The United Kingdom has officially introduced the prototype of its latest main battle tank, the Challenger 3.
The announcement was made following the prototype’s unveiling at the IQPC International Armored Vehicles conference in London.
A big leap towards delivering the @BritishArmy’s next Main Battle Tank #capability has been achieved with the first pre-production #Challenger3 going into trials in the coming weeks.
Full story: https://t.co/bLHCUiOIgq pic.twitter.com/1Lu4ygdgma— RBSL (@RH_BAES_Land) January 23, 2024
The project is a collaborative venture between Rheinmetall of Germany and BAE Systems of Britain and is expected to enter service in 2027.
“The Challenger 3 platform will be fitted with a new 120mm L55A1 smoothbore gun built by Rheinmetall, enabling the use of the most advanced ammunition available. Next Generation UK-sovereign modular armour, a fully digitised turret and integration of Trophy Medium Variant APS onto the platform will protect against rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles and provide the British Army with a step change in war-fighting capability.”
Key Specifications of the Challenger 3:
- Main Armament: Rheinmetall’s 120mm L55A1 smoothbore cannon, providing superior ballistic performance with increased muzzle velocity and penetration capabilities.
- Ammunition Compatibility: Designed to use single-piece ammunition, allowing compatibility with a broad spectrum of NATO-standard ammunition types, including advanced DM63 and DM73 armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds.
- Ammunition Capacity: Capacity for 31 rounds, a reduction from 49 in the Challenger 2, due to the space requirements of the single-piece ammunition.
- Optical/Targeting Package: Identical to the British Army’s Ajax tracked infantry fighting vehicles, including the Thales Orion and Day/Night Gunner And Panoramic Sight (DNGS T3).
- Modular Armour System: For enhanced protection, with provisions for an active protection system such as the Israeli-made Trophy APS.
- Mobility Enhancements: Benefiting from the Heavy Armor Automotive Improvement Project (HAAIP), which includes improvements such as an enhanced engine, new suspension, and an advanced cooling system.
However, during a Defence Committee session on November 15, 2023, concerns were raised about the UK’s capacity to upgrade the required number of Challenger 2 tanks, amidst significant budget cuts and past decisions affecting the availability of tanks in a ready state. MPs noted challenges reminiscent of previous defence projects and emphasized the potential for delays in the Challenger 3 upgrade programme.
Despite these hurdles, the British Army remains committed to enhancing its armoured capabilities through the Challenger 3, aiming to secure operational readiness and superiority until at least 2040.
Challenger 3 Deputy Project Manager at RBSL, Nick Berchem said:
“Designed with the crew’s safety, operational effectiveness, and comfort at its heart, and with the users’ advice at every stage, I am sure it will prove to be a very potent and popular addition to the British army’s inventory. It is hugely exciting and very satisfying to be part of the team bringing this immensely capable tank to life.”
RBSL is playing a key part in delivering the Land Industrial Strategy through its Challenger 3 programme, ensuring it benefits from the best of British engineering and manufacturing, whilst also sustaining valuable skills across the country. The multi-million pound investment in its Telford facility, and the creation of jobs within RBSL and the UK supply chain, contributes towards national industrial resilience, and the social value and ‘levelling up’ aspirations the UK Government has set out.”
Colonel Will Waugh, Senior Responsible Owner of the Army’s Armour (Main Battle Tank) Programme, said:
“Delivery of the first pre-production Challenger 3 and the commencement of trials marks a critical milestone on the journey to the Army’s modernised Main Battle Tank capability. Challenger 3 will be at the heart of the Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, alongside Ajax and Boxer, under Future Soldier. Events in Ukraine have underscored the need for credible warfighting capabilities. The Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, with Challenger 3 at their centre, are key to the UK’s contribution to NATO’s deterrence.”
Major General Darren Crook, Director Land Equipment for Defence, Equipment & Support said:
“In an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world, our priority is to deliver to the Army the capability it needs to deliver Future Soldier and be more lethal on the Battlefield. I am immensely proud of the work the whole team has undertaken: the Army, DE&S and RBSL working together to deliver the first pre-production Challenger 3. This marks a critical milestone in our delivery of this impressive capability to the British Army and will provide our soldiers with a world-class Main Battle Tank made here in the UK. It also demonstrates the centrality of the Land Industrial Strategy, with the UK increasingly developing a highly-skilled industrial base and maintaining strategic advantage through our Industry partners such as RBSL.”
