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

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Jun 2022, 22:56 Is that confirmed that it will get new engine? I don't remember seeing that in the various press releases and articles about the upgrade to Challnger 3. Thanks
Even tho some articles suggest new engine, seems like this is not true. Engine will be upgraded with a new cooling system but it is a not a new engine. My mistake, sorry.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

sol wrote: 17 Jun 2022, 00:38
wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Jun 2022, 22:56 Is that confirmed that it will get new engine? I don't remember seeing that in the various press releases and articles about the upgrade to Challnger 3. Thanks
Even tho some articles suggest new engine, seems like this is not true. Engine will be upgraded with a new cooling system but it is a not a new engine. My mistake, sorry.
Thanks for clarifying

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Just to confirm, the export Challenger 2s had a German MTU engine installed. Surely then it would not be a major upgrade to install a modern 1500bhp MTU engine if it was deemed necessary?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

If necessary you could fit an MTU to Challenger. However Caterpillar offer a number of upgrades to the CV12 taking it up to 1500hp. Back in 2018 it was available as a new build in 1000, 1200 and 1500hp flavours. The was the possibility of the CV12 going in a new Turkish tank due to some reticence by the Germans to supply MTUs to Turkey.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

It would be interesting to see a cost comparison between a rebuilt and modified CV12 verses a new MTU engine.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Little J

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Sticking this here as I see this as an alternative to the Challenger 3 if funding allowed. The video goes into greater detail on the KF-51 Panther and it shows it has some very interesting and new capabilities being a totally new design, or so it now appears. If the 130mm is to be the gun on the future Franco/German MBT that will replace the Leclercs and Leopard 2s, being the first user and launch customer may bring advantageous dividend to the UK. Worth talking about I think.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 02:00 Sticking this here as I see this as an alternative to the Challenger 3 if funding allowed.
I doubt funding does allow, not least because some has already been committed to Challenger 3 and siphoning this off will likely mean you get neither. Perhaps we should put this on the shelf alongside the last shiny bit of marketing.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 02:00 The video goes into greater detail on the KF-51 Panther and it shows it has some very interesting and new capabilities being a totally new design, or so it now appears.
Still looks like a Leopard 2 with a cosmetic wrap and some new functional components - that it still retains the EMES-15 is indicative of this. It's a sensible way to develop new capabilities and no slight on RLS, just that it's not a "totally new design"
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 02:00 If the 130mm is to be the gun on the future Franco/German MBT that will replace the Leclercs and Leopard 2s, being the first user and launch customer may bring advantageous dividend to the UK.
Equally it might be that the Franco German gun ends up being the French 140mm in collaboration with the other German land vehicle manufacturer. If that happens then the UK committing to the 130mm would leave it with an orphan gun, again.

No doubt it shows some interesting design choices and concepts for the way that MBTs will progress, but it's a tech demonstrator, not a finished product.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
sol

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

The turret on the KF51 looks huge. I thought any future tank would follow the Russian concept with an unmanned turret and the crew inside an armoured shell inside the hull which would reduce weight while maintaining crew protection. This Ukrainian conflict will remind everyone that mobility is top priority. Russian armour is going to be vulnerable to the latest 120mm MBT rounds for another 50 or so years so blowing money in a new 130mm canon is an enormous excuse to spend money.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 13:27 The turret on the KF51 looks huge.
I’d guess that there’s a limit on what you can do converting a Leopard 2.
BB85 wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 13:27 I thought any future tank would follow the Russian concept with an unmanned turret and the crew inside an armoured shell inside the hull which would reduce weight while maintaining crew protection.
Hardly solely a Russian concept. it’s been seen in prototype form in many countries, See the UDES tank destroyer and the Abrams TTB amongst others. Also must be borne in mind that the weight saving may maintain crew protection at the cost of function protection.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Also lets not forget that on Leopard 2 Rheinmetall do the turret and gun and KMW do the hull and powertrain. With KMW merging with Nexter Rheinmetall don't have a hull to pit their turret on.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Remember the KF-51 is just a demonstrator to show a way forward and also show off a possible "New" MBT as against upgrades to existing MBTs or new builds of that standard. So yes it uses the same Power Pack as the Leopard 2A7 and the hull is also based on that vehicle's, but the turret is new and pretty novel. Rheinmetall saying the Turret can have three or four Crew or could possibly be unmanned! As for its gun, well Whatever the French decide to fit to their future tank, Germany could well decide to stich to its own 130mm. There have been presidents for such a senario. Of note how many MBTs use a main gun that is the German 120mm or look very similar? How many MBTs use the French 120mm Main Gun as used by the Leclerc?

It may be safer to say the KF-51 is Rheinmetall's first foray into the world of the next generation MBTs, even if it is only a small cautious step now. What it eventually results in could be the platform that goes on to replace the Leclercs and Leopard 2s and eventually the Challenger 3, who knows.

