RBSL Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The latter.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder if Rheinmetall could interest other users of the Challenger and Challenger 2 with their Challenger 3 upgrade? If Oman is still u sing its fifty odd I am sure they would sign up. Jordan, who we sold all our Challenger 1s to and who have already carried out some interesting conversions. One replaces the 120mm L33 Rifled Gun with a Swiss low recoil 120 mm smoothbore, and the other fits and unmanned turret again with a 120mm Smoothbore I believe. They also have their fleet of what were Shir 1 upgraded Chieftains with new engines, gearboxes adn other kit the crews of our old Mk5s and 10s would have drooled over. I wonder if the Challenger 3 turret would go on that hull?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: If Oman is still u sing its fifty odd I am sure they would sign up.
I'm sure at least for the new engine (spares can be pooled, if we again turn up in that part of the world).

I'm sure they could also get a 'good' stock of things that go 'bang'
- I mean for the rifled gun... at a good price
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

In several articles and statements the max speed of Challenger 3 is given as 60 mph, given that the stated max of Challenger 1 & 2 is given as 59 kph (37mph) I thought someone had made a simple error and confused mph and kph. However given it has been repeated several times by different sources one has to assume 60 mph is the correct figure.
The problem is I find it very hard to believe. It has been stated that they will be doing some work on the engine, transmission and suspension but an increase in speed of 50% would require a lot more than tinkering. Short of a completely new engine and transmission not to mention tracks and final drives, its difficult to believe it could be done.
Even if it could be done do we really want a 60 mph MBT. A maximum speed of 50 mph would be more than adequate, anything above that would be unsafe and pointless.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

whitelancer wrote:In several articles and statements the max speed of Challenger 3 is given as 60 mph, given that the stated max of Challenger 1 & 2 is given as 59 kph (37mph) I thought someone had made a simple error and confused mph and kph. However given it has been repeated several times by different sources one has to assume 60 mph is the correct figure.
The problem is I find it very hard to believe. It has been stated that they will be doing some work on the engine, transmission and suspension but an increase in speed of 50% would require a lot more than tinkering. Short of a completely new engine and transmission not to mention tracks and final drives, its difficult to believe it could be done.
Even if it could be done do we really want a 60 mph MBT. A maximum speed of 50 mph would be more than adequate, anything above that would be unsafe and pointless.
Whitelancer I'm not sure what the official speed of Challenger is but the upgrade is just a refresh of the current Perkins CV12 with new fuel system/injectors it can go to 1500hp but that won't increase the speed 50%. Your suggestion of a unit of measure error is probably correct.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Even wiki has not changed for the Challenger 3 listing at the same speed as the Challenger2

Little J
Member
Posts: 675
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

Probably just lazy journalists coping someone else's homework...

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

A 60mph Challenger would compete with Ajax for the most tooth fillings displaced :D



Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

That is very good news, now we just need to find and APS for the Boxer and possibly the MRV(P).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

I find it interesting that Trophy seems to be APS of choice on tanks but Iron Fist wins on IFV's and smaller armored vehicles. Maybe it's a weight thing.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

It does seem that way, but Trophy is scalable and there is Trophy "Lite" for anything down to a 4x4. It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether the MoD defies logic again and chooses to simply select the cheaper option, if there is one,, as they did when not selecting Brimstone for the Apache.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

tomuk wrote: .... the upgrade is just a refresh of the current Perkins CV12 with new fuel system/injectors it can go to 1500hp but that won't increase the speed 50%. Your suggestion of a unit of measure error is probably correct.
An increase to 1500hp seems entirely possible, back in 1980s a 1500hp version of the CV12 was being tested with a 1750hp version being looked at, unfortunately at the time the Army/MOD seemed uninterested. A 300hp increase in power would allow a modest increase in max speed, though its best use would be to counter the increase in weight of Challenger 3, particularly when additional armour is added to bring it up to TES.

While the simplest explanation for the 60mph claim is confusion between kph and mph, it would be interesting to know where it originated, as its repeated not only by Forces News, a soldier in one of the videos up thread and even in Desider the magazine put out by DE&S, all of which you would have expected to query such a claim.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:It does seem that way, but Trophy is scalable and there is Trophy "Lite" for anything down to a 4x4. It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether the MoD defies logic again and chooses to simply select the cheaper option, if there is one,, as they did when not selecting Brimstone for the Apache.
Lightweight Trophy is the version being acquired.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:It does seem that way, but Trophy is scalable and there is Trophy "Lite" for anything down to a 4x4. It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether the MoD defies logic again and chooses to simply select the cheaper option, if there is one,, as they did when not selecting Brimstone for the Apache.
Lightweight Trophy is the version being acquired.
I'm told the previously named "Trophy Light" is now the "Trophy MV". Presumably the MV stands for Medium Version. This is the version that's being acquired for Challenger.