If I were a betting man….. These Tanks are not long for this World….. Sorry If that upsets all the Experts but just take a look at the Ukraine battlefields……..
I think the Russians and Ukrainians would tell you they need more tanks, not less.
They do….. because all the Drones are destroying them all….
I would not judge the future usefulness of tanks based of the performance of two armies of the former soviet union that are currently reduced to trench warfare.
The drones have not encountered APS on thanks. We will probably fit them as TES on our tanks – along with a lot more armour that is not fitted to Challenger 2.
Yes, but if they can’t replace them fast enough to make good losses without an implausibly massive industrial base then they don’t make sense as a platform in a war that lasts more than a few weeks.
Yes in this instance that may be the case but don’t dismiss the effectiveness of a tank based on a war between Russia and Ukraine. Do you remember the Bayraktar drones that were all the rage at the beginning of the conflict? When was the last time you saw a video with any of those? The likely reason is they have effective counters against them and it’s only a matter of time before the same thing happens to these smaller fpv drones. It would be the monumentally stupid to dismiss tanks because these two armies lack the ability to deal… Read more »
That’s ridiculous. Everyone expects in a full-scale war for you to expend resources faster than you can replace them. That goes for manpower as well as aircraft carriers. (You can’t breed soldiers fast enough to replace the losses during WW1 or WW2, but you wouldn’t say infantry doesnt make sense…) This is also why we stockpile weapons and ammunition, so we CAN use them faster than we can replace them. Also we shouldn’t draw any conclusions from Ukraine yet, it will take years of going through the data after the war till we understand what happened and the lessons to… Read more »
Ian, you assume we will lose a large number of CR3s in a few weeks combat. Why? Hopefully you are not comparing how we would handle CR3 with how the Russians handle their ageing tanks in combat.
Yes…as of now Russia is producing adequate numbers of T90s to cover its losses..it now produces 90 T90s a month.
simply what the west has forgotten is high intensity war eats materials and requires vast industrial capacity….there is a single rule for general war..the side that mobilises the larger industrial base wins simple as…we in the west got enamoured with the quick war…which has been generally proven not to be the rule.
What do you use instead of tanks then?
Frank wrote: “”If I were a betting man….. These Tanks are not long for this World….. Sorry If that upsets all the Experts but just take a look at the Ukraine battlefields……..”” The difference between Western Armour and Soviet (and now Russian) armour is the West placed a lot of emphasis on protecting the crew and occupants of the people inside their armour (Just look at the palaver the Uk had with the snatch rover) Russia which ironically started that ball rolling after the failure of its BT tanks in Spain, Finland (and to a much lesser degree against the… Read more »
On your point of Western tanks being more survivable, which does seem to be supported by the evidence in Ukraine. I can’t help but feel that that advantage is squandered by countries not investing in large tank fleets. If a hypothetical Challenger 3 is knocked out and the crew survives, of course that is good news but what is the military benefit of their survival if there isn’t another tank that they can operate. In my opinion western armies should start procuring tanks in larger quantities than they plan to field, or risk squandering some of our key advantages.
Your point is being addressed in many NATO countries,just not here.
Which NATO countries would they be? Poland is the only one really ordering tanks in serious quantities. There are certainly others who are doing a better job than we are, but not what I was proposing.
Germany,Romania,Hungary,Italy as well as Poland spring to mind.
Poland without a doubt, yes. Germany has only ordered around 35 Leopard 2A7 and 2A8, with “options” for 100 or so more. Romania has ordered 54 Abrams which they really should have done years ago considering their army is still pootling around in T-55 and its derivitives. Hungary has ordered 36 modern Leopard 2A7+. Italy is the most promising where it will receive 125 upgraded domestic Ariete in addition to 133 Leopard 2A8 but the exact timeline of the deliveries and the number of each type which will be in service concurrently is unclear. None of these countries compare to… Read more »
It’s easy to get distracted purely by numbers, you have to consider the increase in capabilities those new Tanks offer, and even more important the increase in manufacturing capacity too.
