In a recent evidence gathering session of the Defence Committee, a discussion unfolded regarding whether or not the UK has the capacity to upgrade enough Challenger 2 tanks to Challenger 3.
This conversation took place on November 15, 2023.
The Committee Chair highlighted the significant budget cuts and their effect on the Army’s capabilities, remarking, “Let’s talk about the Army for a second. We have concentrated on the Air Force thus far, but the Army has had a £30 billion loss in budget since 2015. This is reflected in capability, is it not? We see 32 AS-90s that have been gifted to Ukraine being replaced by 14 Archers; the loss of Warrior; and only 148 Challenger 3s expected, at a time when mass is all-important.”
This reduction in budget was noted as having a direct impact on the Army’s operational capacity, with a notable example being the replacement of 32 AS-90s with 14 Archers and the loss of the Warrior programme.
Despite these challenges, Secretary of State for Defence, Grant Shapps, stated,
“We have never spent more on our defence in recent years… The Army is in line for some very, very significant upgrades.”
However, doubts about the feasibility of upgrading the Challenger 2 tanks were expressed by Kevan Jones MP, who said:
“You know that you have very few Challengers that you can actually use… That will create a problem for the company doing it, because you are going to hold up the programme in terms of being able to supply the actual body frames to be upgraded. At the end of the day, things like Ajax might be a good piece of kit, but it is not a pretty story. You are just about to head into the next one with Challenger 3. We were told that the prototypes would be ready by Christmas, but I can tell you now that they will not be ready by Christmas. I know that for sure from talking to people.
Challenger 3 can be done, but the worrying thing and the problem you have with it is that, as Mark just said, you are putting new technology on to an old vehicle. Is it capable of that? Yes, I think it is. But you know that you have very few Challengers that you can actually use—where you could put the keys in tomorrow and drive out the door. That will create a problem for the company doing it, because you are going to hold up the programme in terms of being able to supply the actual body frames to be upgraded. Two prototypes were supposed to be in by Christmas—that ain’t gonna be met. You always have this optimism that these things are going to work out. With that, it is not that you can’t do it, but it has delay written all over it, because some decisions that you took on Challenger in the past—in terms of mothballing a lot of them—are going to create problems.”
Drawing parallels with other defence projects, Mark Francois MP said:
“On the Challenger 3 upgrade, you are trying to put a new turret and a bigger gun on an armoured vehicle. That is exactly what you did on Ajax, and it was an unmitigated disaster.”
While there is evident commitment to enhancing the Army’s capabilities, reflected in increased defence spending and ambitious upgrade programmes, the practical challenges, notably in the Challenger 3 upgrade programme, are of concern to many.
Challenger 3 should always of been a new build or a modest upgrade of sensors and obsolesce update and of been done 15 years ago.
The third option would have been taking a different foreign tank.
This would allow the current challenger 2 to remain in service without big disruption.
There are lots of little bits of interesting info in the article.
Or maybe it is an unnecessarily negative take on the situation.
Are these solely mechanical prototypes of are they fully fitted with electronics?
That us the key.
If it is the latter it is zero surprise.
If it us the former and December turns into March then no big deal either.
Prototypes should be fully engineered and complete including any new electronics.
I had not heard before that the proprtotypes would be ready by Christmas. I agree that a few months delay does not matter as the overall programme is over a decade long from commencement of CR2 LEP work (far too long!)
and March into June and June into September and so on and so forth…and before you know it it December 2024 and we still waiting. I think its entirely reasonable to be very pessimistic in regards this upgrade project considering the farce Ajax bought to the the table. This has all the hallmarks of a disaster in the making and it hasnblt even gotten out of the starting blocks yet. My opinion is we shoud buy new …and not then go faffing about redesigning whatever we buy as we always do to show how ‘demanding’ we are -pathetic. It’s not… Read more »
Nothing that has to be done is out of reach. The main issue is a One of core value. When you pay a lot of money for bankers or project managers and far less for engineers, you end up seing monsters when their is a tank upgrade only. Hard to believe that UK is in difficulty to integrate a foreign tank gun on an existing chassis.
I am really sad to see the same thing in my country. The current race for industry will surely help to reduce this issue.
General Dynamics not involved in the CH3 upgrade. So thats part of the problem eliminated
Ajax is doing well currently. Which off-the-shelf system would you have recommended to buy in lieu of Ajax?
Cv90 would be the obvious choice for many reasons, including capability, maturity, compatibility with NATO…
CV90 is an IFV, but Ajax is not, it is a recce vehicle I would agree that CV90 would be a good replacement for Warrior. but Ajax family are all specialised recce or utility vehicles, which were supposed to replace the Army’s CVRT fleet.
To rub salt in the wound, there is also a recce version of the CV9030 with the Norwegian Army.
There is a recce version of the Alvis Saladin scout car as well. Just because a vehicle is a recce version doesn’t mean it has what we need. In the case of CV90, it wouldn’t change a thing as they would still need extensive modifications to do what Ajax does.
Modifications to vibrate that much !
And if it had been CV90 then the problem would be exploding kettles or something. Point is with a vehicle with as much new kit as this nobody can predict what teething problems might be faced while in development, no matter the chassis.
Titan and Trojan had FABS final build standard upgrades, these were only minor compared to Ajax problems , isolation mounts are mitigation not a solution !
CV 90 Supply chain established , shared cost of upgrades etc
Thats sort of moot point isn’t it.
AJAX may indeed be ‘doing well now’ and I’m not suggesting we get rid and start again -well not yet anyway as its still not delivered .
However that doesn’t alter the glaringly obvious fact that it has been a major cause for concern and an ideal example of how NOT to run a procurement project.
If you believe others shouldnt have concerns about the issues encountered getting AJAX to this juncture and raise them against this project then …well…. thats your choice but don’t denegratee those that do.
Who says all this? You may claim it is “glaringly obvious” but that’s just you. Are you able to back that statement up with anything other than histrionics?
117 db noise measured, concerns over drive sprocket interface vibration ETC!
Which has been fixed, and is nothing compared to the problems previous kit have had. Which vehicle would you care to nominate that you can guarantee would have assuredly been free of any problems whatsoever?
Isolation mounts for seats and driving controls are not a fix ,nor is noise cancelling headsets. GD have effectively done the same as turning the radio up on a car to hide the noise of a vibrating exhaust heat shield. They have mitigated a vibration that is still there . A fix would be rubber tracks which can reduce vibration by up to 70 % or as they have done on the M10 Booker fit Hydro- pneumatic suspension as they have realised a torsion bar system that was designed for 20 -25 tons does not work when overloaded . You… Read more »
CR2 should have undergone significant incremental upgrades throughout its life as we always used to do with AFVs – Chieftain is a fine example of doing this, CR1 much less so. They could have been done during a Base Overhaul (roughly every 7 or so years) or simply as required. I would have expected there to have been 2 – 3 upgrades done by now. I always consider an AFV to have a nominal 25-year life so we should have been about to field a brand-new vehicle about now. The article is interesting but includes erroneous statements by MPs –… Read more »
Bigger gun : NO just effectively a different barrel that’s well proven.
As was the C2’s…. longest kill in history.
Unfortunately Graham, the Sandbox wars slammed the door shut on armoured spending, Challenger 2 is still effectively frozen in time, broadly the same as it was first delivered at the turn of century.
They fell to the very bottom of the Army’s funding priorities.
CR2 is still as good as the latest Abrams or Leopard – it won a 2023 competition. Despite having old technology
The crew won the comp, not the tank. Those kinds of competitions generally are about the crew’s performance and not the vehicle they’re in.
I think it’s a very very big stretch to say that challenge 2 is as good leopard 2A7/8 or Abraham’s M12A sepv3..these are very modern tanks with sensor synergy, active protection systems, modern fire control systems, as well as being up armoured to manage modern threats..CR2 is essentially the same tank it was 20 years ago, yes there are some up armour kits but the core vehicle is 20 years old also CHARM3 are just not Lethal as the rounds of other modern western MBTs ( although you could argue that increased lethality is a bit of a self licking… Read more »
What is there about 50 l2 a7 and zero a8 in service
So what ? Not sure what your point is….It was not a question of numbers, but a question of if a 20 year old tank was better that the current crop. The poster was saying that the Challenger 2 is as good as the “latest” versions of the Abrams and leopard 2..that is clearly and materially not the case….if the poster had said challenger 3 will be as good or better than these latest iterations of other NATO tanks that would have been different.
Very true. The AVST project at Abbey Wood was scrapped. HARRV was scrapped. Small-scale upgrades for CR2 were rolled over into CR2 LEP (later CR3) rather than being implemented as they were developed.
All very shocking.
You don’t even need to look back at our history, just compare how many upgrades Leopard and M1 have gotten in the meantime, even Ariete has gotten more upgrades.
Well the army has managed to go through planning for two complete upgrades..it just never got them beyond lovely power points ( OK there was an experimental test bed vehicle).
The CLIP upgrade (conversion to smoothbore) should have happened after succesful trials in Jan 2006. Other upgrades could have been done 10 years ago.
Most speculate that the money wasn’t there to do them.
I suppose the army gambled it was not going to be in a peer land conflict any time soon, which will have paid off if the army get challenger 3 operational before anything major happens…so their gamble will probably pay off, and I suppose in reality the only tanks challenger 2 was going to be inferior to was the very latest iterations of other NATO tanks and the second Iraq war did showcase how poorly designed to survive soviet and Russian tanks really were…you can sort of see why they took the gamble…but it’s pretty clear now that they need… Read more »
I don’t think the army has been as calculating as you suggest in timing the CR3 build. It will be ‘luck of the draw’ if tanks are required before FOC of CR3 in 2030. If something kicked off before then and requiring armour, we would probably have to deploy a mixed fleet.
We had a mixed Chieftain/CR1 fleet for well over a decade from c1983 to mid/late 90s.
Agreed, from the public statement of work. Much like the cancelled Warrior program, the chassis is being taken back to the frame, everything is removed and stripped back to metal, overhauled and then either refitted or replaced with new kit.
In reality, the mothballed tanks should be the ones going for the upgrade. Leaving the current operational tanks in service, so we have something to use. If its not, someone needs a reality check!
Was this contract handed to the wrong company? The only good thing is production in Wales i.e.UK. We need these tanks now We are in the same [position we were in in 1937 Extremely vulnerable!
Cr3 is Telford, Ajax is Wales at Merthyr.
Meanwhile over in Poland and already fielded on their boarder with Belerus. “Poland will produce over 800 South Korean K2 tanks as part of an order for the Polish army, the country’s defense minister announced Thursday. “Of the 1,000 tanks (for the Polish army) for which we signed an agreement with Seoul, 180 will be directly purchased from the producer country, South Korea, and the rest, 820, will be produced in Poland, Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said during his visit to a military factory in Poznan where the tanks will be manufactured. “Here, at the Military Automobile Plant in… Read more »
Please do not take Blaszczak’s public statements at face value as some are quite bombastic. Here in Poland we know we need modern weapons both in quality and quantity. For the army that means both MBTs, tracked APCs and tracked self propelled howitzers. Given the unwillingness of western European and American manufacturers to make heavy weapons in Poland, Poland went the South Korean route. Existing Leo2s will be retained until the upgraded Polish K2PL black panther becomes available, then retired or sold. 350 Abrams have been purchased though that amount is likely to be reduced. The 180 K2 are a… Read more »
Hello Michael and thank you for your post.
I think Poland has been very wise in investing heavily in its military given its close proximity to Russia and Belarus.
The UK sadly has failed to do this in a meaningful way over the past thirty years and needs to rethink its gold-plated approach to purchasing military equipment and increase the overall numbers.
South Korea has a lot to offer, I think you have made a very wise decision in partnering with them!
It does make you wonder why they have also ordered the M1s? Does that mean the Poles think the K2 is not as good as the M1?
Hello DaveyB, “Does that mean the Poles think the K2 is not as good as the M1?” No, simply numbers and as quickly as possible. Remember, they are building the majority of the K2 MBT’s themselves. We would have done well to follow their lead on the K2 and Redback. K9A2 is still an option we are pursuing, just think what we could achieve as a partner going forward. With Germany looking to cancel Typhoon and the possibility of the line closing early, the KAI KF-21 Boramae might be a suitable replacement for it and further upgrades… Read more »
The Poles going for a K2/M1 mix is more down to geography than anything else – M1 will be based in the Eastern Border and cover the approaches to Warsaw ,while the K2 will equip Units in the North East where its smaller size and weight better suits Rivers,Lakes and Forrests etc.They consider the M1 superior in Protection,while the K2PL will close the gap somewhat.
Of course it will turn into a disaster. Its inevitable. There was a simpler option but the MOD refuse point blank to ever consider simpler options, then act surprised when the inevitable disaster unfolds.
The CR3 programme has run smoothly so far. If it is true that the prototypes are a few months late, then that is not quite a disaster.
Say that in 18 months when they are still a couple of months late. I’ve heard it all before over and over and over again.
It is possible to be too cynical! Still, I’ll put a date in my diary!
Depends on the reason. Prototypes being delayed is whatever, if the issue is we’ve let the hulls deteriorate to the point they can’t be used for conversions (note I’m not saying this is what happened, it’s just online rumours at the moment) then that’s much more serious.
Personally I’m remaining optimistic, cautiously.
Not blaming Babcock then ?
I once saw photos of CH2 and other vehicles rusting at Ashcurch in leaky sheds.
This is basically what I’m on about. If the hull is not in a fit state for conversion without some major refurbishment first because it’s been rained on for 15 years, then it doesn’t matter if there are 40, 400, or 4,000 out there. Thanks for putting it better than I can.
Scandalous really. That site at one time reportedly held 7,000 plus armoured vehicles, B vehicles, boats and plant costing billions.
Some in CHE, much in shit state. Just to save a few million on a proper roof.
It’s why I’m skeptical about reserve and mothball forces. Especially whenever the subject of a mothball fleet comes up. Easy to say you’ll maintain them in good order, much harder to do so over 30 years consistently and then be able to bring them back into service.
Anyway, as I said, I’m cautiously optimistic, 148 isn’t an impossible number, and I’m sure we can slowly rotate the ones we have through.
I personally think this one has been blown out of proportion a bit mate. We had 220 I think recently, hopefully enough in good condition.
Agreed. It feels like someone walked around Ashchurch and had a significant flap all of a sudden, forgetting those are the bad hulls we wouldn’t be using anyway.
I suppose the fact they only recently chopped one of the regiments means they should have 50 odd hulls that have not been bagging around neglected for to long.
Ironically, I believe the third regiment, the KRH, is still with CH2. The delays with Ajax meant it has still not converted from Armoured to Armoured Cavalry, as it was meant to, yesrd ago. Getting rid of it quickly was one of General Carters priorities.
One of many reasons why myself and others aren’t impressed whenever that bloke surfaces on TV.
That is very interesting, it actually could mean there is a problem with hull numbers going to conversion, three regiments is 168 tanks, add in say 10% maintenance pool of 16-17, training establishment numbers and all you have left is the small attritional reserve that you could convert…it’s an interesting quandary and balancing act….without the third regimen I could see it being easy, with the third regimen in place it’s more iffy. It also means that they are going to have to run the regiments as mixed CH2 CH3 regiments for a while, which will create interesting logistics for a… Read more »
While keeping Cabrit BG in place.
