the Israelis are a bit bonkers around MBT design.. but they have more experience of armoured warfare than anyone else in the post war age so….
Merkava might not be optimized against the top western tanks but it’s good enough to counter their degraded export versions or Russian derived tanks… it’s best suited, IMO, for asymmetric wars, which are probably the most common ones now, don’t know when the next big Tanks vs. Tanks engagement will be if at all
Sure that is why the giant tank force that Russians have defeated Ukraine… oops it did not…
And it wasn’t the Ukrainian tank force that defeated that Russian tank force…it was asymmetric weapons.
Oh was someone talking to you? No.
Asymmetric weapons also defeated Tsnk forces in North Africa… guess tanks where obsolete in 1941… oh wait they weren’t.
As always bad arguments, and Dunning Krueger from Alex.
“Asymmetric weapons also defeated Tsnk forces in North Africa.”
They did not. An answer at your level.
RSt, why such a small gun (40 or 50mm)? It is unlikely to defeat a proper enemy MBT, which it will be ranged up against.
Jim, don’t worry. We will never have an oversized army. It’s been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
Jim, I have never heard criticism of a tank’s main armament having limited range. Where does that thought come from?
The key thing is to outrange an enemy tank and we have always manged to do that.
Do you not think this has been the history of the tank since WW1. The tank improves then weapons are developed to counter it, so the tank improves some more so the weapons develop to counter it.
The drone and indirect fire threat is just another thing for the tank to counter. Possibly through an APS , possibly through rough mounted automatic weapons stations. Possibly through better stealth, camouflage and hiding of radar and IR signatures etc etc.
I don’t think the tanks time is finished yet.
On the contrary the Ukrainian army love their challenger 2s and want more.
What the British army needs are all C3s possible.enough to equip 3 tank regiments and then fit every last one of them with trophy APS. Not just the reported 67 sets the stupid Tories contracted for.
We need to just end the madness and stupidity and actually invest.
If SDSR doesn’t sort these issues out we need to be holding the politicians to account.
It would be great, but unfortunately the army isn’t set up for that kind of structure, and it would require a fundamental rebuild of the entire force, which just isn’t going to happen.
Why didn’t the MoD just order brand new Leopards given the UK no longer has any tank manufacturing capacity. Commonality of supply & it cuts Trumps America out of the picture. Win win.
Andrew, buying new Leopards would be very expensive – it would cost far more than £800m to buy a Leo2 fleet and all the support required.
£800m, which is the budget figure for CR3, would buy you just 30 x Leo2A7s (having seen the Norway order) or 35 x Leo2A8s (having seen the Austrian order)….and that probably doesn’t include all the support costs (purchase of Leo ARRVs, Publications, Training Aids, Simulators, Special Tools and Test Equipment, initial training package for operators and maintainers, etc etc).
Our UK manfacturing capability is capable of doing the CR2 to CR3 upgrade. Also many Leo2s have been lost in combat over the years. Our armour protection has just got to be better.
Buying Leo2 would not be a win win, it would be a lose lose.
Reading that it’s not that the delivery speed is quicker it’s just to keep on the schedule that exists!
And meanwhile the archaic power pack
Soldiers on and on and on.
1977 technology in a 2025 MBT: not really something to shout from the rooftops!
The engine is 9A, uprated turbos, radiators, improved imh and deb.
Let us hope the defence review gives at least one easy deterrent win and that is actually keeping 3 MBT regiments and KRH keep their tanks..
It would mean to retain 3 type 56 regiments they would need around 210+ challenger 3s ( 168 for the regiments, 18 as an attritional reserve 10% in the maintenance pool then some for the training establishment).
In the end it’s one cheap and easy things they can do that will help deter Russia, Putin does look at heavy brigades and MBT regiments and this would communicate a deterrent to him directly..
After all challenger 3s are 5.5 million a pop ( which is insanely cheap) and the Regiment is actually still in place as it’s still not converted as far as I’m aware.. so that’s essentially cost neuralish while they they stay with challenge 2 and only a 300million investment to move to challenge 3 ( when you thing building an Abram’s regiment would be 1.5 billion.. puts it into how much of a bargain it is.. personally I would be building every challenge 3 I could at that price point).
Even if Rheinmetal wouldn’t make a profit at 5.5m£ per tank beyond the initial 148, it would be worth spulring a little extra for the third regiment IMO. The bigger issue would be getting the additional enablers, especially the fires and additional battalion of boxers needed to field a third brigade.
CS CCS… in the end the army needs another heavy brigades worth and 1.5 infantry brigades worth of CS,CSS regiments if it’s going to have the min requirement of 6 deployable brigades ( 3 heavy, 1 mec, 1 light role/protected, 1 airmobile)
Agree with that assessment entirely
Have to ask whether the defence commitments that we may enter into in the ‘EU reset’ are driving an SDR agenda for a more substantial UK armoured contribution.
A pitiful amount of them makes it all a bit pointless…….