The key is those countries that have either preserved scaleable domestic manufacture, or are negotiating domestic build, this is where Germany & other European states can gain most benefit.
The UK is behind the current curve, of course, but starts to regain essential skills in just this low level remanufacturing; leading to new, modern, essentially home-grown concepts – it is profoundly to be anticipated.
Turkey are also in prototype build stage for their South Korean based new MBT ‘Altay’. Initial order is for 100 units on top of existing and recently upgraded Leapard 1, 2, M48 and M60 fleets
The outgoing CGS has made the case for a ‘citizens army’ at the same event given the threat the west currently faces. Reportedly he was not suggesting conscription rather he was arguing for the army to prepare for a rapid expansion, pointing out that the army would expand to about 120,000 with the reserves called up. He argued that it was regular armies that started wars and citizen armies that won them. No. 10 has said that there are no plans for conscription… Seems they (Sunak) didn’t read the speech properly as the report said that was not what the… Read more »
120,000 is optimistic…and impossible when the Regs drop to 73,000. Plus of course nothing like 120,000 would be available for deployment for a host of reasons.
I think those numbers would include ex – Regulars Reservists with the Army Reserves. So when you add the Fully trained Regular Army – As you say around 73,000.. Plus often there are around 3,000 to 4,000+ Army personnel that are trained but not fully – Trade trained, you could just reach that number of 120,000 personnel. I did find late last year some information saying there are around 34,000 ex – Regulars Reservists – All branches. But of course those numbers have dropped quite a bit compared to only a few years back.. I guess that due to the… Read more »
But, I agree it would not be easy to do..
Fair point. 73,000 fully trained regs plus about 29,000 Army Reserve plus Reg Reserve might make 120,000 +. It would be a very desperate situation to take troops out of Ph2 trg to add to the numbers – the enemy would have to be wading ashore along the south coast. But not all 120k would be deployable of course. I dread to think what the deployable figure would be. As CGS says that is not enough for arduous and lengthy General War against a major state actor (ie Russia), hence a Citizens Army is also required (didn’t we used to… Read more »
This from 2015. Can’t find newer stats: “Regular Reserves Regular Reserves are essentially ex-Regular personnel who, on leaving the Regular Forces, retain a liability for callout into permanent service (also known as ‘mobilised’). They can also accept a commitment for Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS), Additional Duties Commitment (ADC) or High Readiness Reserve (HRR). The length of time people remain in the Regular Reserve depends on various factors including the length of their Regular service and age. In some limited and specific circumstances, volunteer civilians also serve in these Regular Reserve Forces. At 1 April 2015, there were 7,650 personnel… Read more »
I think not just the Army but all three services need to look at how these people will be trained. Since the end of the Cold War lots of infrastructure and bases have been sold off. If there’s a sudden requirement to train lots more people, where will they be trained? As the current facilities will be maxed out.
The reservist call-up to boost the Reg numbers, may get to 125,000. But how many of them will be fit for action let alone training?
I agree. Regular Reservists would need refresher trg and General Sanders’ Citizen Army, assuming it wasn’t laughed out of court again by ‘a No.10 Spokesman’, would need trg from scratch – but I doubt there will be many volunteers for it – perhaps a good model for it would be the now-defunct Home Service Force, so only basic training would be required. Trg facilities would be a problem, as you say. I hear that Chetwynd Bks Chilwell which was geared up for such training is being sold off. Might need to think outside the box – eg. RMAS might have… Read more »
I am hoping that there is a plan to do just that. One that can be enacted should the need arise. If the training model follows that being delivered to the Ukrainians. Perhaps there is hope. Then there’s the small problem of kitting. Do we as a Nation have the capability to produce all the necessary clothing, boots, and ancillaries to kit out 50,000 people? As most of it is produced abroad. Perhaps just as essentially, can we manufacture another 50,000 firearms? But that’s just a first batch, can we do so again for a second batch, then another etc?… Read more »
Plan to expand the army beyond calling up the AR and RRs? I doubt it.