Agree, his aspirations did not match the financial reality. But he pressed ahead anyway!
If I may: Russia has rhe same issue with old kits being rusty. But one rusty piece is nothing if you make steel and transform it.
Britsky on X has some pics of the building works going on at Ashchurch and a pool of Vehicles outside.
Ta, will have a look.
Now that’s what you call incredible levels of incompetence. If that is the case.
The usual neglect of the back end of the military and MoD, that back end that I keep emphasizing and banging on about as being as vital as the wiz bang front end most look at.
Be it dry docks for SSN not upgraded in decades or proper storage conditions of paid for assets like at Ashchurch.
I don’t recall where I saw the thread on Ashchuch now and the photos, might have been ARRSE.
Yes it’s just like the housing and barracks issues, poor investment hits you in the end.
The Asbestos roofs were shedding onto workers toolboxes, took complaints to get roof fixed. As you only need to breath in one fiber into the lungs to be at risk who did the survey ?
Apart from mk3 suspension units ?
I read that only a few tanks have had that as part of HAAIP which is now wrapped up into the CR3 conversion programme. Wiki: “As of January 2022 six Challenger 2s were reported to have received the automotive upgrades prior to conversion to Challenger 3”
CLIP (conversion to 120mm smoothbore) could have been done soon after the trials in Jan 2006, which were apparently successful.
Other upgrades to armour, electronics and automotives, which we will now see on CR3, could perhaps have been done 10 years ago.
would you fit units with the cylinder having excess pitch thread clearance ( wobbling on body )and gas up to meet KPI delivery target ! Asking a lot to hold 117 – 120 bar on rebound pressure ?
Pete, you talking about Gen3 hydrogas units? You have some tech details that I haven’t got. On the face of it, sounds like this needs a fix quite urgently.
The 3rd generation have lower friction and some internal modifications , high or low pressure set before gassing. Management said ” fit them, don’t worry the anti rotation bolt will stop them coming unscrewed ” . Someone must have informed RBSL as team had to be sent to change for CR2 ones. Failure could drop track tension throwing track causing crash . Not quite the “home safe every day” motto. No disciplinary action take so far ?
According to previous news of the Chally upgrade program, they were supposed to be two to three months ahead of schedule! So what is the hold up now?
No idea. There is nothing on Open Source.
The army website states that it is expected that the first prototype would be completed by the end of the year – that is just an expectation.
We get very sparse info on the progress of this project.
I hardly think that Rhienmettal are going to let this be a disaster🙄
Rheinmetal… What is the tank they are trying to sell everywhere?
What is really their interest? Upgrade a challenger or finding a Customer to lunch it’s new tank. This being in UK best interest? Perhaps…
Well obviously not trying to sell to us are they? They have Done all the R&D etc on CR 3! So I’ll say again it really won’t do their reputation much cop if it doesn’t succeed will it? Anyway read further down and Graham spells it out rather well on how far into the program we are.
+The army is, and always has been, the poor relation. Fact is, in the current political environment, Navy and RAF still most ‘important’ but army possibly becoming the most ‘needy’. Yes, the current tank and artillery situation is not acceptable – the army needs a major investment. Trouble is, so does everywhere else. Personally I don’t know of an affordable answer in terms of current expenditure. The army needs massive investment if it is to become capable of taking part in a major European war… it isn’t at the moment purely on a numbers basis. But we need more ships… Read more »
I would always put ships, aircraft and air defence first and if the army is going to demand investment it should become a more expeditionary force, easily transportable by air and sea.
‘Expeditionary force easily transportable by air and sea’ – For the trip across the North Sea using commandeered ferries virtually any force would qualify. Main thing is – how useful when you get there? You need fully equipped and supplied troops in sufficient numbers to make a difference. We don’t have it.
Just going to point out that the Challenger 1 and 2’s where pretty expeditionary during Gulf War 1 and 2. No point in the army being “expeditionary” if it can’t fight when it arrives, and just a reminder: You can’t win a war with just aircraft and ships, you ultimately need to put blokes with rifles and tanks on the ground.
True. Every war that is not fought in the UK homeland is expeditionary!
Our army in France in WW1 and WW2 was the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), even though France is not very far away.
In the light of the most significant and bloody land war in Europe since 1945 and one which involves the nation deemed to be our biggest threat, I wonder why the Navy and RAF are most ‘important’!
The army is in need of greatest investment, for sure. It is not capable either of deploying a modernised warfighting division of three brigades – or conducting an enduring (Brigade group) operation with regular manpower alone.
Because there isn’t a catch chance in hell of the Russians fighting their way through Poland and Germany or the other 27 states if they can’t even break the Ukraine. If Britain has any real desire to become Global Britain, instead of just talking about it, it needs the R.N. and R.A.F. and in that order.
Sorry Cat’s chance in hell…
Agreed.
👍
Poland and Germany are not in Russia’s sights – they don’t even want all of Ukraine.
Yes they do
I’ll give you a clue – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_census_2001_Russian.svg
If we follow you logic, shall France invade Belgium because part of it they speak French or USA invade Canada because they speak English …
Western Logic is a million miles away from that of Mr Putin.
Also Belgium is an interesting comparison – there have been opinions expressed about splitting it into two to align with the different Language’s for years.
I think you have missed my point Paul.
Apologies – i thought your point was Russia was incapable of fighting its way through Poland and Germany if they can’t manage to get through Ukraine,my point was even if they could they won’t because they don’t want too .
I’m not sure they ( Putin ) doesn’t want to but as you say they couldn’t anyway.
There may be a possibility! If Trump wins the next US election and stops arms supplies to Ukraine. Europe will do its best, but there isn’t the manufacturing capacity to replace the US. This will mean Ukraine will only the materiel for a defensive capability. Which won’t be great for Ukraine, as Russia can easily replace its lost manpower from being on the offensive.
Poland doesn’t think that.
Poland’s geography and History dictates it has to prepare for the worse whatever the circumstances.
Yeah, it’s not like the Russian government has made any statements about moving on to the rest of europe after finishing off ukraine…
Oh…
https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7785/artykul/3273249,russias-medvedev-calls-poland-dangerous-enemy-warns-nato-member-could-lose-its-statehood
right…
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-floats-idea-pushing-back-polands-borders-2023-02-24/
Medvedev plays the role of a useful idiot in the Russian Govt, he says a lot of things that are quite confrontational, I wouldn’t take much notice of him, I’d rather listen to Igor Strelkov to get a better grasp of what is happening.
Nonsense! Putin wants all of Ukraine, the 3 Baltics and Poland plus others, to restore Russia to what tge USSR controlled and occupied till 1989.that is his publicly declared strategic aim. Which is why we in Poland are hell bent on rearming and making massive military hardware contracts.
Russia is only interested in areas where there is a substantial Russian population, the Baltics I would agree with, he has no intention of trying to assimilate the whole of Ukraine, only the areas that he considers traditionally Russian. Poland to my knowledge has no significant population of Russian’s living there.
Who do you report to?
RN should always no1 in spending for defence we import most of our food by sea
👍🚢
True but one should not neglect the Army and RAF ,but to be fair all have suffer over the year’s 🙄
I really do disagree.
We need a Cdo Div
RN
RFA
RAF
Happy to help, gratis.
Oh and an integrated Milpol/Int Div supporting a PARA Brigade.
Wouldn’t argue with the Cdo but Division ? Explain Milpol/Int please.🙄
Hi Geoff. Too often we have employed Inf in a role they were not suited for. Europe has the heavy armour that Europe needs. Should we go world wide peacekeeping, then PARA as a force entry unit, MilPol – military Police as the thinking man’s soldier who can exercise a gendarmerie role backed by intelligence. Commando, we are an island and need littoral forces to deploy around the world from navy platforms; commandos are also thinking soldiers and able to apply force to littoral ports etc; their ability to operate in Baltic climes should also be highly prized as an… Read more »
You suggest that we don’t need heavy armour. We have used tanks in kinetic action far more times than ships and submarines.
So, do you not think that soldiers outside of MP and commando forces are thinking soldiers? Just one look at eg The Rifles, and you’ll see that they are literally described as ‘thinking, fighting-men’ There’s so much propaganda out there pushed by the RM about how different they are. But actually (having been on ops with them) they aren’t. And that’s not a slight on the RM – it’s actually an indication of just how GOOD the British Army is. I’ll directly quote a RM Colonel I was talking to about the Rifles a few years ago “we think your… Read more »
I’m with you on both ideas David. Your thoughts are entirely in keeping with mine. The way forward for the army is surely providing the best crack, over the horizon troops that we can develop with the best equipment. I did advocate some while ago and would still do so a doubling of Air Assault brigades, using the same format as now, but with improved logistical and CCC capabilities. Commando’s, the Para’s, Gurkha’s, probably add the Rifles and of course other specialised units. Back this up with providing the likes of Deep Fire support for allies like the Baltic States… Read more »
The problem with that strategy, is that a) you need to guarantee that you have air superiority and b) you have denied the enemy the ability to provide air defence. First lesson from the 1st month of the Ukraine war, is that air assault troops in helicopters or transport aircraft, are very vulnerable to ground based air defences. Especially if they have not been cleared and fully suppressed. Doubly so, if that enemy can also provide any sort of fighter force. All it takes is a couple of dudes with some MANPADs to totally screw up your airlift plan. Therefore,… Read more »
I think it’s really a matter of what we can achieve with budget we have. We are no longer capable of providing for a Falklands type conflict, let alone, and I hope not, an Iraq war situation. The regular army has sufficient force to achieve two things. A major contribution to the JEF and a world class intervention force. Beyond this we can provide first class peace keeping; mentoring and training, medical and communications.
100% right
👍
Geoff, I wasn’t suggesting that the Russians plan to invade the UK anytime soon and achieve what Napoleon and Hitler could not achieve. Many have stated that Russia is our greatest threat: https://www.ft.com/content/57216d44-924c-409f-912b-fa87d52e0021 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-09-07/russia-rates-highest-as-threat-to-the-world-half-see-u-s-as-global-danger Gen Sir Richard Shirreff wrote a book contemplating the Russian invasion one day of a Baltic state, notwithstanding that they are all NATO members. Russia has assasinated and attempted to assasinate persons in Britain, has conducted cyber attacks in the West including the UK, and invaded a number of neighbours and near-neighbours. We currently have at least a thousand troops in a deterrent posture on Op… Read more »
Hi Graham. I do believe in the UK having a seriously good army, although I do understand why I am misinterpreted at times. My ongoing difficulty is how we are going to pay for all that we want to achieve. I argued back in 2020 that we could only realistically provide forces for four MAJOR conventional scenario’s. The R.N. would provide for a global presence with fully equipped carrier battle groups; the R.A.F protection of the U.K. and JEF airspace; an armoured brigade to be permanently based in the Baltic and a highly mobile intervention force. We actually have the… Read more »
Hi Geoff, many thanks. Having been a BAOR warrior, I was fairly content with Options for Change in 1991, that looked carefully at the size and shape of our post-Cold War armed forces. Given the reduction of the threat it was decided that we needed the army to come down from 160,000 to a mere 120,000 – and to have just 386 tanks, to name just two metrics. That was deemed appropriate and affordable and a handsome peace dividend was taken. But the bean-counters had other ideas and the army then shrinks several times over without the threat being reduced… Read more »
Back again. We always forget the lessons of the past and then build for the last war. I know that sounds contradictory but how do they decide to cut back and then not buy the best kit for what we do have to face. However we are where we are. My scenario’s for our main role is modest because I can’t seeing us ever having the money for improvement. So I settle for a serious heavy brigade for the Baltic with absolutely everything it needs; the finest special forces and airborne/seaborne with the finest equipment money can buy. Again with… Read more »
Hi Geoff, We commit to NATO which is our lynchpin and so we need to be able to contribute with strong naval, ground and air forces (as well as relevant SF, cyber and space capabilities) to the Euro-Atlantic area. On the army side, one heavy brigade is a very small contribution if we are to properly defend the continent alongside allies – the Dutch fields one heavy brigade from an army of 16,000 regs – we can surely do better than that small nation. As far as combat aircraft is concerned, the RAF has to defend UK (and Falklands) airspace… Read more »
I agree with everything you have said BUT how is it going to happen? The RN can be brought up to a sufficient capability if it gets enough aircraft and I don’t now mean just F35’s. The RAF with the improvements I’ve already mentioned plus EW aircraft ( F35A/ Typhoons like Germany) could do the same. The army sadly is still in a state. To get a decent armoured division we would have to treble the budget. Potentially we will have 148 tanks, Ajax ( we hope ); no armoured tracked IFV’s and X number of undefined Boxer variants with… Read more »
I suggested cutting out waste and doing spend to save measures to generate more spendable £s in the future.
The sad thing is that not long ago we had two quite effective deployable divisions, one in Germany and one in the UK – just that the kit needed upgrades and these kept getting overlooked. Continuous decline over a very long time is very hard to overturn.
I know. As recently as 2015 we were told there would be seven brigades and sensible ones at that. Now we have three, two of which are smaller versions of the earlier armoured brigades, and the other is Deep fires with Ajax??? It seems to me that having cocked everything up for ten years or more they (?) are now trying to find a home for orders we needn’t have placed.
I feel sure that an unsuitable home has been found for the 623 Boxers ordered so far, namely to put them in the two armoured brigades to replace proper IFVs (Warrior which was to have been replaced by upgraded Warrior with a 40mm cannon). A politico/bean-counter idea, I am sure.
Sounds right. As I said….find a use rather then order to fill a need. 🙄
Most important for 2 reasons. Firstly, other mainland European powers have the land war covered, secondly the UK needs to be at it’s strongest covering the Northern Approaches – OK, we’re not talking WW2 but the area is still the most important for UK security – protecting the sea lanes.
I agree. UK has a role may be even larger. In times that are coming: Atlantic Ocean from north to South will be void of US ship. Who will have the priviledge to secure the area?
We contribute to any future European land war – always have done and always will do in the future. We will not leave our European NATO allies unsupported.
Of course, in a support role. We are never going to have the mass of troops other countries can supply. Our army would be swamped by the combined land forces of Germany, Poland, France, Finland, Noway,etc… Our current ‘role’ supporting Norway and Scandinavia is where we could make a difference; another BAOR would be a non starter. In the air and at sea we can make a difference, hence those are the most important areas when finances are tight.