I don't know if that will come with the optional auto-reloader.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

That does seem a little odd, almost treating an APS as a last minute add on rather than seriously looking at protecting the platform, Challenger 3 in this case. Sure for an MBT you would want then full spec APS, given the MBTs are magnets for everything form LAWs to Heavy ATGWs, which any opponent will have in abundance. It is even worse if Trophy MV is fitted with no automatic reload capability, then four RPGs fired, that wouldn't really hurt the Tank, would empty the APS allowing heavier weapons free access.

I am pretty sure Trophy MV was aimed at lighter vehicles such as APCs, some IFVs and even 4x4s. In most of these cases weight is the major issue as well as giving them some protection against heavier anti-tank weapons that have far greater lethality than RPGs.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:That does seem a little odd, almost treating an APS as a last minute add on
No. Just because the APS contract was signed after the main contract, it does not mean it was an afterthought. The new turret was designed to mount an APS from the get go.
Lord Jim wrote:I am pretty sure Trophy MV was aimed at lighter vehicles such as APCs, some IFVs and even 4x4s.
No. You are thinking of Trophy LV.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: It is even worse if Trophy MV is fitted with no automatic reload capability, then four RPGs fired, that wouldn't really hurt the Tank, would empty the APS allowing heavier weapons free access.
As I understand it, the system is multi-shot therefore can defeat a small number of incoming before requiring a system reload which an auto-loader would do.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by Tinman »

Lord Jim wrote:It does seem that way, but Trophy is scalable and there is Trophy "Lite" for anything down to a 4x4. It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether the MoD defies logic again and chooses to simply select the cheaper option, if there is one,, as they did when not selecting Brimstone for the Apache.
Main reason for not selecting brimestone on the E model, is the way it will be upgrade along side US Army models, similarly in the way the P8 is a standard US for, commonality for maintenance at regional hubs, the other factor is it is 4 times more expensive per missile.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

What are the details on the US replacement for TOW, Maverick and so on. Does it have the same range as Brimstone for example, and what are its guidance modes in an individual missile?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Tinman wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:It does seem that way, but Trophy is scalable and there is Trophy "Lite" for anything down to a 4x4. It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether the MoD defies logic again and chooses to simply select the cheaper option, if there is one,, as they did when not selecting Brimstone for the Apache.
Main reason for not selecting brimestone on the E model, is the way it will be upgrade along side US Army models, similarly in the way the P8 is a standard US for, commonality for maintenance at regional hubs, the other factor is it is 4 times more expensive per missile.
Poseiden P8 is 100% US because after the Nimrod shambles, the RAF were told to buy an aircraft off the shelf and to not fuck it up by requiring the usual UK bespoke additions. For the wisdom of that approach see pretty much every UK major procurement program. But it does have drawbacks. See Brimstone on Apache.

Regarding Brimstone, the reverse is also true: Apache will be denied any upgrades to the Brimstone missile. A missile that has been, and will continue to improve. The leader in its category.

And the claim the US missile is 4 times cheaper isn't quite true. The manufacturer says that in the future it will become cheaper. Of course, faced with that claim, most of us in the real world would say "OK then, I'll come back when that has happened". But not the MoD. Oh no. Once again, look at pretty much any UK procurement program to see how trusting the manufacturer on future pricing usually works out.

And that's ignoring the fact that a US missile made in the US makes zero contribution to UK prosperity whereas Brimstone provides UK jobs, UK exports and UK tax revenue.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Of course the US can just activate the defence production act and you don’t get any missiles at all like they have with vaccines and ppe this past year. I mean why would we all need more missiles at the same time…..

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Well at least Brimstone has a development path and so should be kept effective arming the Typhoon along with SPEAR 3. Therefore there is always the chance we could integrate it at a later date to give us the option to use either missile on the Apache Guardian and possible SPEAR 3 as well? :D

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

Lord Jim wrote:Well at least Brimstone has a development path and so should be kept effective arming the Typhoon along with SPEAR 3. Therefore there is always the chance we could integrate it at a later date to give us the option to use either missile on the Apache Guardian and possible SPEAR 3 as well?
In which case it would be kept effective arming Apache!

Or the argument could be why have two very similar weapon's, why not replace Brimstone and save money!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

In its current form, Brimstone is a mature weapon system, unlike the US one. The US weapon is more a clone of Brimstone because the US often has an adversity to the purchase of foreign weapons, unless they are made within the USA. The new system will be bought in huge numbers, replacing TOW and Maverick amongst others.

Post Reply