Kitting – if we lacked the Industry to produce that which you list, we would buy it in and accept that it (including SA) was different from mainstream kit. But, as with buying PPE in bulk at short notice, there are problems – everyone else in Europe would be buying it in at the same time and Baroness Mone’s hubby might sell the MoD poor quality kit!
Sadly if things did kick off and NATO needed to be involved. The UK would have to look at multiple intakes of recruits to replace those lost. Otherwise the UK’s Army will be combat non-effective in short order.
Although Ukraine has been boxing clever, they have still suffered enormous manpower losses. Still dwarfed by the Russian losses mind.
NATO will get involved in warfighting Russia only if Russia attacks a NATO country (or possibly a major NATO asset/platform intentionally).
British Army custom has been to declare a unit non-combat effective when it has suffered 35% casualties (KIA, DOW, missing, captured).
General Sanders is right to float the idea of a non-conscript Citizens Army. We should also make more use of Regular Reservists – could start by reinstating the annual reporting drill – and ask if any would like to attend exercises (on army pay of course).
Plus all the extra accommodation and transport required and then having adequate front line equipment for all these forces to fight from and with.
Not our style but don’t forget in 1933 the German Army was 100,000 strong. By 1939 probably over 2,000,000 and increase X20 in 6 years. Challenger 3 Saga. Every part that is needed from the Ch2 should be stripped and reworked so we can darned well get to present target numbers. Because we are going to need at least 400-500 tanks including reserves; realistically you’ve got to start producing new hulls from scratch. In Wartime we would do that so if we start now we could have the line up and running again in 2 or 3 years if we… Read more »
Hi Jonno, We in the UK also dramatically increased the size of our army for WW1 and WW2. We have done it before. More difficult to do so nowadays for a whole host of reasons. But we must be able to expand to a size enabling us to fight a sustained General War with allies. I certainly agree we need a bigger tank fleet – appreciably bigger than 213 (current CR2 number) or 148 (CR3). 400-500 is bold (we had 435 CR1s back in the Cold War). I agree we need to be able to build tanks from scratch –… Read more »
We have always had an Attrition Reserve of AFVs, but granted the CR3 one will not be large.
So back to the Somme eh?
Difficult to say, pre Ukraine most would have said trench warfare was obsolete but that’s proven wrong. Certainly low cost drones are an issue for tanks right now but if direct energy weapons like lasers are perfect then drones will be easier. Anyone who can perfect the rail gun would mean a smaller tank may become common as a 25mm round would have as much energy as a 120mm. There also potential developments in armor that could make armored vehicles withstand attacks better. Composite Metal Foam is just one example being developed.
The amount and variety of counter drone weapons that the US has in development and operationally deployed in the ME with confirmed kills going back several years is jaw dropping. This goes back a long time before the current Russian invasion but we don’t hear about them because of all the hype about drones.
Another reason why drones appear to be so effective in this conflict is neither side has been able to gain air superiority. Don’t expect that to be the case in a conflict involving nato.
Rail guns need large power generation 15 -30 M watt, is your tank nuclear powered ?
No they don’t they need enough power to push your chosen projectile the distance you define. Essentially you turn potential energy into kinetic energy. So if I want to fire something that has a mass of 100g 1000metre per sec 3x speed of sound I need 50,000 joules of energy.
Now consider 1 litre of diesel has 38MJ of energy. Divide that by 3 as diesel generators aren’t that efficient that still over 10MJ.
There is no comparison between the Russians using aged tanks mostly with no APS, poor maintenance and logistics and ineptly tactically handled – to CR3 with much better armour, APS, well supported and skilfully handled.
Yes but active protection systems make a huge amount of difference..the 9M133 Kornet anti tank missile (that killed the challenger 2 in Ukraine)..is a good example in the 2006 Lebanon war 9M133 defeated the passive armour of 24 Israeli tanks…in fighting in Gaza in 2014 hamas fired 15 of them at Israeli tanks and all were intercepted by trophy…. so yes MBTs need to change…active protection systems are a must, I suspect jammers for drones as well..but the fundamental impact of firepower, mobility and armour is still as potent as always.. Also remembering Tanks have only ever really been at… Read more »
The Challenger destroyed had already been immobilised by a mine before the missile hit! So it was static and isolated and no amount of APS etc would have saved it.