Rob, funny to consider we would just be in a support role in WW3! Some of those armies are not as huge as you might think they are – the German Army is smaller than ours at 62,800, Norwegian Army is 8,125 (3,725 regs and 4,400 conscripts), the Finnish Army is 22,010 (3,610 regs and 18,400 conscripts). Granted, the Polish and German armies are larger than ours. If WW3 happened it would be all hands to the pumps, especially if a future President Trump decided the US should not join the party. No-one is ever contemplating a return to BAOR… Read more »
Support on land only. With NATO European forces we would have France of course, plus Spain, hopefully Turkey, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium… some with small armies, but it all adds up. That ‘flank protection’ role will be changing a lot considering the recent NATO additions! Remember, UK ground forces are liable to find themselves in use in more theatres than, say, German or Polish ground forces. Our efforts will be greatly diluted – not only Northern Flank, but probably troops needed to ‘garrison’ the likes of Cyprus, perhaps Greenland, home defence, perhaps even some of the Gulf States. I can see… Read more »
While I agree with the CR3 Programme and it’s aims, I always had a wry smile to the posts on here applauding the Capability of a Tank that hadn’t even been built, while the often used picture above looks impressive it wasn’t actually a CR3.
Just think that the government gave Disney £55 million in tax credits to film their latest flop, yet they keep reducing the budget for other key areas. Just a thought.
What is this?
I know it was off subject, but I thought about the government giving companies tax breaks, which could have been used for other areas. Because I was looking at the refurbishment cost of the challenger, which is £5 million each, and how many vehicles that tax break would have covered. I understand that the tax break is to encourage filmmaking in the UK, but it makes you think about how much it could buy in other areas. Sorry, it was just a ramble.
HMG policy is in reality to make the richest far richer while cutting everything that made life secure & reasonable for everyone else. Our forces have suffered accordingly but there’s always fine sounding sound bites & crocodile tears on hand to fool Joe public.
Also, the film that flopped and got the £55 million tax was ‘The Marvels.’
Tax breaks don’t mean if we hadn’t given them we would get 55 million it just means if we didn’t give them they would film in another country
Why do we faff about and waste huge amounts of dough on every project?
No doubt this will cost double or more of buying brand new and we will end up with fewer than planned at X times the cost
There are so many options for purchasing a new off the shelf MBT that would deliver armoured mass, all tanks fitted with APS and improvements in lethality- the German Panther 51 MBT, Leopard 2A8, South Korean K2 Black Panther- likely with a UK order coming with UK manufacturing facility for the tank. Hell we could even go in for the latest Abrams tank, albeit with higher maintenance and servicing requirements and admittedly crap fuel economy. I think the army is sleep walking into another Ajax fiasco, likely because the treasury would not permit a purchase of new MBTs from a… Read more »
I support British options as and where feasible but sadly the Govt has ensured the end of British design and construction of MBTs a good while ago, the C3 is just putting off that reality into a delayed consciousness of the event. Ironically ensuring British production of a foreign design while making that fact obvious sooner with all the feared Daily Mail enlightenment articles, in reality like the transformation of HandW have offered a chance to re establish indigenous design and development capability in the future which is why other Countries are actually insisting on local production, content and technology… Read more »
I would trust BAE or its JV with Rheinmetall, RBSL – to design and build a future MBT. Pity that the fantastic tank factories in Leeds and Newcastle could no longer be used.
The factory in Leeds no longer exists and Newcastle isn’t BAE anymore.
Yep, I know. Perhaps I did not express things as clearly as you. I did a 3-month industrial attachment at the old (previous) Newcastle factory (1980).
There is absolutely no similarity with the Ajax project. So far the CR3 programme has hit its milestones with the possible exception of prototype delivery – if that is just a few months behind schedule it will hardly be a fiasco in a programme that is over 10 years long. Abrams is not at all suited to the British Army for the reasons you state – it is highly maintenance intensive and its fuel consumption is very high and would require investment in extra fuel tankers with extra drivers and maintainers. It would be unaffordable, we would have ITAR problems,… Read more »
As far as I’m aware from the odd article , UK Pearson engineering are getting stuck into turret building ? And a protrotype with APS has already been fitted . And its essentially a leopard 2 turret I think so should be fairly straight forward I hope 🙂
You are correct,Pearson’s have completed the first Turret but as i understand it ,it is only the Core, which is derived from the Leo2 Turret,it still has to be embelished with the New Armour Package and Equipment etc.
https://rbsl.com/news-and-events/news/cr3-programme-achieves-major-milestone
Yes. Pearsons have made the citadel of the turret – its core structure.
The army website said it expected the first CR3 (whole vehicle) prototype by end of year (calendar or financial year?). Random politician says it will be late – hopefully not by much.
Ahem…Gentlemen, understand that it is almost a mandatory, de rigueuer act for Brits to denigrate the performance/value of Abrams, but submit for consideration the concept that the British Army would be well pleased to accept Lend-lease M1A2 SEP v3, in the potential future circumstance that 148 Challenger CR3 are rendered combat ineffective. Believe additional fuel lorries, drivers, mechanics, supply chains and ancillary costs would recede into background at that point. Remember, the Germans undoubtedly built better tanks during WW II, but they did not produce them in sufficient quantities to affect the outcome. 🤔. Provide Uncle Sugar w/ sufficient lead… Read more »
We really should not accept any Lend-Lease from the Americans, it was a necessity in WW2, but screwed us over heavily. Remember destroyers for bases? No thanks.
Germany did not build better tanks during WW2, they where better armoured and had bigger guns, but where much more mechanically unreliable, harder to fix, difficult to transport, and user unfriendly.
‘Lend-Lease’ is obviously triggering terminology for some British citizens. Any modernized version would be subject to revised terms and conditions, as well as a different naming convention. Historical reference only.
German WWIi tanks, w/ heavier armor and larger caliber guns, were generally considered to be more formidable than American Sherman tanks. However, the Germans never truly embraced the concept of mass-production design and build, to their detriment. Variation of the theme that quantity has a quality of its own.
Being in the US’s economic debt is not a place anyone would want to be, no matter what they call it. Especially not when it comes to trading for equipment that has been left to rot for decades. German world war 2 tanks where generally considered more formidable….by the people who didn’t have to use them. The reputation of German armour came largely from Allied tankers who did not have to deal with the limitations of repairing, maintaining, and operating them. The grass is always greener on the other side. Simple example: American and British tanks had a roof mounted… Read more »
Presume if situation was sufficiently dire, MoD would analyze the issue and determine the best course of action for the British Army. Democratic states typically don’t compel one another to purchase weapon systems, they are simply proffered for sale/lease/donation. Receiving country makes an independent judgment re suitability. Uncertain re storage conditions for M1A1; have not read of any complaints to date from GDSL, re material state of tanks selected for refurbishment (beyond normal wear and tear). Shermans certainly had some innovative features, still not convinced crews would have been overly pleased to encounter Panther or Tiger tanks on a one… Read more »
To be fair, the USAAF and RAF were making sure they didn’t have the capacity for mass production.
👍👍😁
Hum… Trump want’s to get rid off Nato if elected Next year, by reducng the meaning of article 5. Even if not, he presents relationship within Nato like a US protectorate. Politically, this will leas to a point of rupture, which might be what he is looking for. Regarding Tanks, Abraham X is a fine machine, lighter, drone equiped and so on. The fuel issue is like most US engine beyond salvation, but it could be handled in defensive operations. Though, pricetag is unaffordable, compared to home production. And industrial capabilities of US is no longer so significant. Steel making… Read more »
I love your posts, mate. I am not sure what would render our 148 CR3s combat ineffective unless we came up against an opponent a heck of a lot better than ‘Ivan’. Many in the UK have now a healthy scepticism about Lend-Lease, [introduced as An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States]. The US set a hard date against which materiel that survived the war could be returned which we could not meet, so were billed £1.075 billion (a lot of money back in the day). However the very nice US Treasury loaned us the money to pay… Read more »
I don’t think going to the e.u for tanks would be a good idea the Germans always link getting there permission to deploy them abroad in the deal we will always go to the USA we can trust them more than the Europeans
My hypothesis was based on 3 Div in hard combat alongside NATO allies, including German forces, having its Chally tank fleet severely reduced and having exhausted the attrition reserve.
I would hope that bureacrats in Berlin would not insist on extra paperwork if the opportunity existed to make use of some spare Leo2s.
GM, As stated in comments above, ‘Lend-Lease’ triggers obviously negative connotations w/in the British public. Term used for illustrative purpose only. Presumably, any modern version would have appropriately revised terms and conditions. Bottom line is that the US has an existing inventory of literally thousands of M1A1 available for refit/remanufacture to latest standard. Uncertain whether Germans have a similarly sized pool of existing tanks available. If so, obviously price, quantities, delivery schedule, etc., would dictate decision. No offense intended or taken, simply that Abrams is competitive w/ other MBTs, depending upon user requirements. Regarding an inventory of 148 MBTs, here… Read more »
Many thanks. I don’t doubt for a second that some of our 148 CR3s will be used in combat during their lifetime, just as our CR1s and CR2s were. It is interesting to speculate who they wil be ranged against.
The Orcs will sadly get better but they seem to learn slowly and at great cost to themselves.
The Abrams is a fine tank and its evolution has been very impressive – I wish we had the money and determination to have upgraded our tanks over time – we used to do that so well.
👍😊
Thanks for the compliment re Abrams from an acknowledged SME! 👍
😊
If the Abrams Sep 3 was offered at a cost price, then I’m sure the UK would look at it. However, a point that needs to be made is that the Abrams in its current form even with the new gas turbine, requires two tankers compared to a Chally’s one. This is a huge logistical burden right from the off.
I do know that there were options to replace the gas turbine with a US made diesel engine, that was mooted for Sep 4. Though I’m sure it can be retrofitted to earlier Abrams versions.
Afternoon Graham, do you know if there’s any c-UAV tech going into the CR3s? Even a 12.5mm RWS? I wonder why they seem to stick with just a gpmg on top of such a brute of a tank when it’s already got a coaxial gun the same? The latest Abram’s has got a whopping 30mm RWS on top!
The work for CR3 (formerly CR2 LEP) kicked off in 2015/2016. Armed drones (UAVs) with ATGW weren’t in anyone’s mind then.
Drones are aircraft – we have not been in the habit of fitting specialised anti-aircraft weapons to our AFVs as this is a task for RA specialists.
However LLAD is done by any Arm ie all-arms. I do not see a RWS for secondary armament on any CR3 photos and have yet to see any text on the subject.
The CR2 Megatron at ATDU is fitted with a RWS carrying a MG:
https://fighting-vehicles.com/challenger-2-megatron/
Thanks again for an informative reply Graham.
Yes. This problem is a current MoD program. It comes under the land – ground based air defence (GBAD) counter-small unmanned aircraft system (C-sUAS). Along with the future armoured vehicle survivability (FAVS) program. There are three main parts to the program. The first item is providing the infantry with some counter measures to the small drone threat. This is two parts which includes a jammer along with a sensor to detect the drone. The second part is the SMASH smart weapon sight fitted to individual weapons and section weapons. The second part of the program is where they are using… Read more »
Thanks also for your reply too. There’s always more levels to go to!
Well the SMASH sight will be rolling out for trials soon. Plus I’m hoping with Blighter involved, the vehicle protection won’t be far behind. Blighter original made radar based sensors used for security. However they’ve also expanded into optical sensors. Their radar sensors are what I’m expecting to be used as the primary sensor for detecting the drone. The issue they will have is the field of view. To make sure the vehicle is protected, it will need a view of 360 degrees. Plus it will also need a high elevation. So in principle it would need preferably 4 antennas.… Read more »
Cant disagree…would love to buy British maintain jobs capability etc but sometime u just need to say it doesn’t look worth it
Leo2 A8 is £19.2m a copy! Ouch! Makes CR3 look very good value at £800m for 148-off.
Brand new versus a tank kit. Assuming we deliver CR3s in that number for that price…previous track record shows itll end up more than double that price, and numbers will be cut
Leo2 A8 is of course brand new and CR3 is an improved older tank. Hence the price difference. We can only afford the latter.
MoD is contracted with RBSL for them to deliver 148 tanks at a firm price of £800m. IOC 2027. FOC 2030.
I see no reason for the price to go up or the numbers to be cut (148 is a very small number of tanks, as it is).
Hence my concern…..unless thats a fixed rate guaranteed numbers deal. Lets face it it, would not be the 1st MoD deal that failed on numbers and price.
If we buy foreign non US tanks we wont get Dorchester/Epsom Armour which is one of the features that gave challenger its high survivability.
We end up rehashing the same old ground don’t we….
Back in the 2010 defence SDSR (fancy title for defence cuts) the Army argued the case that thee Armoured Regiments were the absolute minimum for a viable MBT capability….
They temporarily won that argument. Then the fleet ‘obviously’ gets cut again by a third.
The net result will be 148 upgraded tanks in Two Regiments, that, I will confidently predict will become no tanks in no armoured Regiments by 2040.
Sorry to be so negative, but it just seems the inevitable direction of travel….
First take them out of the army reserve they are already slow enough to deploy and we need all of the tanks we have operational for as much of the time possible
What is ‘slow enough to deploy’?
None of them are in the Army Reserve.
Assume he thinks RWY have a contingent? Which I believe they don’t.
On re reading, possibly he means by “army reserve” not the AR proper, but the training and attrition fleets and wants most concentrated into the actual regiments?
True. RWY is a delivery organisation. They don’t hold tanks. The Attrition Reserve is in sheds at Ashchurch.
Is It still? I thought it had changed to one of individual and crew replacement for the regular regs.
RWxY has always had the role of providing tank-trained BCRs as far as I know.
I took a look at Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Wessex_Yeomanry
I think you are right that RWxY lost the armoured delivery role otherwise known as Armour Replacement (which A Sqn had) lost from about 2013 under Army Plan 2020.
So, looks like replacement armour is delivered differently from 2013. I suppose the RLC TT Sqn or a contractor delivers Attrition Reserve armour and the replacement crews come seperately and then marry up. Sounds like a worse system.
John, so cynical! I suppose the Navy come down to no ships by 2040 by the same direction of travel logic and the air force to no aircraft.
The FOC for CR3 is 2030 – why do you think all 148 will have disappeared just 10 years later?
The Navy will fall back on kayaks.
Well I know where you can find plenty of free rubber inflatables…..
Evening Graham, it’s a particularly MBT thing, the mass is bleeding away to the point now it’s becoming a niche capability. As AT technology moves on and our Armed forces increasingly become Brigade (or smaller) focused and expeditionary in ethos, with our Army heading for 60,000 personnel by 2030, then the temptation to get rid of MBT’s completely will likely be hard to resist for the bean counters. The old argument of only MBT’s hold ground won’t wash if you have no intention of holding said ground on light short term intervention type operations. That equates to low hanging fruit… Read more »
Hi John. I disagree. With our armed forces shrinking all the time – the army has been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War – everything becomes niche. It doesn’t mean you bin the capability. We have only 2 carriers, only7 SSNs, 3 Wedgetail AEWs – bin them? Who says the army is heading for 60,000 by 2030? Never heard that one. But knowing our politicians and Treasury bean counters, nothing would surprise me. Our army has always been expeditionary. The reason we invented the tank was to break the stalemeate of an expeditionary… Read more »
Totaly agree with your statement. It is not wise to look at the 2020’s as if it was a prolongation of 2010´s. The rupture point was 2018. Since then, military budget are on the rise and the battlefield corp is raising, almost everywhere in Europe, except may be Germany, who just took the turn recently with Mr Pistorius. I am not worried about the heavy battlecorp of UK. It will exists in due time, at the right level. Same thing here in France. We are somehow « happy » for what it may mean to be in third row. Poland, Baltic states,… Read more »
Thanks Math. I think our heavy forces are too small, but the onus is for continental European allies to have massed heavy armour. I would expect the larger European countries to have a deployable, warfighting army Corps, rather than just the Division that we have.
