RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3314
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 16 Jun 2024, 16:28
Timmymagic wrote: 04 Jun 2024, 18:13 Bonkers....lets just make some DU rounds...
The UK no longer has the ability. Peace dividend no doubt.
Making DU penetrators isn't really hard though...

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1521
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by NickC »

Of interest recently came across the Jan '23 Elbit Iron Fist Active Protection System Defense News article which revealed after challenging and rigorous testing by US Army that Iron Fist achieved ability to counter only 70% of incoming threats, lower than I expected, expectations too high or unrealistic in light of Ukraine experience.

Would it be safe to assume the Raphael Trophy APS effectiveness chosen for Challenger 3 might be in same ball park.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... on-system/

PS June 14, 8 Israeli soldiers killed in a heavy Namer IFV by Hamas, Israeli spokesman "apparently from an explosive device planted in the area or from the firing of an anti-tank missile".

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1494
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 16 Jun 2024, 16:49 Making DU penetrators isn't really hard though...
Isn't it? How do you know?
Is it still easy if you have to comply with health and safety regulations?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3314
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

mr.fred wrote: 18 Jun 2024, 20:10
Timmymagic wrote: 16 Jun 2024, 16:49 Making DU penetrators isn't really hard though...
Isn't it? How do you know?
Is it still easy if you have to comply with health and safety regulations?
Saw an interview with someone a while ago who would know and they stated matter of fact that DU was easier to work with than Tungsten...

Have a look at this, pg39 onwards...

Machining in inert gases of titanium for example is not unusual.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1494
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 19 Jun 2024, 09:21 Saw an interview with someone a while ago who would know and they stated matter of fact that DU was easier to work with than Tungsten...
From what I know about tungsten, that doesn't surprise me, or mean that DU is easy to work with.
Timmymagic wrote: 19 Jun 2024, 09:21 Machining in inert gases of titanium for example is not unusual.
Not surprising either, since titanium is pyrophoric and requires high cutting forces to machine. DU would be similar (since it is also pyrophoric) but you also have to take greater care of the swarf since it is both toxic and radioactive.
Then you've got to design the projectile to accommodate the form the material is provided to you, or alter the way that the material is provided, since DU isn't really used for much else.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3314
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

mr.fred wrote: 19 Jun 2024, 11:34 Not surprising either, since titanium is pyrophoric and requires high cutting forces to machine. DU would be similar (since it is also pyrophoric) but you also have to take greater care of the swarf since it is both toxic and radioactive.
Then you've got to design the projectile to accommodate the form the material is provided to you, or alter the way that the material is provided, since DU isn't really used for much else.
Apparently the swarf is kept in vacuum after inert gas machining then re-smelted into a new ingot when enough is collected.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

NickC wrote: 18 Jun 2024, 14:16 Of interest recently came across the Jan '23 Elbit Iron Fist Active Protection System Defense News article which revealed after challenging and rigorous testing by US Army that Iron Fist achieved ability to counter only 70% of incoming threats, lower than I expected, expectations too high or unrealistic in light of Ukraine experience.

Would it be safe to assume the Raphael Trophy APS effectiveness chosen for Challenger 3 might be in same ball park.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... on-system/

PS June 14, 8 Israeli soldiers killed in a heavy Namer IFV by Hamas, Israeli spokesman "apparently from an explosive device planted in the area or from the firing of an anti-tank missile".
You can see how poorly Israeli APS systems are in their performance in Gaza. Israel should be grateful that the occupied Gazans only have home grown weapons and not more capable platforms.
These users liked the author TheLoneRanger for the post:
Tempest414

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by tomuk »

RBSL now has an Italian cousin.
Leonardo and Rheinmetall have signed today a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish a new 50:50 joint venture aimed at developing a European industrial and technological approach in the field of land defense systems.
First goal is to develop two vehicles – the Italian Main Battle Tank and Lynx platform (Armoured Infantry Combat System) for the Italian Army,
with a focus on international export.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/ne ... -in-italia

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote: 04 Jul 2024, 17:50 RBSL now has an Italian cousin.
Leonardo and Rheinmetall have signed today a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish a new 50:50 joint venture aimed at developing a European industrial and technological approach in the field of land defense systems.
First goal is to develop two vehicles – the Italian Main Battle Tank and Lynx platform (Armoured Infantry Combat System) for the Italian Army,
with a focus on international export.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/ne ... -in-italia
Crazy idea -

The Italian JV when developing their new MBT concentrate on developing a new chassis / drivetrain because RBSL has a turret we'd love to sell them.
It would open the door to followup purchases of Challenger 3, plus possible exports

sol
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote: 15 Jul 2024, 10:17 Crazy idea -

The Italian JV when developing their new MBT concentrate on developing a new chassis / drivetrain because RBSL has a turret we'd love to sell them.
It would open the door to followup purchases of Challenger 3, plus possible exports
Problem is that for this venture with Leonardo, RM will push development of its own platform, KF51 Panther, as there are also potential to sold it to Hungary and (eventually) Ukraine too. So there is very little chance, basically almost none, for use of new CR3 turret there even if offered. Why would RM choose it over their own which they are developing for KF51.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1494
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

sol wrote: 15 Jul 2024, 13:12 Problem is that for this venture with Leonardo, RM will push development of its own platform, KF51 Panther, as there are also potential to sold it to Hungary and (eventually) Ukraine too. So there is very little chance, basically almost none, for use of new CR3 turret there even if offered. Why would RM choose it over their own which they are developing for KF51.
The CR3 turret is substantially the German RLS turret anyway. Why should the UK need to be involved at all? Leonardo (i.e. what was OTO Melara) has experience building turrets.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by tomuk »

mr.fred wrote: 15 Jul 2024, 19:48
sol wrote: 15 Jul 2024, 13:12 Problem is that for this venture with Leonardo, RM will push development of its own platform, KF51 Panther, as there are also potential to sold it to Hungary and (eventually) Ukraine too. So there is very little chance, basically almost none, for use of new CR3 turret there even if offered. Why would RM choose it over their own which they are developing for KF51.
The CR3 turret is substantially the German RLS turret anyway. Why should the UK need to be involved at all? Leonardo (i.e. what was OTO Melara) has experience building turrets.
So why are Germany and Rheinmetall involved? They are primarily a gun maker like Oto Melara. It is Kraus Maffei Wegman who are the chassis experts. But with the merger with Nexter Rheinmetall needs platforms for it guns, hence it own developments of Panther instead of Leopard and these JVs in Italy and UK it provides outlets for their guns outside of the relationship with KMW\KNDS on Leopard.

Post Reply