The key point was more about the difference between the 2006 Lebanon campaign and the 2014 fighting in Gaza..essentially the same army fighting a very similar enemy..but first without active protection and then with…active protection makes a huge difference to a tanks survival in an environment with a lot of missiles or drones.
I see Jonathan’s point, the Kornet caused the CH2’s ammo bins to explode, dislodging the turret and effectively destroying what would have been a recoverable tank. I hope the CH3 will have better ammo storage, hopefully with blow-out panels
Also, the extra TES armor used in Iraq in 2003 was seen to save CH2 from Multiple Milan and RPG hits
No argument here it’s just the Kornet had a free shot because the tank was disabled. Looking at the Turks losing their Leo’s they were also stationary and badly deployed when hit!
Do we know if it was actually recovered or just left there! Could it be repaired?
No idea! Mind you I would have thought we would have liked to look at it to see how and what worked and what didn’t
It’s still where it was hit – luckily still on the Ukraine side of the frontline but not recovered as of when the pics were posted.
https://twitter.com/TBrit90/status/1737535129340260703
Hopefully good news!
Much needed refresh.
Given that the hulls are stripped and rebuilt….presumably all that are needed are sound hulls……the rest can be replaced…..as I understand it all the obsolete NLA parts are being replaced anyway?
Very definitely the CR3s will have sound hulls and obsolete parts replaced.
I assumed the solid hulls could always be reused because the metal is thick,
and that the fittings are the parts that need refurbishment.
I note that Russia stores thousands of tanks outside open to the elements. Right now they are refurbishing T72s/T80s that have been standing for years, yet we are quick to throw away our “surplus” CH2 hulls.
So is there a technical reason why we are scrapping our CH2 hulls? or is it just down to the bean counters cutting costs again?
Ask Graham above – he is a real expert in this area.
I’d not use Russian desperation as a model for anything.
What I’m speculating is that we *might* take good hulls that were otherwise stripped as a starting point. I’d *guess* welds would be x-rayd etc.
I don’t think you need a whole CH2 to make a CH3 as a lot of bits such as engines have been changed.
“I’d not use Russian desperation as a model for anything.”
I agree, I bet they do not bother to stress test their old hulls, they just do not seem to care about the survivability of the crew.
Welds are checked using ultra sonic equipment by outside company, it takes two weeks. Used to be dye pen testing which was a few days in house , perhaps offset against tax as a business expense !
We have the problem, that the UK is a maritime climate. Which means there is a fair bit of salt in the air. So storing Steel outside will have a very short life, before it turns to the brown fungus. Where Russia stores its tanks is about a 1000 miles from the sea. So even though the open to the elements, the rain has a very low salt content. Meaning your tank turning to brown fungus is delayed by decades, judging by the material state of some of the laid up T72s. We would have store our hulls either underground… Read more »
Even though Tank Hulls seem like a Solid piece of Engineering,due to the stresses they encounter during their use they are prone to Cracking and Welds failing,so when they are assessed for conversion there is some logic to choosing only the best of those reducing to the 148 required.
Re-welding main welds, if necessary, is a standard part of Base Overhaul – we did it all the time.
All CR2s submitted to the RBSL CR3 line have undergone a BOH.
If the donor hull is twisted that’s a different matter and scrapping is required.
There appear to be some visual differences over the mock-up vehicle. The rear quarter looks a bit unresolved however, it’s a tank and not a Lamborghini. I wonder if the recently announced armour package is reflected on this prototype? Also absent is the anti-ballistic pack, which will be a noticeable addition when fitted. The upcoming tests should be very interesting to monitor and over the next few years, we will probably see the definitive version.
The armour package recently announced is the bolt on stuff to take it to TES.
Source ?.
Previous thread on here re next generation armour
As the automotive part of the tank is basically an upgrade of the existing power train is it going to take 3yrs to do turret trails?
The armoured brigade combat teams are going to look pretty amazing with Challenger 3, AJAX and Boxer. Having Archer and MLRS with PrSM in the deep strike brigade will also make our 3rd Division a very lethal force.
Small but effective….