I agree we need Anglo-French cooperation in procurement, deployed training and operational deployments
👍
When we work together… everything is possible.
Ever decreasing circles…… You wouldn’t run a business like the way Government run this Country. Fact.
The Government has been running the country like a business – asset stripping it, giving big bonuses to the management, dividends to the new ( usually foreign) owners, Tupe on an industrial scale for the workers whilst simultaneously trashing the environment and public services and straining our constitution to breaking point. From HS2 to immigration to housing to defence (Ajax ) to energy security the incompetence and profligacy has been breathtaking. They are simply not officer. No surprise that Ben Wallace bailed out…one of the few who displayed any humility, integrity and competence.
I should have said “Small Business” We know how to run one, They just take Taxes and Piss them all away.
The problem is the government hasn’t run the country like business. If UK was a business then it would be a business with more admin and other non productive staff than productive staff. No business runs like that and survives. And it’s getting worse and won’t change with either of the 2 parties.
Wallace used sophistry when answering in Parliament; one of those to be hung with Bluffer when the time comes.
Daniele is mired in sorrow at the moment but will challenge my statement when he is hopefully back on his feet – The last 13 years have been a disaster for Defence!
Not at all, David. I liked Wallace, but he did indeed use sophistry in his answers in Parliament.
As for the last 13 years, I’d say they have been as bad as the 13 that preceded them. Army wise, at least stuff is now being ordered, which in Labour’s stint was barely the case.
Look Daniele, Labour got 2 mahoosive carriers built that has drained the rest of the Royal Navy of cash for the next decades to come. 😉
Albeit, putting Bombers on the payroll of MoD was equally bad by the Cons.
They did indeed. I shall refrain from listing what they did not do on this occasion for fear of playing the same old record.
They are both as bad as the other in my book.
I have scaled back my comments on CASD into core in 2010 as apparently it was always there according to one knowledgeable poster I was talking to recently who had seen docs to that effect.
As always we say we will buy it then the problems come. Was this not known before we decided to go for C3. Why not buy L 2 A8 a brand new built vehicle, already designed, tested.But no we had pick the biggest risk option.
Any idea what is replacing Warrior as a wheeled option is not the best idea.
Martin, the politicians statements are baffling to me. What is the problem as they see it – lack of CR2 hulls to supply RBSL for CR3 conversion? …or lack of CR2s left with units to deploy if the ballon goes up, because there are so many/too many at RBSL? Leo2 A8 is £19.2m each. Unaffordable. For a quarter of the price we will have an excellent tank – CR3 risk I would guess is relatively low – why do you think it is high? We have known since March 2021 that Boxer is to replace Warrior rather than upgraded Warrior… Read more »
umm there were 400 C2 hulls, now the statement says there are not enough? i agree in what respect are there not enough. C3 will be a great tank but it sounds like pre excues for when its delayed. Did they not work the numbers available out before signing a contract? As for Boxer to replace Warrior, bad idea but then those high up in the Army should have said this but as normal they keep quite. The MOD buys what the Army says it wants, needs, its the people who draw up the shopping list that need to accept… Read more »
There where 400 C2 hulls… in 1998. 40 odd went to Oman. 14 to Ukraine. 350 left, minus driver training tanks, and combat losses, make it about 300 for easy maths. Fifty of those are on high readyness/fwd deployed, so 250, minus those on training establishments leaving about 200. 80 of those are in deep storage, possibly don’t exist anymore: 120. Another 50 for the Armoured Regiment that’s working up, 70. Of those 70, how many are actually fit to simply drive off to RBSL and refit, how many need work on them before they can go? What condition where… Read more »
They have to go to Bovington to be stripped and overhauled then shipped to Telford for conversion . At last your fountain of knowledge has a flaw Ha Ha !
I don’t see the flaw? Unless you’re nitpicking that I didn’t detail the exact process between inspection and arrival at RBSL?
If i was nit picking i would say hulls are not frames and tanks don’t have keys !
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. That chip on your shoulder is showing pal.
We all have flaws I’m sure, Pete.
I know I do.
Dern is a SME here for army matters, with good reason, so I for one ignore any errors?
Raw nerve , cognitive dissonance, someone who never makes an an error has never achieved anything. To be human is fallible.
So, just mud slinging then?
I don’t really mind flaws pointing out, I freely admit my maths here is very fast and loose, eg I know that 50 for combat losses and driver training fleet is too high, but its close enough for a quick rough demonstration of how that 400 number can shrink very quickly, was actually expecting someone to point it out.
Mostly I’m just confused about what the actual flaw is Pete is pointing out, it just seems like he doesn’t like that I skimmed over something that wasn’t related to the point I’m making?
I also believe some were destroyed in the mid 2000s during the Future Army Structures cuts.
That’s a shame, a bit before my time so I wasn’t tracking it.
I know, almost bloody new. I think, and I may be wrong here as it was quite a while ago now, that was when 7 Sqns worth were cut.
About 40 were stripped at Bovington and hulls scrapped , cost more than storing them would for many years !
Awful decision.
Unbelievably stupid. Typical.
I think they leave them out in the rain! There is a carelessness that is hard to understand in the Army.
The army bought 386 CR2s and some driver training tanks, ISD 1998. [Oman bought 38 export variant CR2s]. The Cameron/Clegg austerity era cut defence and army reduced to 227 active tanks, the balance (ie 159 tanks) in storage but mothballed and declared ‘out of use’ tanks, of which some of those 159 were later scrapped – no idea why or on whose orders. MoD gifted UKR some 14 tanks in early 2023 so UK active tank fleet is now 213 CR2s. Everyone in MoD knows these numbers. Ajax is not mooted as a Warrior replacement – it is required for… Read more »
is Ajax not based on an Spanish in service IVF ASCOD we just messed about with it. It could be an Warrior replacement but the re design would cost, CV90 is the last workable option. Better than wheeled Boxer which will be crap deep mud, loose sand, and is under armored, under gunned ,
Yes. GDUK designed the Ajax recce vehicle based on the Austrian/Spanish ASCOD IFV which served as a ‘point of departure’ – and their Ajax design was much modified. Ajax could not be a Warrior replacement as it is a recce vehicle and cannot take a 8-man section. You suggest re-design but that would cost a lot and take time. Better to buy an IFV, such as CV90, which is a very good IFV. However, you know that MoD has decided to replace Warrior IFV with Boxer, rather than by upgraded Warrior (WCSP). I too consider Boxer very unsuitable to work… Read more »
Wheeled is never as good as track, not cross country. I have a feeling Boxer will not replace Warrior and will come when it tries to keep up with C2/3 and is found wanting.
Wondering, as a consequence of your comment, whether you believe CV90 would be the presumptive candidate chosen to fulfill a potential future UOR for a tracked IFV? Boxer acquisition evidently perceived by some as a flawed selection by senior Army staff of a Warrior replacement vehicle; however, have not noted any substantive reason why CR90 could not be addirionally acquired, if necessity dictates. Relatively straightforward matter of opening HMG’s checkbook? 🤔
Er…CV90…🙄
… additionally…🙄 (Memo to self: beware of late night typing!)
UORs are usually only generated ‘in wartime’ but can exceptionally be raised ‘in peacetime’ if the armed forces lacks a capability or needs an upgrade to match a hostile nation’s increased capability. Example – ‘wartime’ – masses of UORs were raised for Gulf War 1 and for ops in Afghanistan – examples of the former included external fuel tanks for CR1 and add-on armour – and of the latter being a whole slew of Protected Mobility vehicles and probably Vallon mine/IED detectors Example – ‘peacetime’ – Stillbrew add-on armour for turret cheeks of Chieftain, following information received about improved Soviet… Read more »
Thanks, appreciate the extensive explanation. Hmmm…evidently this IFV issue/dilemma and other capability shortfalls, could be resolved courtesy of a dustup sufficiently serious to highlight capability shortfalls, yet not serious enough to risk strategic defeat. Fortunately, you have a Commonwealth w/ what, conservatively, fifty plus members, spanning the globe? Guaranteed that some other country will intimidate or invade a member state in Africa, Asia or ME periodically. Simply make a judicious aelection. Hell, if nothing else pops, reasonably certain Uncle Sugar would be pleased to issue an invitation to our next dustup. 🤔😳😉
Thanks mate. The Commonwealth (56 countries) is of course not a formal military mutual aid grouping and its apparatus does not include military to military links etc. But of course there is nothing to stop a member reqesting military assistance from the UK, not specifically because they are in the Commonwealth but because they are a friend of Britain. There are several examples where military aid has been rendered, one readily springing to mind is Sierra Leone, who asked UK to take out ‘the West Side Boys’ an armed rebel group who had a habit of capturing UN soldiers. That… Read more »
It would be good to know how many of those 159 mothballed vehicles remain. Given that the C3 upgrade includes a new turret, suspension and armour upgrades and new electrics, one would think the hulls will be pretty much stripped down to bare metal and re-built so it won’t just be limited to the currently active fleet.
In that post I mentioned that some of the 159 out of service tanks were scrapped. Apparently 40-43 CR2s in storage were scrapped in the 2010-2014 period – I don’t know why or who authorised it, as it is virtually unheard of to scrap equipment that has not been declared Obsolete.
No reports of the remaining c120 tanks being scrapped so they will be in sheds in Ashchurch. Obviously in varying condition, but probably terrible – as no-one will have done any maintenance on them since 2010 and many/most all will have had many spares stripped off.
Thank you, very interesting. So potentially 213+120 available for upgrade to C3. When you look at the number of MBTs v recce vehicles in the US Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, I do wonder a bit about the investment choices the British Army is making between Ajax and C3.
Thanks Nathan. The 213+120 is my estimate of the number of tanks we have left, the 120 being out-of service and probably in dog-awful condition. We only need to feed 148 tanks to RBSL for conversion to CR3 over the next 6-7 years, whilst maintaining enough CR2 capability for the Field Army and Trg Org. Not sure of the US numbers, but we have a bare minimum of tanks in our ABCTs – just one armoured regiment of 56 tanks. That Regt will have a Recce Troop of 8 x Ajax doing close recce. The Brigade have Ajax doing medium… Read more »
That is one armoured regiment per ABCT of course.
Agreed. I support the DRSB, but it should be a divisional asset in addition to the 3 manouevre bdes. The 2015 cuts reducing to 2 Armoured and 2 Strike caused this.
Yep, fully agree. The logic for 3 manouevre bdes is unquestionable. You can have 2 of such bdes fwd and 1 in depth or vice versa – depending on frontage to cover, whether you are in defence or on the offence etc etc. Just having 2 manouevre bdes gives you no such flexibility on placement. If you put those 2 bdes forward to cover the frontage you have nothing in depth – ouch! They will be bypassed and not checked and you will have havoc in the rear. There is a strong view (or used to be) amongst the thinkers… Read more »
There was a lot of chat and input on X about the actual number of CR2 that remained in (ALL) conditions and the number reached was 302.
We bought 386.
Qty 43 scrapped in 2010-2014:
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/dozens-of-british-challenger-2-tanks-destroyed-netizens-say/
https://globaleuronews.com/2023/07/31/times-uk-to-scrap-challenger-2-tanks-instead-of-handing-them-over-to-kiev/
14 gifted to UKR in early 2023.
We should have 329 left, of which 213 are ‘in-service’ and 116 are ‘out of service’.
It’s started…….delays and more delays and cost overruns. We armchair amateurs warned this could happen and at the end of the process, we gain just 148 machines. The fun will probably begin once enough tanks are released for testing and the bloody weight issues and gun show the chances of early fatigue. The UK MBT status is a joke and we all know why we have ended up in this mess. Ukraine has proved 148 MBTs would be a drop in the ocean and that is a conflict restricted to one country.
What cost overruns?
It’s a fixed contract isn’t ? Buying off the shelf and starting the whole process like some on want is just bonkers and would cost a fortune not taking account how many years it would take🙄
Exactly. I did some work for Rheinmetall on CR2 LEP (now CR3) in 2016. This project is longstanding, is up and running, contracts signed, metal cut, design reviews completed, prototypes being built. To suggest we stop everything, pay huge cancellation fees and then beg the Treasury for more billions to buy a foreign tank off the shelf is ‘pie in the sky’. Leopard 2 A8 is £19.2m a copy!!
Just wait, Graham.
The omens are quite good. Lots of prep done – I worked for Rheinmetall in 2016 on this. A great company chosen – RBSL, with good facilities. Lots of time allocated. Lots of budget allocated. I hope and expect minimal delays, no cost overruns and a great product – albeit one that we should have had years ago and there not being enough tanks modernised.
I admire your optimism and you are right the German component is a sure-fired partner. However, I can’t help recalling Warrior 2 issues where new bits just did not fit universally and required some bespoke rework as it appeared no one vehicle was the same! Or the pain we witnessed during the Nimrod 2 farce. The CH3 makes sense on paper but Blacknight may have been a wiser move by retaining the current turret architecture thus avoiding unique structures secured to old foundations.
I only have optimism if there is reason for it. Usually I am pessimistic and cynical! Warrior 2? Not heard of that. Do tell more. Nimrod MRA4 was a fiasco thanks largely to the Treasury – BAE had clearly advised that new airframes were required but HMT thought they knew better. Black Night, the BAE TDP offering. I was in the opposing team working for Rheinmetall, so maybe I am biased. The weaknesses of Black Night were: retention of the ageing rifled cannon, and the lack of automotive improvements. I much preferred Rheinmetall’s new turret option with the smoothbore gun… Read more »
I am cynical on this issue because the effort is so limited in scope. The current 148 are too few if we were fighting a Ukrainian-type conflict. The fleet would most probably be spent in a few weeks, then where would we be? I don’t doubt the tank will be impressive but I do not want to start hearing voices talking about difficulties and delays, which by the way are costly. Hence, cost overruns.
Of those 148, a max of 112 would be fielded with the two armd regts. In a Ukraine type war, with the rest of NATO alongside of course, I would be horrified if we lost 112 tanks in a few weeks – we are not as bad as the Orcs.
Ukraine has lost 1 CR2 of the 14 gifted – a far lower number lost than their Leo2s lost. This might indicate the quality of even the old original CR2 without TES kit etc. Shiny new CR3s would have even greater survival prospects.
Warrior 2? What is that?