If we don’t buy other tanks ( we won’t) we need to be up at 300+ min
The army needs:
3 type 56 regiments total 168
An attritional reserve 18
A maintaince pool of 18-20
Training establishment 18
So around 220.. 210 min
But wouldn’t 300 be a nice number…..based on usual rate of breakdown etc we would be lucky to have 250 out of 300 ready to go
It would, but the issue would be where are the extra hulls. Remember converting the old hulls is only costing 5.5 million a pop an all up new MBT is around 20-25 million we know there are 213 in the inventory that could be converted all the rest were disposed of. There is a possible hint ( from Dern) that there may still be 60-70 of the disposed of tanks rotting in the back of a warehouse.. but these would need far greater refurbishment and conversion than the 213 that are in establishment and so would cost way more than 5.5 million each.. essentially its very likely every vehicle above 213 would cost as new 20-25millio each.. so those extra 87 hulls to move you to 300 would cost you 2.1 billion and sit in around doing nothing.. which is twice as much as the 1.1billion cost for your 213 tanks to run 3 regiments with reserve of 45…. Bang for buck is just not there.. that 2 billion could: life extend 300 warriors, give you 1000 new APCs and tracked 155mm guns for 3 regiments.
Only works if the extra hulls are viable at that mark or a bit extra based on condition of them. If basically scrappers then a waste of cash which can be better spent…….no argument
Waste of time and money
Does the new upgraded version of this tank come from the 213 active challenger 2 tank fleet or from a old batch? Is this just another example of the uk government reducing our countries ability to defend its self by plugging gaps instead of filling them.
Bristol,
We bought 386 CR2 gun tanks in the early/mid 90s, with ISD being 1998. Of those, we currently have 213 left on the active list, gifted 14 to UKR and have scrapped at least 45 since 2014, probably more, maybe 74 in all have been scrapped, leaving maybe 71 on the inactive list.
The condition of those tanks on the inactive list is unknown in Open Source, but they are probably in bad nick, and many or most will be heavily cannibalised.
The 148 undergoing conversion to CR3 are almost certainly exclusively from the active fleet of 213, although I have not seen this stated anywhere by MoD.
I do wonder how much those 70 odd inactive Challeger 2s would cost to convert.. I would imagine it’s still a lot cheaper than a new build MBT, but more that 5.5million. Also you would imagine anything in the 213 active fleet would costs around 5.5million.. so I do expect the review to say all 213 will be converted and 3 regiments retained..as they don’t seem to be giving any indication that the KRH will now ever give up their challengers.
For me the open question is those 70 inactive tanks.. for me if they were really trying to increase the potential lethality of the British army, they would change how they use reserve regiments. So upgrading some of those 70 inactive tanks and giving them to the royal Wessex yeomanry, so instead of acting as nothing more than a casualty replacement bank, it could actually act as a proper reserve tank regiment that could deploy equipped sabre squadrons as a whole to battle groups.
Why didn’t they just buy he Korean/German/American tanks
Because an all up brand new MBT from the US or Korea is 20-25 million a tank and a challenger 3 is 5.5 million a tank… essentially challenger 3 is buy one get 4 free. Challenger 3 is profoundly cheap.. insane cheap.. a type 56 regiment of Abrams would cost 1.4 billion a type 56 regiment of challenger 3 costs .3 billion
This, currently the CH3 are expected to only go upto the 40s before the likely next generation replacements become available with multiple programs currently underway.
Currently performance wise the CH3 can equal its counterparts so there seems little to no value of replacing any potential CH3’s with an alternative at a significantly higher (currently unaffordable) cost.
Increasing numbers beyond the current order is another discussion dependent on the remaining suitable hulls as these are the cheapest option, if it is determined that significantly more CH3 are needed than available CH2 hulls (increase beyond the 3 CH3 regiments), perhaps a second fleet could be acquired, an uplift in numbers seems unlikely before the next generation.
To be honest I don’t see the likelihood of a next generation tank anytime soon. In the end what is the driver ? The program mes that are being developed at moment are all 4th generation MBTs even those that will not come into service until the 2035-40 period are all 4th generation MBTs and will be peers of challenger 3. In the end challenger 2 will have served for 40 years and it’s likely that challenger 3 will serve well into 2060-70 before a 5th generation MBT is developed.
Of all the things to keep in house, know-how around designing and manufacturing armour is amongst the most important. A very important domestic capability
Brian, Too expensive.
We get CR3 for £5.5m a copy. A new Leo2 would cost £22.7m to £26.4m a copy and we would have to spend more to get all necessary support and training in place for a new fleet.
It sounded she said to meet timescales, nothing about speeding anything up.
We’re at a step change in armoured fighting vehicle requirements. The Ukraine conflict shows how much we need to rethink MBT protection.
Infantry screens can’t protect tanks from drones as they could from emplaced anti tank artillery so something else will need to be developed.
Losing multi million pound tanks to 10 quid drones isn’t a tolerable prospect. And drone warfare is only just emerging and is nowhere near mature.
Need some prescient innovation!
Brian, all is not lost!
Drones are just one more anti-tank weapon – there have been many since the first A/Tk wpn was fielded in 1918 – the 13.2mm Mauser Tankgewehr M1918.
Drones have disadvantages (as well as their undoubted strengths) and can be destroyed or mitigated. Currently Ukraine defeats 50% of the drones fired at UKR targets and that will only get better.