Need a 3rd Regiment.
Hi Daniele.. Not enough for a 3rd Regiment, sorry to say. Unless the British army uses smaller formations of tanks for each brigade. Not sure if that would be better than having two brigades with slightly more. Guess would give the British army more rotation. Forces news uk said there would be 140 MBT. We will see.
I noticed that figure in Forces News. The contract was for 148 tanks.
yes, agree.. I thought the number was going to be 148. I think we had better wait and see what the final numbers are gong to be.
140 production tanks and 8 trials prototypes. Where the trials tanks will likely become productionized at the end of the trials.
Still Mickey Mouse numbers sadly.
Aaah, yes. That would make sense.
I agree your comment about MM numbers. We ordered ‘a mere’ 386 tanks in the early to mid 90s for the much smaller post-Cold War army. Yet the threat from state ‘actors’ got bigger!
The army has in the past had T44 and T38 regiments. Can’t rely go below a 14-tank squadron, although some nations do.
Ta! For the information. Still wonder how they will manage with 140 or so..MBT over the long term. Not much in reserve. 🤔
Future Soldier Orbat has just two armoured regiments, deemed to be Type 56, therefore 112 tanks allocated to the Field Force.
So there will be just 36 (148-112) tanks held by:
a. The Trg Org (REME and RAC)
b. Repair Pool
c. Attrition Reserve.
Unfortunately I do not know the split of the 36 tanks into those 3 areas.
Yes, thanks for the info: That’s the problem, such a small amount in reserve. Must say though.. When it comes to the Challenger 3.. It does look impressive.
Have a good evening Graham..
Pre-production and not prototype. They are different things.
Classic Chicken and Egg 🤔
Good news. Just need to get production going on another 500 or so brand new hulls and we might have an effective force.
Thats more than the 386 CR2s or the 435 CR1s we bought years back? That’s optimistic!
Oh I know, it won’t happen during peacetime. But it’s what we need if we hope to have any significant contribution to a land war, amongst other things.
First, we would need to resurrect the AFV factories that closed in 2017.
The factories we have now most assemble components.
Can we actually build tank hulls from scratch anymore?
Yes, RBSL have stated they can now build brand new Challenger 3s, if there is a demand for them.
Stop messing about and go for Challenger 4 ie a new build. Order 400. Challenger 3 is a good interim and can be with the reserves.
These are a new build! A completely new turret on a refurbished hull which to all intents and purposes is new.
The army does not have two Army Reserve armoured regiments.
We will not build a CR4 for 20 or so years.
Are these just a stop gap until we join a project such as the Main Ground Combat System or another joint venture with someone like Poland?
I can’t see us making something like a Challenger 4 all by ourselves, but it seems like we’ll eventually head towards a tank with a 130mm gun, and we’d need them in bigger numbers than what we’re getting with the Challenger 3.
MGCS does not seemingly break much new ground and is not a generation in front of CR3, although we do have Observor status on it.
It was once said that IOC is scheduled for 2035 with FOC to be achieved by 2040 – thus timetable is wrong for UK.
Cynics think it may be not much different to a Leo2A7 hull with updated Leclerc turret with new cannon.
There is a concept shown at IAV24 from the German deligation regarding MGCS, it looks a lot more more radical than the Leclerc /Leopard 2 hybrid, more in keeping with the Strv 103.
The video of the Bradley pounding a T90 is very telling. The rate of fire from its Bushmaster apparently goofed all of its sighting systems so rendering it useless. Lessons to be learned?
Yeah. Don’t engage at close range, it isn’t what tanks are for
The bushmaster 3- 50 mm will extend range and 100 -200 rounds per minute rate might prove effective at disabling tanks sights and tracks !
Fight your tanks with supporting Armoured Infantry who can take out those pesky IFVs.
Oh….and make sure your own Infantry have IFVs with highly capable cannon. [Boxer with MG won’t cut it.]
Hopefully Ch 3 will keep its backup sight, that is under an armoured cover. One thing you can do, that I believe the Russian T series can’t, due to how the autoloader operates, is aim the gun through the barrel. A bit last resort, but if that’s your only option….
Do we reckon the APS is effective against drones and/or their dropped munitions?