I am going butt in here. The Warrior capability sustainment program (WCSP), was completely different. For starters the company that won the bid to upgrade and overhaul Warrior were not the vehicle’s design authority. Secondly Lockheed Martin UK was a brand new company, whose work force had next to no or very limited experience working on military vehicles. Thirdly it was a program run by project managers, who only knew how to work to defined time lines. When arising technical issues occurred they did not know how to cope with them or how to flex the program to make it… Read more »
That Warrior update was constantly being delayed to the point that it became a joke. The original vehicle was brilliant and the refresh as you say had issues with inexperienced teams. There must have been real concerns about costs when the whole plan was cancelled and pitching the then Army strategy into a spiral. It would have taken a very brave guy to tell the MOD that all issues could be fixed within a year! CH3 is already slipping and that will result in cost overruns. Now we must keep an eye on Boxer and hope it's ISD is met… Read more »
A person who worked on Warrior said the management bit hostile ,had deaf ears to any suggestions from trials team, some hostility between ex-forces and civi mechanics, some testers got sacked for failing to torque running gear ( got a bit loose lol) . Did not understand that measurements varied , brackets and fixings need adjustment eg slots . Complicated solutions where simple approach would work better. Did not supply and rag for cleaning. Chain gun orientation due to space constraints caused ejection port jams (disputed by some on here along with barrel wobble ! ).
One of my colleagues was on the trials team, whilst another was in finance. They said the same about the management team. That they weren’t able to flex the plan. If it didn’t meet the schedule or was an arising issue. They’d move it aside and deal with it later. Thereby trying to keep to the timeline but forming a huge backlog of issues that came to a head further down the program.
Another incident was poor routing of power cables/ lack of clipping in engine bay. When the power pack was dropped in it damaged cable and burned away engine mount. Its sad that they did not fit the BAE sourced turret and 30 mm cannon as used on the warrior 2 prototype for Swiss competition as it would have worked !
The TES megatron armor works and adds about 12 ton so it won’t have same problem as AJAX !
Of those 148 CR3s only two regiments in the front line under the FS Orbat, so only 112 deployed at best.
Graham, these numbers are pathetic and deeply worrying.
They sure are. Under Future Soldier, just one tank unit in each armoured brigade (ABCT) and none in the ‘3rd brigade’ of 3 Div as it has a different role – Deep Strike/Recce. Very slender Attrition Reserve too.
Buy 400-500 EMBTs with France to replace Chally 2 and Leclerc.
The UK, France and Germany become stronger.
It’s a win.
From what I have read over the last couple of months regarding the EMBT, it’s unofficially dead. That’s the impression from the article from publications in France.
The EMBT is not dead (it is a KNDS project, not the main political project).
You’re probably talking about the MGCS, which is still on the way for the moment.
Yes. I realised this when I was reading another article. The program I was referring to was the MGCS. The EMBT is scheduled for 2040. I do apologise.
I think are sort of done with Anglo French / German anything defence related Hermes, it just never seems to end well unfortunately.
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
We need reliable partners where we can build in and rely upon intellectual property shared, development costs shared and production costs shared.
Not to forget training costs and sales effort decluttered from ‘constitutional issues.”
Sad isn’t it David, we should absolutely be developing defence systems of all sorts with our European partners.
Sadly it’s proven to be a no go, over and over again.
There have been success stories – Tornado, Typhoon, Puma helicopter, FH70.
Unfortunately Graham, Tornado probably went the smoothest, but the initially envisioned multi role aircraft that started life as the AFVGA before morphing into the UKVGA, a sort of (European Phantom equivalent) became a European central front, relatively small and short ranged dedicated strike aircraft. This was mainly at the instance of Germany, we went along with it as we desperately needed German money…. Thypoon, again the French caused trouble before jumping ship and the Germans are still causing trouble 4 decades in, slowing development and damaging sales prospects… At least this time the UK stuck to it’s guns and forced… Read more »
I love the fact that in the UK’s def communities, it’s never their fault. Just like the Germans and the French while in reality, everyone shares a part of responsibility. But I don’t care for the past. In the case of France, I think “France first” is a real wall for cooperation, as you said, sadly history has proved to us that you can’t trust the British and rely on them, and it’s even worse with the Germans. Despite this, I still think we should try to cooperate, again and again, we’ve created MBDA, we’re trying to create KNDS, and… Read more »
Sadly Hermes, I think you are right regarding Anglo French cooperation. Europe’s two primary defence industrial powers should absolutely be working together. It’s a tragic state of affairs. I would take issue with your assessment of the British being the problem however. Let’s list the programme’s the French were difficult with. Jaguar, France damaged exports by pushing it’s own products instead. This was carried out by French members of the Jaguar sales team! AFVGA, France withdrew from what would have been an excellent multi role combat aircraft that would have sold really well world wide. The Anglo French Helicopter deal.… Read more »
When you look at it from French perspective, you will hear (UK) Aukus, petroleum stories, Mers El Kebir, US submission, F35, Belgium created against France, (Germany) hot 3, Tiger 3, Apaches, MGCS, Maritime patrol, (Spain) S80 submarines based on stolen design, etc, etc… Reasons to be bitter exists in every sides. Fact that will not change is the need to cooperate to secure Atlantic ocean sea lines, mediteranean lines until India, growing world population. I hope that your gouvernment and mine will be able to encourage cooperation. I am fine in Germany and UK, as well as in Italy and… Read more »
To be fair Math, you tried hard to come up with a list, but it’s all really rather vague.
I’ll give you AUKUS, but when you look at the sheer amount of French knives in our back, all’s fair in business, as the French will tell you.
Totally agree that Europe should cooperate in defence matters, but alas, the Franco German fighter project was created, excluding the UK and slammed the door shut on any further UK fixed wing defence participation.
I have a feeling that the UK, Japan and Italy will make a superb team.
Er part of my family originate in France and when asked, the chairman of the company why we don’t do business in France he said, ‘ Unfortunately the French will always try to get the better of the deal or they wont do business!’.
Sorry to say that.
What literally everyone does… Or they don’t last long in business…
We remember that the British declared war to get better deals…
It’s funny to say things about the French like it’s something weird when you’re doing it yourself…
You left out the Horizon Frigate project, when 1st scoped we were going to build 12, Italy and France 2 each. Problem was the French wanted design lead and a 3rd of the work.
We walked away and T45 was our version.
True, but I also think the partners had different goals, the French and Italians more focused on a Med, while the UK required a slightly larger ship with better sea keeping abilities, with our traditional North Atlantic area of operations in mind.
Thanks for that John. At least these aero projects got built. Not many good examples in the Sea or Land sector of multinational collaboration actually producing usable kit.
True Graham, if anything, the European squabbling is getting worse unfortunately.
The French wer offered a cat’s and traps version of our QE Class, for their second carrier, they should have taken up the offer. I personally doubt their nuclear powered 80,000 ton carrier will ever happen.
I’m certainly glad we are looking internationally for our new defence partners.
Well, we have a constraint slightly overlooked. French interests and citizens are in the Indian and Pacific Ocean. So we will have the behemoth 80 000 ton carrier. In the mediteranean, we will patrol with Italy, but the carrier is for Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Airbases in UAE and in Cyprus (planned) covers what has to be covered there.
The QE class was not with catapult, so no early warning. That’s why we could not proceed. French naval carrier is for winning battle at sea.
There is a very large RAF airbase in Cyprus, that France would be more than welcome to use whenever it needed to, why would France build another one?? As for the 80,000 ton Carrier, I doubt it will ever happen, at least in its current guise. The Americans did precisely this, on a slightly scaled up fashion with the Ford Class and the complexity and ‘massive’ cost overruns nearly broke their Naval budget! A one off nuclear powered Carrier of this scale will cost a vast amount of money, not just to build, but also to operate. I think it’s… Read more »
And they will be replacing their Boomers at the same time as finishing off their SSNs.
I cant see a happy ending or a timely one unless they sell to Argentina.
Despite opting for Ch3, as an interim solution for our MBT force, the UK has since 2021 held ‘observer’ status in this programme. Believe that we are just casting a wider net as possible for future options.
You are talking about the MGCS, EMBT is another thing.
Yes, but are they not two branches of the same tree – ie next gen MBT for France/Germany and?
As with @COLL above, realised my error with MGCS and EMBT after revisiting an article. apologies Hermes.
EMBT is a German chassis n’y a French turret, I don’t know if it can evolve to a product. I whish, but Germany want’s to push ahead the Leo.
EMBT for those that don’t know – a hybrid combining the hull of a Leopard 2A7 with the lighter, two-man turret of a Leclerc. Hardly cutting edge (A7 has already been superseded) and FOC of 2040. Not great.
Quite different already and still changing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1t_myR6h4
Also long waiting list, a lot of people here are upset that it’ll take until 2030 for Challenger 3 to come online, but the suggestion we carry on with Challenger 2 into the 2040s? I don’t see it happening.
IOC for CR3 – 2027; FOC is 2030. Not sure why anyone would think we have CR2 in the 2040s.
Do you mean the MGCS or the EMBT (Leclerc Turret on Leo2 Hull) ?.
The first EMBT was simply a Leclerc turret + Leo2 hull, but it’s evolved.
The EMBT now has a totally new turret with new sensors, RWS ARX30 (30mm), and has been designed to fit the ASCALON 140mm.
So the EMBT is becoming a serious player in the MBT game.
That sounds good. Some
Serious adjusting may be needed to tanks to deal with drones, mines and all the other incoming. Armour just doesn’t seem to be enough all over the tank.
Yes, that’s one of the ARX30’s raisons d’être with high elevation and air burst ammunition.
I don’t know exactly what sensors have been added to the hull for drone detection, but it’s easy enough to have a high-resolution camera with a bit of artificial intelligence to warn the crew today.
Maybe it’s time to buy off the shelf Leopard 2s from Germany with a trade off on the typhoons for Saudi . They would be cheaper and a proven modern battle tank . We could always retro fit the Dorchester armour .
Why ? Leopard 2 is no better than C2, in fact it’s inferior in many ways, C3 will be the top dog, allbeit in far fewer numbers.
Why are you negative about CR3?
Delivery times for New Build Leo2’s would be very long,CR3 is the quicker option and vastly cheaper.
Yeah we could buy l2 then go cap in hand to the Germans every time we want to deploy them as was shown when countrys wanted to give them to Ukraine
Leo2 A8 costs £19.2m a copy. Unaffordable. We could buy older Leo2s, but whats the point? They would be no better than CR2.
Many people here are under the illusion the ‘government ‘ runs the country……
It does not….
It’s the senior civil service….that’s why nothing changes when government changes.
The MOD is a prime example. You have the same civil servants , who couldn’t organise an orgy in a brothel, making major defence decisions on things they know F all about…..
And it’s time the armed forced started buying quality goods off the shelf from abroad…that would focus the minds of UK defence Contractors!
Yep and as soon as anyone tries to stand up to the civil service there days are numbered. Airlines and Oil companies for example buy large assets for billions an don’t get their pants pulled down like the civil service do.
The CV90 recce variant? I am sure you are right.
Cv90 and Ajax are 2 different types of vehicles one is a personal carrier the other isn’t
Why do we need any tanks? Give me a couple of hundred HIMARS any day. Blue touch paper lit 😈
Taking ground for starters mate.
Maybe but where. I can only see two places where we are likely to use tanks. One is helping to defend the Baltic States, in which case I’ll stay with the Deep Fires idea. The Poles and the Germans alone will be deploying well over two thousand tanks, not to mention the other nations. The second is the middle east but with probably only a hundred or so actually available for combat where are they going to be based?🙂
Are the Poles and Germans in Estonia which is our area of responsibility? Where would they be based? Where they are now, in Tidworth. If needed, they would be shipped out by Points, or even forward based at Ras Madrakah or the joint logistics facility at Duqm. Once a capability is gone, it is gone, and would take even greater effort as skills are lost. I actually support your wider light expeditionary ideas for the army ( do all that in 1 UK Div ) you listed elsewhere, and I also prioritise the Royal Artillery. But, I believe we need… Read more »
I don’t have a problem with armour as such either. The question is what we’ll end up with. By 2030, if we’re lucky we’ll have two small brigades with probably no more than fifty Challie’s apiece, backed up by wheeled Boxers and X number of Ajax if they ever come out of proving trials. Then we have one Deep Recce.Strike something or other with Ajax and a diminishing (at the moment at least) artillery force. About a third of each brigade is from the reserve. An awful long way from what was planned only ten years ago.
Evening, Geoffrey. Yes, you are broadly correct. Though I myself do not see those 2 Brigades as small. Granted, previously they had 3 regular Infantry Battalions, now but 2. But they have their other components. Ideally we would have the 3 like we had pre 2015 reorg. I support the DRSB myself. Tube artillery has diminished, yes, as AS90 s have been given to Ukraine. A reminder that in Deep Fires the 35 GMLRS expand to number 75, with 10 additional recovery vehicles. DRSB lacks it’s own infantry and most regular CSS elements. It relies on a composite reserve CSS… Read more »
Hi Daniele, Been away for a couple of days. Sadly, I am correct. I wish I wasn’t. We have a couple of regular brigades with 100 MBT’s and whatever ( I don’t know yet in terms of quality or numbers ). A long, long way from BAOR or even the2015 defence paper. GMLR’s are good but we haven’t got them yet. Why does DRSB have to be entirely separate. Surely some units with infantry and CSS should be incorporated into each brigade.🙄
I watched the video of the DSC meeting. I wasn’t convinced that their concerns over the CR3 programme were all that serious TBH. It might take a little more time to get to fruition, but that isn’t surprising given the material state of and lack of upgrades to CR2. It still looks to be an excellent upgrade, albeit we’d like more of course.
Is the video on iPlayer under BBC Parliament?
Parliament website. I just did a google search for the select committee.
Given C3 will use existing C2 hulls, is there intent to address the weak spot of C2 with regard to the front glacis plate (reported to be just 70mm of steel)? Can Dorchester armour be retrofitted?
There are pictures of Ukrainian C2s with makeshift steel plates added to the glacis plate with a gap in between for obvious reasons.
Speaking of Ukraine, why didn’t we give them the add-on armour packages? Weight too heavy?
The Armour Package for CR3 will be a major step up from the Chobham/Dorchester used on CR2,the next iteration is called Epsom and Farnham,the Glacis weak spot had been mitigated even as far back as CR1.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for getting back with me; so is the mitigation for the front glacis plate the addition of bolt on armour? If so, then C3 will also be using it. I would love to know if Epsom/Farnham can be added to an existing hull. Thank you again.
There have long been retrofits for the front glacis plate, both ERA blocks and Dorchester armour blocks that can be bolted on. We didn’t give them to ukraine, probably either because of weight issues, or because we wanted to keep our Theatre Entry Kits for ourselves.
Hey Dern, I was thinking it had to be a weight issue. We only gave Ukraine 14 C2s, so I thought we would have enough Theatre Entry Kits to spare. I read elsewhere that had the C2 that was lost in Ukraine had the add-on armour, it could have saved it from the missile strike (not the initial mine damage). Does anyone know if the knocked out C2 was recovered and if so, could it be repaired? I’m thinking it would be a write-off as the turret was dislodged. Anyway, would love to know more details on this. Thank you… Read more »
I don’t know anything about the knocked out C2 I’m afraid, there where a lot of rumours and contradictory statements about what happened to it at the time and I suspect that, unless there was recovery and Ukraine releases a in detail report about the damage, exactly what happened will always be at least a bit of a ? Same reason I have a open opinion on add on armour. If that was artillery or a top attack missile, I don’t think it would have made a difference, but maybe if it was a dual charge missile? Again, this would… Read more »
Save for some ERA Blocks on the Turret sides the CR2’s supplied to Ukraine had no Armour Upgrades,they were pretty much basic spec.The fate of the knocked out example is a mystery,ive not seen anything about it’s status,i would hope it was at least recovered from the Battlefield.The BA has very few TES Kits available so unlikely these were ever going to be supplied too.