Infantrymen can operate anti-drone weapons. The SmartShooter SMASH Smart Weapon Sight Fire Control System was tested by the Infantry in 2022 and it gives the dismounted soldier the ability to land aimed shots against micro and mini-UAVs from the SA80 L85A3. A £4.6m contract was signed between MOD and the Yorkshire-based Viking Arms Limited for the Counter-Small Uncrewed Air Systems (C-sUAS) capabilities. It won’t be the only anti-drone system operated by the Infantry.
Certainly tank protection does need re-thinking, consideration being gven to acive and passive measures.
There is much work being done on anti drone solutions. The UK Defence Drone Strategy was launched in Feb 2024 to deliver a ‘unified approach to uncrewed systems across all three military services, supported by £4.5 billion of investment’.
I think we’re saying the same thing?
UK should be thinking about CH3 replacement now. My vote is for a UK Sovereign CH4 design and production. i.e. without Rheinmetall, Lockheed, Thales etc. and just go back to old-school innovation. Make a CH4 fit for the 21st Century with anti-drone stuff and self-hosted drone tech. etc.
The UK can do world beating MBT design. think of the boost, with Sheffield Forgemasters, to UK heavy industry. just have to get mojo and belief back.
A CR4, while possible just wouldn’t be economically viable in today’s market. The established players have got a big toe hold that would be hard to compete with, plus the South Koreans now have products to offer, the numbers likely to be produced for the British Army would be just too small.
I’m talking about a big export opportunity given that the UK has gained a world-beating reputation in original MBT design and manufacture in the past and the current CH2, at the very least, maintains this.
To giver up that opportunity and other similar capabilities, which is what you are suggesting Paul, is then really to condemn the UK to be a Nation of hormone-infused burger flipping as the main industry. What a sad state of affairs that would be.
What export opportunity ? As i said the market is very competitive at the moment,there are too many competitors for any meaningful sales,some big orders have already been filled.When CR2 was ready for production two ( yes two ) production lines were set up to fill orders that never came,apart from the token Omani order.It is very unlikely any Company will try and go down that road again here.
Ah, but the world has changed Paul. I’m not saying a “company2 should do it. Rather it should be a UK Sovereign capability. Similar to what the Gov has done with say Sheffield Forgemasters.
300x CH4 run for the UK, and I’m sure Ukraaine would take a lot too. 🙂
In reality even the French and Germans are combining to develop a joint replacement for the leopard 2 and leclerc through KNDS, which I very much suspect the UK will end up joining as it will be coterminous with any likely challenger 3 replacement..both Germany and France are essentially doing as the UK are doing and upgrading their 3rd generation tanks to 4th generation..before looking at a completely new tank later.
Sorry but how could we do it without Rheinmetall considering they are the majority owner of our one tank business? They could build a mostly uk design but you can’t simply take them out of the build. Far too late for that, no one else British can do it.
I think you are being too pessimistic. I see this as an opportunity to re-build UK heavy industry, and defence heavy armour in particular as part of a wider-benefit industrial strategy. A brand new UK Sovereign tank design does not have to include Rheinmetall. The UK has gone it alone in the past. I think the UK is still capable of design and production of MBTs. Funded by proceeds from a Sovereign Wealth Fund, a new defence design agency could be put together for such things that are critical UK Sovereign capabilities. This can be a partnership with UK industry. The MoD acquisition of Sheffield Forgemasters to bring back one of these capabilities is a case in point.
Given that Putin has infiltrated the far right across the world, I think relying on say Germany for the bulk of our defence industry is short-sighted in so many ways.
Post Brexit, both govts made a strategic political decision to use industrial partnerships in defence industries as the way to forge state-to-state relationships in Europe, and to drive economic growth. It was no accident that we rejoined the Boxer program and that King Charles’ first overseas visit was to Germany. I read yesterday that we plan joint UK- Germany development of a 2k km range land attack missile. I think Rheinmetal is here to stay.
Yes I can see that. I’m saying, from a UK perspective with regard to heavy defence industry, that is a bad thing. Are you saying its then a good thing?
@AlbertStarburst. On balance, yes I do think it’s a good thing, for a couple of reasons. Firstly we get help from Rheinmetal in rebuilding engineering skills we have let run down; and at pace as the saying goes. I see the situation as similar to how the US helped us rebuild carrier capability and sub building. Secondly, investment in rebuilding heavy industry supply chains, whether govt or private e.g. Sheffield steels, is urgent and needs to have project certainty about end products – the actual armoured vehicles. Partnering with companies like Rheimetal who have existing manufacturing capacity, gets us the result we want faster. They are likely putting some money into the deal, though this probably does mean we pay more for Boxers for example. But we are like the man who is getting a new car on Personal Lease of HP; we’ve got no choice cos our current transport is clapped out and we don’t have the readies. We also provide Rheinmental with an alternative partner to France for future defence projects, which suits us both.
So they are not speeding up delivery they are just trying to prevent delivery slippage by spending more money…
At this rate I confidently predict we’ll have a tank division by the end of the century.
NoPoet, ISD for CR3 is 2030.