Yes and no. Hamas have shown a number of videos targeting Merkavas 3 and 4s. The 3s don’t have Trophy APS whilst the 4s do. But we have now seen some Merkava 4 hit by drone dropped RPGs, grenades etc. What it seems is that they have worked out probably by trial and error. That you need to be above a certain height, otherwise Trophy will take out the drone. Other points of note is that the drones are dropping their weapons directly above the tank. Where the APS can’t see the drone, plus I suspect is at the limit… Read more »
31 rounds is low compared to the M1 and Leopards 2. With so few tanks they will have a lot of targets per tank to deal with. Low ammo space is far from ideal!
Yes, I was going to ask what other like sized tanks have by way of shell capacity. The turret seems a bit taller, boxier and narrower than previous. You think they could have widened it a tad to get more rounds in? That’s a huge drop. Is reloading going to be slower with the one piece ammunitions?
40, 42 seems to be the typically given number. Seems bizarre to me that such a small force which will end up expanding ammo quicker will subsequently need to resupply more much more frequently.
True. We will be about 10 rds less than M1 and Leo 2. I wonder why.
Excuse to not buy as much ammo…
Unlike the Leopard,2, I have a strong feeling that no main gun ammo is going to be stored in the hull, but only in the bustle. At nearly a metre long, the hull layout around the driver would need drastically altering. Whereas the Leopard and Abrams were designed with hull storage in mind. Though a lot of US Army units stopped storing ammo in the Abram’s hull following Gulf War 1.
Yes, that must be it. CR2 had 47 rds of 3-piece ammn (incl the TVE), a lot stored in the hull below the turret ring and to the left side of the driver. Big rethink on stowage for the 1-piece CR3 rds – and maybe few if any rds now stowed in the hull, as you say.
A big reduction in capacity.
No mention of blow off panels?
Good news there is progress on modernising the army. Like the bit of commonality with Ajax on optics. Would be good if it could control drones itself like loyal wingman for Tempest. Think Nextor are doing this…
Not designing a new Hull ( aka a whole new tank) seems ludicrous. They could licence build one in the UK. That would potentially allow more than 31 rounds to be carried, possibly allowed an off the shelf 1500 bhp engine and potentially other future proof compartments ( for drones).
The turret looks great, why not go the whole hog?
We are going to need all 200 of the C2s available now upgrading to C3 standard. Also might as well get them fitted with the trophy APS from the word go. No point having 60-70 trophy kits for the entire fleet. War is coming. Everyone is saying so. Even Grant Shapps.
I quote from the first paragraph of today’s FT editorial. Regardless of everything else going on in the world, this decision is of such mindblowing short-sightedness for the UK that it beggars belief. Even more so given the geopolitical situation. “Tata Steel plans to replace the last two blast furnaces at Britain’s largest steelworks in Port Talbot with electric arc furnaces that melt down scrap to make steel. The loss of up to 2,800 jobs is a hammer blow to the south Wales community. But this is a turning point, too, in UK industrial history. With British Steel set to… Read more »
But.. we import almost all iron ore and coal whilst exporting @8m tons of steel scrap. This amount is forecast to grow considerably. EAF will be able to re process this scrap making UK less dependent on imported raw materials.
Bad news for the workforce though.
Very true. Yes it might make some kind of short-term economic sense based on facts and figures *now*. Similar arguments were made of why it somehow made sense to reduce sovereign ability to make tanks/planes/ammo/small-arms/doctors/engineers/ships. Or why it made sense to reduce the standing army to <80000 and the navy to less than 20 escorts. Save the money and blow it all on tax cuts. Sell off the family silver. Contract it all out to the cheapest bidder based on the bottom line. But end up paying more in the end. Just try rebuilding the same expertise in metalwork once… Read more »
Where’s the steel coming from that’s going into the T45s and T31s and any future ship building? Isn’t the steel for the subs coming from France? Seems like the Minister for UK Industry needs to up his/her game and be a bit more pro UK for keeping some such strategic capabilities.
Regardless of predictions over what is obsolete, what is still relevant or what will adapt to evolving threats – a discussion as old as war:- as a Tank, the Challenger series have always looked ‘right’.