We gave UKR 2 x CRARRVs. I am sure they would have recovered the knocked out CR2 for many reasons.
We didn’t give Ukraine the Theatre Entry Kit as its still classified as secret. The kit includes a bloody huge slab of Dorchester for the lower glacis, which is supposed to remedy the problem. Originally for Gulf War 2, they added explosive reactive armour (ERA) to the lower glacis. But that didn’t work too well against tandem charge RPGs and ATGWs. As Ukraine can’t have the Dorchester, they have added their own modified armour, though I’m surprised that they haven’t included ERA.
Couple of things if we bought new ,how long to deliver, and at what cost both in monetary and loss of skill, next those comparing to Ukraine need to remember that they have a battle line over 1000km and approx 1million persons under arms. Yes we need a larger military but where are the volunteers coming from as recruit and retention is a major problem as it stands now
The simple answer is too long .
Exactly
Up front Army is not my area, so this is probably a Daft question but do the production jigs for the CR2 hulls still exist ? And if so has anyone asked Rafael up at Tyneside if they could build new ones. As for Engines and Transmissions adapt the MTU ones to fit (everyone else does), Horstmann are still around for suspension.
Suggestions sound sensible. I was ‘involved’ in the then M40 coded then named Challenger. Amazing firing capability , sucks the air out of you lungs then pressurises back in when near to it. Very accurate when moving fast too. However with a very close contact recently left army who was a driver on Eastern Europe front line with many Challengers pre Russian invasion as it was expected ( apparently) …..says they are so unreliable. Electronic or Computer issues and all you can do is call in for a recovery as fix was beyond crews ability on maneuver. Took ages waiting… Read more »
Alledgedly the answer is yes – some Jigs are still at the Armstrong Works ( Newcastle ) Pearson Engineering have them or have access to them,not sure if they are the Hull ones though.
Allegedly yes, but practically, as I understand it: no. Finding them, and reaqurining them, if they are even in any kind of serviceable state, would probably be a major undertaking in and of itself.
BAE offers to store jigs at Government expense as they are a business so that would be a no !
I once doubted that CR2 jigs would still exist some 20 years after production ceased but I’m sure someone on UKDJ said they might be. Why do you ask? No point building more 20-25 year old tanks.
A story I had read was that Vickers in their wisdom actually duplicated CR2 Production for both Leeds and Newcastle for potential Export Orders that never arrived, so there should have been two sets of Tooling and Jigs etc.
That worked out well then! They only sold 38 tanks for export.
Exactly, to be fair they wouldn’t have known Germany was about to flood the market with second hand Tanks.
Hi Graham as I said Army is not my area of knowledge but I don’t understand that logic can you expand on it a bit ? On one hand you are very supportive of the CR3 upgraded CR2 (old wine in new bottle). But on the other see no point in building new hulls with modern engines and transmissions for CR3 as it’s a 25 year old design. The Germans are still building new Leopard 2’s for themselves and exports and that hull design is 45 YO next year. People like yourself and Daniele all say the CR3 is better… Read more »
We really should have done incremental upgrades on CR2 over the years since it was first fielded in 1998. Upgrades could have been done at the same time as Base Overhaul, roughly every 7 years. Given that an AFV should last about 25 years, we should be replacing our current tank with a brand new one about now. However that is not where we are and there is a taut budget. So a different approach. New tanks cost too much for our budget – Leo2 A8 costs £19.2m each, although other tanks are cheaper. We would not buy Abrams. There… Read more »
Regarding the last bit about the RN, everyone keeps on saying we need more of this and that. But unless someone decided to scrap even more of the RAF and reduce the Army to an expeditionary force there isn’t the money, manpower or support facilities to do much. If we are really lucky we may see a few more Frigates and the T45 replaced with 8 T83, due to AUKUS we may see maybe 2/3 more SSN. You can forget SSK we just don’t do that anymore and besides which there’s nowhere to build them on top of the RN/RAN… Read more »
Spot on. Modest, achievable increases in those areas given the money and manpower available.
I favour a RN, RAF first policy, but I would not want to see other services gutted further to fund it.
“Overall and given the size of the RFA a reasonably well balanced fleet would be 16 Frigates (8T26/8T31), 8 T83, 2 2CV and 10 SSN. That may not sound a lot compared to the 1970’s but it’s way more than most possible adversaries can stick in the Atlantic.”
Deal, I’d take that right now and be a very happy bunny.
Hi M8, I’m going to set aside getting involved with the Army procurement issues as it isn’t really my sphere of knowledge and it’s as Mad as a Box of Frogs. There also seems to be a couple of folks who are just immobile from their thought processes when it comes to the CR3 and Ajax. I know from my own experience that U.K industry has an odd habit of pulling Rabbits out of hats if the powers that be bother ask the right open questions. But that can involve Egg on Faces as to why the obvious wasn’t asked… Read more »
True. At the moment I’d vote monster raving if they gave a proper increase in the budget with assets to match.
Thanks. The army is expeditionary – every deployment is overseas – Op Banner was an aberration. Only a lunatic would reduce the army to below 73,000 – itself such a low figure that certain operations can no longer be done.
SSK – I realise that we have not done that for a long time but they are cheaper than SSNs – and the Germans can build them for us.
Graham I take it you are ex Army and I wouldn’t step on the toes of someone who knows their business. But it’s not going to happen, we will spend any available money on more SSN’s as that is what we need for our tasking. Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and Norway have that end covered. The other reasons are complex but starts off with Crewing / Training. The RN Submarine force is struggling to recruit and retain crews for the Boats we have and the £££’s being offered for the specialists is eye watering. For decades the entire training, maintenance… Read more »
I accept that I am not a naval SME, just an interested observor. It seems that the navy only wants gold plated exotica in the submarine service and would not consider League Division 2 kit in addition. The downside is the tiny size of the attack sub fleet. Too small to be much use by global Britain – only 2 or 3 are likely to be available for operational tasking. The army is different – they have a range of equipment of varying complexity levels and ‘price points’. Currently infantry can ride in a Warrior, protected mobility wheeled vehicle or… Read more »
One of the things I like about this site is that once you strip away all Twits you tend to find a hardcore of reliable SME from different backgrounds and walks of life. Some are ex forces, some are ex project managers, some civil servants and some are retired engineers. The funny thing about the later is that regardless of the kit or technology there are certain cross over principles and common points of reference. Must haves, desirable and nice to have being 3 when deciding what you need are just a few. I will admit that I and others… Read more »
Thanks. I always thought that the CASD boat was defended by a SSN. Others on this site have said that the SSBN ‘flies solo’, which greatly surprised me. Who knows for sure? I am sure we don’t have the 6-7 strong SSN fleet just to protect the bomber. Hunter-killers deployed with the Falklands task force and I am sure that 1 or 2 will surely be assigned to a contemporary Carrier group. If the SSNs exist to defend the at-sea bomber, accompany a deployed carrier group, patrol distant oceans as singletons or even pairs – then we need way more… Read more »
As I understand it they do fly solo (like that expression), but there is usually one tasked to shadow them out to and back from the deep Atlantic access points. It’s the shallows where they are most vulnerable to interference. Once out there they just go deep and quiet, like a ghost. It’s always amazed me that given that there are multiple deep trenches and access points one of our V’s bumped into a French T a few years ago. We aren’t alone in not having conventional submarines the French and US don’t either and it’s the same reason as… Read more »
Thanks. The 40mm CTAS cannon is stabilised. That is fitted to Ajax and would have been fitted to upgraded Warrior (WCSP) except that project got canned.
30mm Rarden cannon gets dropped – was fitted to Scimitar (all gone now) and in-service Warrior, which will be pensioned off in favour of Boxer.
Predictably the 40mm Systems that the RN and BA are about to use are completely different – no commonality whatsoever 😖
For a prospective sale to Greece, Vickers then BAe, made the Challenger 2E. It had upgraded optics and a new fire control computer. But also included the MTU engine used in the Leopard 2. Sadly the competition was won by the Leopard. Wiki has a small piece on it.
France and Italy are upgrading a similarly small number of MBTs, Leclerc 200 by 2029 and Ariete 90 + option for 35 by 2030. The only MBT still in production in W Europe is Leopard 2. A lower risk/cost option would have been BAEs Black Knight upgrade which kept the existing rifled gun. But there doesn’t seem to be much hard evidence that the Ch3 programme is in difficulty. It was always fairly leisurely with FOC in 2030. What we would do in the meantime if we needed a major deployment with some vehicles modernized and others not, I don’t… Read more »
Keeping the Rifled gun was a nonstarter though, as far back as CLIP it was realised the gun had to go. Not only because our ammunition was not keeping up with wider NATO developments, but also because sourcing ammunition for the smoothbore gun was becoming problematic. As for a mixed fleet, it wouldn’t be the first time we had to deal with a major development with one, for most of the history of the British Army we had multiple marks of tank (or different models completely). We’d probably just put all the 3’s in one regiment and all the 2’s… Read more »
There was no problem getting the APFSDS (Fin) Charm and tungsten “training” rounds, as BAe still make it. The problem was HESH as BAe stopped making it. This is now sourced from a Belgium manufacturer.
The L30 rifled gun is awesome, however, it is the ammunition’s effectiveness that is now the limiting factor. The two part (three part including the vent tube) ammunition, just didn’t get further money spent on its development. Plus the Fin round had pretty much plateaued in its armour penetration. As you can’t make the dart any longer, which you can with one piece ammunition.
True, we had a mixed Chieftain/Chally 1 fleet from 1983 to the mid/late 90s. CR2 replaced both from its ISD in 1998.
The army website said that it was ‘expected’ that the first CR3 prototype would be available at the end of the year (did not say whether calendar year or financial year).
If we had to ever deploy with a CR2/CR3 mix, then we would do so.
For many years we had a mixed Chieftain/CR1 fleet.
Thought we had ear marked the South Korean K9A2 under UK build And the 14X Archers was just a stop gap until K9 155MM was built Poland has bought 180 x K2 TANKS from South Korea if they can find the money we can
The K9 is an SPG not a tank.
Here’s a thought, since the Chally 3’s turrets are new build why not mate them to the Leopard 2A7/8 chassis? The production line for those tanks are still hot, we could then build as many Challenger 3’s as we’d like that would be comepletely brand new rather than refurbished; With the added benefit of sharing a common hull and powerpack with over a dozen fellow NATO armies. Shouldn’t be too much of a technical issue, we’ve seen this done before in the past with Vickers, and more recently the EMBT demonstrator from KNDS that combined the Leclerc turret and Leopard… Read more »
Cost and lack of UK production are the short answers.
Your basically describing the Vickers Mk7 which despite a lot of promise failed as a project, the same issues would be relevant to today.
I think it failed as a project because no-one bought any. Western nations had or were getting something more advanced and Third World nations didn’t have the money to buy them (and arguably didn’t need the extra sophistication).
Armoured Archives has a good YT Video on the MK7,it explains why the Tank never got any sales.
Many thanks. Very interesting video.
There would a number of issues. Firstly the Leopard uses torsion bar suspension compared the Challenger’s hydrogas. The hydrogas suspension units are on the outside of the hull and are very easy to replace if damaged. Not so torsion bars. Secondly if you buy German military goods, they can veto the supply of spares, if they deem it. This is also true for re-export in the future, it will need German agreement to sell on the vehicle.
The Polish government has signed deals to buy nearly 1,300 brand-new tanks from the United States and South Korea.If Trumps get his 2nd term he wants to pull US out of NATO. I cannot believe that this country spends more time looking to build it in UK and spend more money like the AJAX on complete useless equipment. We need Numbers on the ground now I see they want to put cat and traps on the UK carriers no sub as sea no aircraft on the carriers should have converted POW in build for cats and traps the Mod Procurement… Read more »
First of all, Trump doesn’t want to pull the US out of NATO, and even if he did, he wouldn’t have the constitutional authority to do it as President.
Mr Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to pull the US out of NATO becuase “the Europeans” don’t pay the 2% of GDP that he demands of them. Numerous people who were working in his administration when he was president are on record has saying that Trump ordered them to produce plans to leave NATO. Bolton, Pompeo, even Stoltenberg have confirmed it. Trump only started to seriously discuss America leaving NATO after Putin’s visit in 2018. Do you remember that? The one where Mr Trump went for a 20 minute walk alone with Putin and then refused to say… Read more »
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave means that you have to be brave enough to defend your freedom. That includes Judges.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says insurrection disqualifies 45th from further election attempts.
Each Secretary of State has a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States by correctly managing the election ballot free of insurrection supporters.
Believe last paragraph references a duty of US Attorney General, not Secretary of State. 🤔
Thank you kindly for local knowledge. I was told that the State Ballot of Election for President was the responsibility of each Secretary of State. In other words its not a Federal matter rather for each of the United States to say who can be on their State Ballot. I agree that the SoS will rely on expert legal help from the Attorney General. There seem to be plenty of lawyers in public service at County, State and Federal level, so why not… It seems that the Judges are finding several reasons to duck the issue, so not brave, even… Read more »
Ah, sorry, misunderstood context of your comment. Ideally handled by states, but contesting elections has become a growth industry and the full employment act for underemployed attorneys/solicitors practicing at all levels, local, state and federal, as well as w/ unaffiliated special interest groups. Would be pleased if we were allowed to export the surplus to other countries, including your fair land.
I hear most European nations now do spend 2% of GDP on defence, or are very close to so doing.
In our case it seems that only by including defence sector pensions and other fudges enabled us to make the 2%. But you are right about most of the other NATO countries meeting it
It’s actually the only thing in his 4 years stint that he said that was worth a damn and needed his diplomatic touch. Most ignored him and then Feb 22 lit them up.
Some of the NATO members are pretty poor, but Canada, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany aren’t and are really dragging their feet.
The French have stepped it up, as have most of the Nordics, all the Baltics and as for Poland they seem to have decided to not take any $#1T of anyone (can’t blame them really).
It helps the Poles that their economy is dong well, but they are really in the front line and have been fought over and occupied in living memory by two dictatorial regimes.
Good Morning ! The great benefit of an economy with steady 4%+ annual growth in GDP is the ability to flex and borrow when required and know you can pay it back. We can only dream of growth like that and Poland isn’t just investing in Off the Shelf items, they are spending big on their own capacity. As for their attitude to the their bigger neighbours it’s not only understandable it’s ingrained in their souls. My 1st GF was 2nd generation UK Polish, her father was a dapper little man who was a BR Ticket Collector and originally from… Read more »
Great dits. My wife and I have been to Krakow twice and enjoyed Polish friendliness and their food.
Failing to field the Braveheart mods to AS90 years back is sadly yet another example of failing to upgrade our AFVs.
…”needed his [Trump’s] ‘diplomatic’ touch.” 😉 Intended or serendipitous usage of British tongue-in-cheek, understated and wry humor? 🤔
Yep he is about as subtle as a swift kick between the legs. But to be honest the US had been trying nice for decades and it just wasn’t working. I’m not convinced Germany will really step up anyway. Now if you like tongue in cheek, understated and just a bit of devilish poetic justice try my next bright idea. If he doesn’t get elected or end up in the clink (I hope he really doesn’t get re elected) then the next guy should pinch his play book and give him the job of US Ambassador to “Yes we are… Read more »
Believe that the majority of citizens of non-NA NATO countries are slowly, painfully embracing the concept that a credible European military force is a matter of enlightened self-interest, given current events. Years, or perhaps decades, will pass before fruition, but believe intent and progress demonstrated. Frontline Eastern Europeans states, virtually w/out exception (other than Hungary), implicitly understand and are addressing situation. The UK is well positioned to make common cause w/, and become the institutional leader of, a NATO bloc which includes Poland, the Baltic states, the Nordic countries, Denmark and the Netherlands, and possibly Italy. The French, Germans and… Read more »
It’s actually a logical extension of the long term US/UK mutual defence and cooperation treaty. If anyone had thought 60:years ago that this could happen I’d be surprised. It’s a leap of faith to cover the desire of Australia for 1st class defence, the mutual advantage of spreading the load whilst balancing the treaty obligations. The Devil is in the detail and that is tied to the NPT, we can arm Australia with Nuclear submarines, we can train them to use those and maintain most of the tech involved. But under no circumstances can we allow them to have access… Read more »
Exactly. Hopefully, ChiComs will read and heed the gist of your arguments. Doubtful re the French. 😁😉
Exactly. (Doubtful if the French will forgive or forget. 😁😉)
…simply…🙄 (why doesn’t autocorrect function in straightforward situations?)
Autocorrect is an invidious secret CIA plot to undermine the correct use of the English language. Set up a computer to English and it autocorrects to damn Yank misspellings of common ancient words. way to many z’s instead of ise. Honestly we invented it so please stop messing with it. Tomatoes are not pronounced the same way as Potatoes. Long legged lower items of clothing worn by Men and Women are Trousers not pants. Ladies underwear are pants. Men’s are Trunks or Y fronts (slang word is Scuddies). A Hood is something worn by young youths to hide beneath whereas… Read more »
Great post, I enjoyed the laugh.
You’re right, bloody Americanisms altering our language.
Yes, all of that. His intervention in Afghan enabled the kleptocratic dictatorship of kaputin to believe that nobody would care about terrorism or a special military operation in Ukraine. Since RF, USA and UK were also signatories of the treaty to keep Ukraine safe without their soviet nukes, that was a demonstration of why no treaties with the crimlin are worth the paper that they may be written upon. This rather explains the Ukrainian position that restoration of their internationally recognised borders is the only acceptable condition for cessation of the current hostilities and talks about restitution from RF to… Read more »
Given the amount of time Trump spent in Moscow in the 1990s getting funding from Russian State banks (noone else was willing to lend him money) controlled by the KGB/FSB which was headed by Putin at that time, I would not be the least surprised that Putin has “hooks” on Trump. Here in Poland we think Trump is at the very least one of Putin’s useful idiots , if not an agent of influence.
Given that the 45th is now a convicted fraudster and rapist it would be hard to see any sane banker extending credit. If he was so desperate to borrow as to accept RF cash, and didn’t see the massive conflict of interest on running for President, that’s yet another reason why he cannot again have National Command Authority for US Nuclear Weapons.
Bad judgement and immediate extreme reactions are not desirable in any hand-on-the-button person. Not for a motor vehicle and definitely not Minuteman III, Trident D-5, etc.
But even if he cannot do it, the commitment to do it is lowered by a point of less credibility. And in the case he says he will, the US nevertheless lacks the manpower and asset to on One side face Russia and on the other One face China. This would be impossible. In the arms race, Chineese are pushing hard. US is lauching less new ships and planes than China in R&D and production. This means making hardware and inventory now. France has started to produce Caesar canon at a rate of 8 per month, starting from 2 last… Read more »
I understand that the USA DoD Strategy is for at least two major conflicts at one time. So 11 Aircraft Carriers and associated vessels, despite availability, is intended to enable multiple carrier groups in a single theater and multiple theaters. Right now, not a problem to ave two carrier groups in the Med with Pacific carrier groups remaining in place. I suggest that’s reasonable evidence of possible. Credibility is for the aggressor to judge, and of course regional partnerships are force multipliers.. Given his antics to date the 14th Amendment is in place to safeguard democracy, so let’s hope The… Read more »
Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Accord and out of NAFTA.
US Presidents can do almost anything they want.
Rubbi
Do you simply make it all up ?
Pot Kettle ?
The full on conversion was one of “Call me Dave’s” bright ideas, it all started when his bean counter spotted that F35C was cheaper than the F35B and we would be able to cross deck with the USN and French, it all got planned out and then the bill was worked out. It made no sense to convert just one as they wouldn’t be interoperable with each other and having a massive LPH was just daft. The cost of POW and QE combined came in at 5 to 6 billion £’s. So that’s the entire F35 Tranche 1 or T26… Read more »
Going late on F-35B to get the TR3 hardware and so enable the latest software features seems like a reasonable decision compared to the cost of having to do a mid-life upgrade later.
Since Denmark and Finland have chosen F-35 and are right next to the aggressor, it’s fine that they build their fleet first.
PS: Sorry to see that ‘Call me Dave’ is back in government for a year or so, but at least he’s not responsible for Defense.
These comments by politicians are a mish-mash and no underpinning facts are put forward. The crux seems to be that Kevan Jones (a former junior Defence minister) doubts the ability of the army to supply RBSL with enough CR2 tanks (why does he say ‘body frames’?) to enable them to produce 148 CR3s. Why does he say this and why so late in the day? The army has got well over 148 donor tanks. Or….is he concerned that the army will not have enough existing CR2s in unit hands during the conversion period to deliver combat effect if ‘the balloon… Read more »
Mark Francois is wrong to say that CR3 has a bigger gun being fitted to the tank – wrong – it is still a 120mm but smoothbore rather than rifled. His assessment as to the reasons for the Ajax programme being an ‘unmitigated disaaster’ is quite wrong. He thinks the Ajax programme went wrong because it essentially revolved around upgrading a vehicle by putting a new turret and a bigger gun on ‘an armoured vehicle’. That was a poor description of the Ajax design philosophy – and it does not cover all the reasons for poor project performance. Unbelievably Mr… Read more »
He is playing politics, when in fact the condition of the military in some areas is directly at his door and other politicians over the last 33 years.
In reality he is a loud mouth idiot🙄
It doss make you wonder how many of each vehicle type we actually have that are combat ready or could be made so quickly. How much of the numbers are just there on paper and in reality they have been completely stripped of parts and can’t be brought back due to no new parts.
When I was a serving REME officer (1975-2009), the firm requirement was for at least 70% of key equipment in a front-line unit to be available, that figure rising to 90% after 24hrs concerted work by both REME and the crew. Cannibalisation was not endorsed at unit level, but I can’t say that it never happened.
Such strictures did not apply to equipments stored in a depot – they had their own remit.
Kind sounds like those numbers are no longer being maintained. There has been a fair too many side stepped answers to questions over the last few years on actually combat ready numbers to not think that there is a problem. Plus I’m pretty sure if all or most of the 250 odd chally that are meant to be either available or in storage ready to be available really were we would have given more to Ukraine, since we only need a fraction of that number for the upgrades to ch3.
I would not believe anything that a politician said – ever. Some have painted a picture of low availability but the details are lacking and the accounts sound inauthentic. We have three armoured regts for now reducing to two in time. The 168 tanks allocated to those three regts should be at the sort of availability I put in my last post. There is little reason for lower availability as spares cannot be much of a problem given that some/many of the out of service tanks (was 159 but is probably nearer 120 now, as about 40 were scrapped) will… Read more »
Let’s hope so, as its not just politicians that are being evasive but also generals. There is something not right with the numbers that’s for sure.
The HET numbers were wrong in the previous years report.
Supplement the challengers with overwatch.Whether on Supacat , boxer or overwatch. Lots of them.
And put Javelin on all Ajax vehicles.Just throw as much AT capability in there as possible.
Or purchase some kind of light tank on top of the Challengers.
Because 148 is nowhere near enough.
What about a Jaguar on tracks? Or a wheeled vehicule with 105mm?
This is the problem with MOD; too many Ministers, too many rethinks, too many changes of direction. How about decide on Challenger 3 and deliver it, end of. Don’t do 148, do all Challenger 2 available. Budgets over run because of the continuous tinkering and rethinking by the MOD (like anyone at the MOD can think) and Ministers (like they know anything about defending the Country. Complete shower of steaming poop, the lot of them…..
Tanks are for land forces.i don’t get it at all where an island so the money needs to go to stopping them getting here in the first place.not tanks
Because you want to wait until the enemy is faced with the channel before you start fighting?
If you want to stop someone before they get to the UK the first step is to fight them, with armour, on the continent.
£ 2000 drones are now talking out main battle tanks next few years £500 drones will be doing the same thing .
And once upon a time tanks where being taken out by 100£ AT Rifles, but that doesn’t change the fact you need tanks if you want to fight.
There is a significant difference Dern.
The tanks that were taken by a rifle could hit the the rifle soldier. Today they can’t hit the drone guy.
Remember the battleship did not ended because a torpedo boat could sink it. it ended because aircraft carrier could sink it outside its gun range.
I see your point but I disagree with a few of the details: First of all I’d argue that in the historical context: In early days the Tank was very unlikely to take out a AT Rifleman, as visibility was terrible out of them and internal communication very bad. Secondly I do not believe that a Tank doesn’t pose a threat to a drone operator. CUAS and EW are developing fields and a MBT can carry a much better EW suite than an infantryman can carry in his back pack.That in turn can not only fully deny airspace to drone… Read more »
I did not say that we don’t need AFV. I am not also only talking about drones.
Question: do we need a very heavy 4km range only gun in very expensive system?
If i can hit the enemy with precision from >10km(guided artillery, drone, missile) away why we need the tank as it is?
I think the major investment should be in targeting and long range fires.
For AFV we need infantry transport , anti drone to protect infantry and missile, drone launching AFVs
…and do you think your cheap drones are invulnerable to jamming and being shot down?
Getting better all the time moving much quicker than tank tec.
Drones are aircraft. We have not fitted specialist anti-air weapons on all AFVs in the past and I doubt we will do that now. I am not minimising the drone threat to AFVs at all but I think anti-drone systems will be developed more quickly now and will be in the hands of specialist operators, such as RA.
Hi Graham see my answer above. MoD are progressing with their counter-UAS program for both individual soldiers and vehicles. The Ukraine War has been the impetus and its seen as an urgent requirement with Land.
Thanks Davey. I could not find your reply. SMASH sight for the SA80 for dismounted soldiers?
John, Guess why we, an island, invented the tank? To deploy it on WW1 ie expeditionary warfare. That is still the case. The Navy do much the same – most of their operations and evolutions are beyond UK Territorial Waters.
We are global Britain – always have been, always will be – we do expeditionary warfare.
There is very little emphasis on defending this island, except within the RAF.
Agreed.
Why is only part of the conversation added to this article. To get people arguing. That’s why.
What I’m missing is the Leadership element. In the UK, that is political and yet that seems to be ‘Our wonderful armed forces, look at XYZ!’ OK, photoshoot dobe, ignore them and starve them of finance and long term leadership. We lost a fantastic export opportunity with the US and T26. We need a ring fenced Defence budget hypothecated to tax with Defence guided by a specific Lords / HoC Committee without politics. Defence of the United Kingdom is the first priority of Government: they have failed and this area of State must be taken into custody of a dedicated… Read more »
Now it looks like Ajax is on the way and looking good obviously the British media and doom chiefs will be looking for a new project to attack it wouldn’t be British otherwise .
They have been teeing up Morpheus for that role for a little while now. Same General Dynamics name, so there’s moan synergy.
Morpheus is late. Supposed to be operational by 2025 but now some experts are saying it could be 2030. fitting Bowman to vehicles took about three years .
The days of the main battle tank are finished we have witnessed in Ukraine the tank is now simply a coffin on tracks. Drones are improving fast tanks are drone and shoulder held weapons cannon fodder .Drone development in the next 5 years will make main battle tanks obsolete. Madness to send money on tanks much better spent on faster moving Boxer and Ajax with a weapons mix imo only 3rd world counties will have tanks numbers tanks properly sold off cheap or handed down by richer countries .
Do you think a CR2 or CR3 or Abrams or Leo 2 is so slow that they will be rendered vulnerable??
Do you think Boxer and Ajax have as much firepower as a tank?
Which nations have decided to abandon MBTs?
I think all leading militaries will cut tank numbers big time .
Ok, all leading militaries, but not US, Germany, Poland, Romania, Russia, China, India at the moment. A tank in a city is fearsome and feared… tank raids lower every building where infantry likes to hide in a matter of minutes. In indirect fire, they bring added value. Tank losses were terrible in WW2, nobody wrote off tanks afterwards. The issue is not tanks losses, it is tank production.
With the fast moving improvements in drones I doubt very much any high cost tank orders with happen including the USA.
Other than Russia which never throws anything away, a reduction in tank numbers has been happening for years.
We had 900 Chieftain, then 435 CR1s, then 386 CR2s and now go down to 148 CR3s. Other nations can plot a similar downward trajectory in numbers since the Cold War. Other metrics have reduced – numbers of other AFVs, artillery pieces, AD systems, and of course manpower itself.
I do not see the end of the tank for at least a generation, if at all.
It will be interesting to see how the Israel’s Gaza campaign against Hamas plays out. Especially as Israel are using Namer IFVs, Merkava 3s and 4s etc. Not all of these have the Trophy APS fitted. We already know that Hamas used a drone to take out a Merkava 4 by dropping a RPG on it, but it was not manned. So is hardly valid. The majority of Merkava 4s and Namers do have Trophy fitted. I have a feeling that the drones will be targeted by Trophy. Especially as Israel would have seen what is happening in Ukraine. It… Read more »
Should have handed over all the Challenger 2 to Ukraine and gone in with the U.S or someone significant to build a next generation tank for the end of this decade. Ordered 500 of them. Kept building them slowly on working production lines for years after. 130 odd Chally 3 is pointless. They would all be toast in weeks against a serious enemy and no ability to build any more. That’s the problem with this, and the reason why the U.S continue to build Abrams albeit slowly. The production line is always there and running even if it is slow.… Read more »
Possibly some of the readers will have noticed the many 1,000’s of people marching through our streets recently? This is the coming generation of “British” (and other resident) people, and I would hazard that none of them would be prepared to fight for our country. Their loyalties lie elsewhere, which suggests they will also not be prepared to pay the necessary taxes to pay for our defence (“World Peace!”). As always, it all comes down to the money, and sadly our politicians who live from one election to the next, will direct the available funds to where they garner the… Read more »
Very few want to fight for Russia .
I bet they would fight for the Ummah if a civil war broke out.
Welcome to Lebanon in the Atlantic.