Until other States decide to give up on such major types of war equipment – none yet apparently – it’s best to keep up or ahead in design concepts.
Not an expert and I know the driver has to be able to see out of some where but the central part of the hull has his/hers/they cupola and looks like a weak point. Possibly heavily reinforced? I agree if they were doing the turret why not re-do the whole shemozzle and call it Chally 3+.
Yes that area looks like an obvious weakness and potential Shot Trap but some commentators have said it is not as bad as it seems, plus the Driver now has a decent Camera suite to enhance visability.
How many are we getting, five?
148.
RBSL have also stated that the can now build new Challenger 3s. Which means they must have hull jigs plus the complete sub-contracting supply chain sorted, to make such a bold statement.
Sadly. I doubt the current or next Government will take up the offer!
Yes, there has been plenty of chat about the possibilty of New build Tanks online this last year,it was stated that the original Jigs survive and reside still at the Armstrong Works.Due maybe to the decision by Vickers to set up Dual production lines in the expectation/hope of Export orders that never came 😗 But yes short of being at war it won’t happen.
We are at war.
RBSL has made their statement very late in the day – we are already well into the CR3 cycle. Their offer will not be taken up until the CR4 era.
It might be that the run of 148 was limited by surveyed good condition hulls?
Like most things running on production gets cheaper and not more expensive once the learning curve has flatlined.
No, that’s not it. The figure of 148 was predicated on yet another defence cut that leaves the army with only two Type 56 regiments in the FS Orbat. We have 213 tanks on the active list – and they will be in fair to good shape. I think there will be about 70-100 on the inactive list, most of which are likely to be in poor condition, most of which will have been wholly or partially cannibalised. There is not much that usually goes wrong with something as massive as a hull. Cracked welds are sorted out in Base… Read more »
I defer to your actual knowledge and experience!
Thanks. There seems to be this odd belief that most of our tanks are rusty hulks fit for the scrapheap. No idea how this thought ever originated. Of course many are on the inactive list and they are likely to be in poor condition. Typically 70% of the tanks on the active list will always be fully operational, and that number would or should rise to c.90% after a short period of concerted maintenance work with spares being available.
Time for a new tank ,join France and Germany in the euro tank ,a variant that is suitable for the army for our needs,I know you will get the usual idiots (spend money when we have a tank that in my eyes should be retired)the peace dividend is over,reality shows we must work with our European friends for defence procurement, safety of Europe, our problem is buying american and we are getting screwed by these corrupt american companies, America can sink for all I care ,Biden and trump already have sunk America, cooperation in Europe must be closer for all… Read more »
Well as RBSL have stated they can make more Challengers perhaps the Europeans could buy them👍
They have mostly got Leo2 – and are happy with them. Sensibly the Germans have upgraded the tank many times and very well over the years.
I know just tongue in cheek😀 it makes me laugh though when some people bang on about how much better anything other than British is.
Time for a new tank? Why? CR3 will be our new tank. It is likely to be amongst the best in the world.
We do have Observor status on the Franco-German tank Project.
does it not have a coax? maybe on the other side of the main gun… seems like a really useful asset to have these days. if you look at iraq war footage the abrams would always lay down a lot of machinegun fire between main gun firing- thats to suppress ATGM crews. and like others have said training and doctrine have as much to do with tank survivability as anything else. lots of footage over the last decade of iraqi/saudi abrams and turkish leopards getting hit- but very few of british challengers or abrams despite operating against similar threats. i… Read more »
CR3 does have a 7.62 coax 👍
Our tanks at least from Centurion onwards have always had a coax MG.
Pointless contract which should scrapped unless HMG restores tank numbers to those pre-1990. 1200. 148 is another expensive MoD joke and when viewed against land warfare developments in Ukraine, the military effect of just 148 of these tanks, no matter how good in side-by-side comparisons with other tanks are, is minimal. …Of course 1200, even at 1990 levels, was predominantly based on Cold War doctrine fighting in Europe. The threats elsewhere around the world should necessitate an increase on top that by some orders of magnitude. …And it isn’t just about the tank numbers! Logistics, including Point class ship replacements,… Read more »