What did I say last year?
Nothing in the military will change until you get people in the MOD who know how to negotiate and write a procurement contract and hold suppliers to account. Current management is not fit to run a bath never mind the MOD. Get Alan Sugar in or failing that me. There would be so much blood about you could start a blood bank to boot!
I don’t think the concept of the tank is finished but definitely the tactics around deployment will have to be rethought, with heavy emphasis on counter done technology.
Why do we need a massive tank force, who we going to fight and where? we will never likely fight tank on tank on our own, Better to have good kit than lots of average kit or old kit.
My only issue still is Warriors replacement, it will end up being a fudge, under gunned with not anti tank missiles. And likely a drop in numbers.
“Why do we need a massive tank force”
We don’t. We do need the capability though, and at its current level of 3 Regiments and around 200 Tanks. CH3 number too few if the third regiment goes as planned.
to fight who? if was not for the gulf, tanks would have been used since Korea, If some one can defeat Poland with its 500 plus new tanks I am pretty sure they can bat us aside,
We have used tanks more times in combat and kinetic stabilisation ops since Korea, than the navy has used their ships and subs in combat.
British Tanks used in: Suez, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2, Bosnia, Kosovo, Ukraine (Ukraine crewed). CR2s (two sqns) now are in deterrent role in Estonia, facing the Russians.
Who is about to defeat Poland? Poland does not fight alone, neither do we – we fight together as an alliance.
That’s my point, we do not need a big fleet of tanks, 146 would be ok if they reserves etc but as a total its not enough. When did tanks fire in Suez/Bosnia/Kosovo, non in Ukraine as they are not our tanks and deterrent is not combat.
I am not putting the c2 down, merely questioning when its been used in its tank fighting, break through role?
My point was that (unlike some other key defence equipment) we deployed tanks on active operations many times.
Tanks are not always used to breakthrough enemy lines any more than aircraft carriers always launch air strikes or Typhoons spend their entire time bombing ISIS – that is one of their roles.
You seem to either want lots of tanks or question why we have any at all!
Are you similarly conflicted over other platforms or is it just the tank?
i question why we do every thing half arsed, C3 will be the best tank in the world fact, but so few? seems a bit like re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Mate, don’t blame the army. Blame the politicians – they want to spend more money on the vote-winning areas – social security, health, education.
not blaming the Army, may be weak top brass etc but never the Army.
F35b’s also mate….
Hi mate. I’d take the 74, as let’s get realistic here, a greater number, with Tempest too, isn’t happening.
We don’t need a massive tank force – that is why we don’t have a massive tank force, just a small one and getting smaller into the CR3 era. We virtually always fight as part of an alliance, be it NATO or ‘a coalition of the willing’ (code for US-led). If the enemy has tanks, we need tanks, or we will be screwed. Warrior’s replacement is Boxer, like it or not. If it just has a MG in a RWS, then it will be undergunned. No plans for the Boxer Infantry carrier to have anti-tank missiles – we don’t usually… Read more »
why do we not fit ifv’s with anti tank missiles, do we know better than the rest of the world or is it a cost issue? So Boxer with Machine Gun is better than Warrior , what idiot thought that?. Boxer as an IFV is a step back
All armies have a different philosopy. Marder and Bradley have anti-tank missiles. Marder 1 carried 4 x Milan and one dismount seat is lost (it carried 3+6); its successor, Puma, has Spike LR and also has 3+6. For the UK, that is one dismount too few. Also there is a crew workload issue – the commander might be torn between debussing with his section or directing an anti-tank shoot. Early M2 Bradleys had 3+6, but with later models (M2A2 ODS/M2A3/M2A4) have got 3+7. A/T is 2 x TOW launchers with 7 missiles, 5 of which are carried inside. Not sure… Read more »
I would add you have to win the fire fight in operation/assult and Anti tank missile add to the firepower. But yes its is a British thing not to have them but is it right? what does an IVF do if come across a tank? or anti tank missile that will out range its gun?
And yes Boxer as it is would be a bad idea but hopefully it might at least get up gunned if its meant to be used as an IFV.
IFVs should operate in very close proximity to tanks. In the assault, the tanks should be first engaging enemy armour (tanks then medium-weight vehs) and secondly any strongpoints. The Infantry will be taking out enemy vehs with cannon fire and dealing with dismounted enemy troops especially those with significant weapons (A/Tk weapons, mortars, HMGs). An IFV really should not meet a tank alone. In recent years ATGW had to be steered by the operator for a long time to impact under SACLOS guidance – doing that when your IFV wagon is bouncing across country at 30mph is very difficult. A… Read more »
That’s all well and good but but combat is not set out like the drill book, what does an IFV do if it meets a tank, run away? in the real world it happens. TOWB2 is old as are most SCLOS Missiles. Modern missiles are fire and forget but are yet to be fitted to vehicles. I agree on that.
Combat has its TTPs (including SOPs) as I am sure you know. Your question made me reminisce about my 4 postings to BAOR during the Cold War. If that war had turned hot, I would have been driving around the battle field in a LandRover. If I had met a Soviet tank or BMP the things would have gone drastically wrong. My only option would have been to say my prayers. Back to your question. Much depends as to whether the enemy tank has seen our IFV, what the range is, what the built and natural terrain comprises, the aspect… Read more »
Fir point, if i had seen a tank in Germany we likely have already lost as was Div Artillery. I would say it best to have Anti missiles just in case, rather than trust in god and cross your fingers.
The Army never bothered with them on IVF’s as you say little point unless to sat still. Hopefully that might change, more fire power to fire fight normally wins
There is always this argument that CH2 is old/obsolete, but the tanks it is most likely to meet in battle (T72/T80T/T90) are older and less capable. CH2 is great tank, we should upgrade all the hulls we have.
Russia is currently refurbishing 10 to 20 rusty T72s and T 80 hulls per month. These tanks were stored open to the elements , the excuse that we dont have enough hulls in good enough condition is rubbish.
Red effect on YT has a good video on how Russia is managing it’s Tank losses.
MBT heavy and difficult to transport to the battle . 3/ / 4 men to operate . Use huge amounts of fuel . Lots of expensive cost / maintenance & storage . Nosiey and difficult to hide from enemy . Expensive price tag & lots of time and expense training .limited in wet soft ground . Easy pickings for a cheap lightweight drone no future for the MBT.
The fact remains that GB needs a huge investment in a state of the art tank manufacturing plant. Churning out a new British MBT by the hundreds.
Vickers had tried that already, and failed 🤔
So lets have it state owned as a strategic asset. Let them build IFV’s and any other vehicle needed.
For that to work you need to come up with a product that everyone wants to Buy,CR2 didn’t achieve that, and the market is getting very competitive again – Germany did for CR2 sales,likely South Korea and the US will do the same now even if you could design and develop a World Beating Vehicle.
You misunderstand me. The vast manufacturing complex I envisage, would be state owned. Not a private enterprise that needs to be self financing. It would be a strategic asset, much like the armed forces themselves. The aim of the exercise being procurement of armoured vehicle and systems for national defence (offence too.) Just as important, maintaining the trained workforces capable of building such things. Not to make profit for shareholders. Think “Tankograd” in the old USSR. It would be nice to sell to other nations but not essential. GB could have the capacity to supply friendly nations with cheaper versions… Read more »
Why when MBT days are numbered . Let’s invest in a new chariot factory & stables .
Luddites have been saying that since 1919, including the return of the horse cavalry. By way of munchy pudding proof. Both Ukraine and Russia are shouting out for MBTs, while Merkava rules in Gaza.
Would you like to explain why you have said it Peter. I’m interested.
I bet tanks will get another reprieve once drone jamming/countering tech matures and becomes more mobile. I see from some photos taken in the Ukraine that the Russians are attempting to fit their refurbished and new tanks with ECM.
You could do better by countering peoples points with facts. That would be interesting. Tanks were said to be dead in the 70’s when anti tank missile caused such casualties in the You Kipor war.
A tank supported by infantry, used by trained crews in its main role is the best at what is does,
South Korea supplies 800 tanks to Poland. Why don’t we upgrade to South Korean tanks? After all, would you buy a new Kia car or upgrade a 20 year old out of production Rover saloon.
Dorchester armour is a secret only shared with the US, if we buy tanks from anywhere else they wont have that armour. Its one of the reasons why CH2 is able to absorb a lot of hits from heat ATGMs.
Involved in designing and purchase and installing trials target equivalent to Chobham armour on firing range to test penetrating weapon as concern over Russia had stolen the secret of the composition. Luckily it would appear they never did. But weapon developed very useful in Falklands and since then.
cost. that’s why. we have to buy cheap then spend a vast amount fixing our mistake. its the MOD way with help from yes men in the top brass
The K9A2 155mm self propelled howitzer is one of the contenders for MFP In September 2021, Hanwha Defense launched Team Thunder joined by Leonardo UK (navigation, FCS, electronics), Pearson Engineering (manufacturing), Horstman (suspension), and Soucy Defense (track) to participate in the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) program, starting in late 2023 to replace Britain’s AS90 with a K9A2 variant and the K10 AMMUNITION RESUPPLY VEHICLES. We should have procured these by now after giving Ukraine nearly all AS90 we had Archer as a stop gap why has UK not gone ahead and placed order yet Other countries are buying these as… Read more »
Was always obvious this would turn into a screw-up. Its like Nimrod all over again.
Sorry but hard truth time. Should just bin C3 and buy 300-odd Leo 2A7+ with all the Gucci toys, operate them out to 2040 and then bring in the next gen optionally manned MBT. I’ll wager very good money that the first 140 C3 upgrades end up costing almost as much than buying a new Leo 2A7+ per hull. Leo 2A7+/2A8 or whatever would give you the same overall capability but delivered earlier in a mature, reliable and proven platform with existing logistics and parts support, training infrastructure, and hell, you could even have them assembled in the UK if… Read more »
Leo2 A8 costs £19.2m
Obviously C3 wont cost that much, sure. But just as a means of adding context, if the £1.25bn cost of the programme hits £2bn as it may very well do, then the unit cost per wagon hits (2bn / 150 hulls = 13.3m per hull). That is about 2m and some change per hull more than Poland are paying for their latest model K9s with all the toys and cupholders. My point was that the cost is significant enough to stand up ballpark against a new acquisition programme of something that we can have on property faster, more reliably and… Read more »
Besides the CR3 upgrade coming in cheaper than the estimated Leo2 A7/A8 price, the major problem with L2 is the time it will take for them to be produced and delivered – they are taking an age to fullfil orders ATM,and with more Countries commited to buying them the wait would get much longer.Germany will need up its game in production capacity if it wants to cash in on future sales.
Leos without Chobham/Dorchester armour will have less survivability than CH3.
It is a secret only ever shared with the US. CH3 will get Epsom armour which is a follow-up of Chobham/Dorchester.
If we want to retain that technology we have to build them here or buy the Abrams
Epsom I’m sure is wonderful, Dorchester was a game changer, so was Chobbham before that. Is it going to keep out latest Kornet, Vikr/Ataka or recent/current gen Russian APDFS penetrator rounds, or their Chinese equivalents?
A latest tranche K-9, Type-99, T-14, Leo 2A7+/8 or Abrams SEP V3 wont keep any of these out, but can C3?
I’m not anti-C3 I just think for what we are spending we should be getting more of them.
Despite these challenges, Secretary of State for Defence, Grant Shapps, stated, “We have never spent more on our defence in recent years… The Army is in line for some very, very significant upgrades.” Can’t stand it when politicians do that. Didn’t directly address the question at all and the answer is disingenuous and, at worst, totally dishonest. See https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/military-spending-defense-budget The trend in terms of GDP % has been relentlessly downwards ever since the 1960s. So when Schapps talks about ‘never spending more’ – in real terms it’s nonsense and there’s no way he isn’t aware of that. Alternatively if by… Read more »
Didn’t we scrap some Challengers some 10 years ago? This policy of scrapping stuff is another form of madness at the MOD. Ukraine war is proving you need deep reserves of equipment especially stuff that takes years to manufacture in numbers.
Dithering about could cost the Army huge losses if we ever get into a war with Russia.
We should set up a production line for battle tanks in partnership with Poland or Germany immediately AFTER we finish converting our Callenger 2’s to 3’s. Forward planning requires this.
Generally we sell, gift or scrap kit only once it has been declared Obsolete. Some people seem to think we still have hundreds of Chieftains and Challenger 1s in storage for WW3. Uh…no. An exception was apparently made sometime in the 2010-2014 period when Qty 40-43 (reports vary) CR2s were scrapped – I have no idea why or who ordered that. I am not talking about stripping those vehicles for spares – controlled cannibalisation – that is a whole different subject. Very good idea to collaborate with Poland or Germany (or another nation) to produce future tanks. BAE is in… Read more »
Some gun tanks were converted to driver training tanks as hulls were worn out , that could explain the extra 3 .
Extra 3? I have determined that the numbers scrapped were 43 (I knew it was about 40, hence I put 40-43, but it was 43 as confimred by a Minister in response to a FoI request. I would be surprised if gun tanks were converted to driver training tanks (DTT), as many of these specialist driver training tanks were ordered – 13 in Jan 91 and 9 more in July 94. They would surely have been periodically base overhauled to offset the effects of wear and tear. The DTT, not to be confused with the CTT of the CR1 era,… Read more »
Was it forever thus? An extract from Chris Whitty’s evidence today which is completely relevant to this debate and has been a feature for the last couple of decades where tax cuts were the priority. “..this wouldn’t have been such an issue in itself if we had capabilities “as capability trumps planning every time” “It was the lack of capability that was the bigger problem in my view” he said. ” It is the loss of capability and the inordinate massive increase in short term costs and emergency rebuild even if possible that is the problem. We do not have… Read more »
Good job we are unlikely to have to cope with a serious foreign threat on our own.
… unless the new Argentinian President wants to invade the Falklands again!
Chile seems to want to claim them as well !
I thought Chile wanted a chunk of Argentina rather than of our islands. Chile supported us in retaking the Falklands, so they muct haev approved of our ownership?
https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/s1msvi/argentinians_and_chileans_what_do_you_guys_think/
I can imagine that many of the current challengers are sheeted up lacking parts and crew and probably have been for a very long time. It seems that these MPs are concerned that many of them are in no fit condition to even make it to the manufacturing upgrade facility. Some, I suspect, are just cannibalized hulks. In the early 1980s every tank in my regiment was crewed and in working condition with the odd tank awaiting a part for at most a day or two. When I left in the mid 80s, two tanks in my squadron were sheeted… Read more »
Hi Jon, Without detail from these politicians there can only be speculation. I served as a REME officer 1975-2009. Our remit was to ensure that 70% of battle winning equipment in units was available for operations and 90% within 24 hrs of concerted work by REME (and veh crew/driver/operator). There would have been different remit for those in the Trg Org or in active depot stock (RP and WMR). When the active fleet went down from 386 CR2s to 227 as a result of the 2010 Defence Review part of the austerity drive in the wake of the global financial… Read more »
You lose capability when the Government doesn’t support industry. BAE closed Leicester and Newcastle once Terrier was built and that was it, gone forever.