But once again all this highlights that in order to fill its many capability gaps that exist both now and will in future, whilst retaining the Army at the required size, the MoD is going to have to be given extra resources between now and 2030 at the very least. If not what is a bare viable fighting force now will become totally non viable in a future high intensity conflict.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:18 Remember the KF-51 is just a demonstrator to show a way forward and also show off a possible "New" MBT as against upgrades to existing MBTs or new builds of that standard.
I agree with that, but that wasn't what you were saying upthread.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:18 So yes it uses the same Power Pack as the Leopard 2A7 and the hull is also based on that vehicle's,
And so are the tracks and suspension and transmission.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:18 but the turret is new and pretty novel.
If the turret includes the EMES-15 it's either the original or so heavily based on it that it doesn't matter. There's some neat touches in there, but I'm not sure a two drum rotary autoloader is unprecedented.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:18 Rheinmetall saying the Turret can have three or four Crew or could possibly be unmanned!
I thought that they were saying that the tank could be three (two in turret, driver in hull) or four (two in turret, two in hull). I kind of like the idea that the space in the hull could be multi-functional depending on the vehicles role. You could have it as an ammo rack or a command position, for example.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:18 s for its gun, well Whatever the French decide to fit to their future tank, Germany could well decide to stich to its own 130mm. There have been presidents for such a senario. Of note how many MBTs use a main gun that is the German 120mm or look very similar? How many MBTs use the French 120mm Main Gun as used by the Leclerc?
Consider that the KF-51 is most likely offered as competition to the KMW/Nexter pairing, so they think that there is a risk that KMW will plump for their commercial partner's gun. Look back fifty years and everyone is using the L7, then all of a sudden it swings from the UK gun to a German one. The French might be able to do what it takes to get their gun to be the favoured one. With the fun the British have had with AFV guns over the last fifty years or so we might do well to step back on the risk for a bit.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:18 It may be safer to say the KF-51 is Rheinmetall's first foray into the world of the next generation MBTs, even if it is only a small cautious step now. What it eventually results in could be the platform that goes on to replace the Leclercs and Leopard 2s and eventually the Challenger 3, who knows.
Certainly safer than rushing about and switching from Challenger upgrade to it as if it's a complete product.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacLord Jim

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

In today speech at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference 2022, the Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders said
And we should also be bolder in celebrating our successes – AH64 Echo is flying now, the first Boxer will be in service in 2023, the first Challenger 3 arrives in 2024 ‘and the Sky Sabre air defence system was deployed and operating in Poland only weeks after entering service.
Wonder what exactly he meant with 'the first Challenger 3 arrives in 2024'. By original timeline, CR3 should be ready for trials in 2024, ready for production in 2025 while first 18 tanks should arrive in 2027. Somehow I doubt that program could be moved forward years ahead of schedule and deliver first tanks to Army already in 2024. If he was just talking about trials than program will probably go as originally planned.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

Pretty sure he is referring to trials. There is no experimental cannon or ammunition handling system that has never been trialled before so I don't expect trials to be an issue unless there are serious QC issues. I don't see any reason all of the C3's can't be delivered this decade.

Ajax is still a complete joke, they can't be serious about being optimistically confident it will be in service in 2030. If was thinking 2025 would be worst case scenario.

Considering the billions squandered over the last 2 years through COVID and the constant government money printing I honestly can't see how there is no an MOD uplift considering the very real threat posed by Russia.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Challenger 3 should be able to be brought into service fairly rapidly once the programme gets up to speed. Nothing is really new, with most components already in use on other platforms so the real issue will be making sure everything goes together and works as it is required to do whilst meeting the necessary standards.AS far as I am concerned it may look like a new(ish) platform but it is in reality just a major modernisation. The sooner we get them the better and I sincerely hope the extra funding can be found to upgrade additional Challenger 2s to provide a greater attrition reserve.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 03 Jul 2022, 02:12 Nothing is really new ...
Armour is new, it is exclusively developing for CR3.
Lord Jim wrote: 03 Jul 2022, 02:12 As far as I am concerned it may look like a new(ish) platform but it is in reality just a major modernisation.
And what is wrong with that? It will still be one of the most modern tanks in the World, once fully upgraded.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Nothing wrong with it at all.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

sol wrote: 03 Jul 2022, 09:24 And what is wrong with that? It will still be one of the most modern tanks in the World, once fully upgraded.
Sure, as long as you can look past the antiquated diesel power plant, which will still leave the C3 very much in the slow lane compared to its fellow NATO tanks.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

The CV12 which can be bumped to 1500hp like any other MBT powerpacks? There is work being done under HAAIP to upgrade the engine, but it isn’t clear if that upgrade increases the power output.

Meanwhile the CR3 is running on 3rd gen hydrogas suspension while the rest of the world is bouncing around on torsion bars?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Cooper wrote: 04 Jul 2022, 14:09
sol wrote: 03 Jul 2022, 09:24 And what is wrong with that? It will still be one of the most modern tanks in the World, once fully upgraded.
Sure, as long as you can look past the antiquated diesel power plant, which will still leave the C3 very much in the slow lane compared to its fellow NATO tanks.
The CR2 engine has received one if not two upgrades in the lifetime. It's probably in better shape than much of the platform. It's definitely not slow! :lol:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I have always understood that the combination of its Power Train and Suspension have meant the CA2 is one of the better MBTs across company and one of the most stable. Unless we have to send our heavier units to the Gulf again I do not see the need for any Cavalry Charges at top speed. For Europe the CA3 should be more than adequately mobile.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jul 2022, 21:48 For Europe the CA3 should be more than adequately mobile.
Well, we can argue about the merits, good and bad, of the C3 all day long but one area I'd argue that is unarguable, are the numbers.

148 hulls, of which, probably no more than 100 will ever be combat ready and available at any one time, is nothing but a token force, Far too small to make a meaningful difference in any major conflict with Russia, on the Continent.

MBTs are supposed to be a battle winner, a means to dominate territory & deliver brute force to the enemy and destroy them...what's the point of spending money on something when purchased in too small a quantity, to do its primary mission.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Cooper wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 06:29 Well, we can argue about the merits, good and bad, of the C3 all day long but one area I'd argue that is unarguable, are the numbers.
Very few people will argue with you there. But that is not a problem of tank itself but rather a reform plans and budget. If I am not wrong, the Army requested upgrade of 190 hulls, which would be enough for three armoured regiments but for budget sake this is reduced to 148. IMO, even having three Type 44 regiments would be better than just two Type 58. Hopefully numbers will be increased even tho there is a very little chance for that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I am also hoping the number of CA2s ungraded to CA3 will be increased as part of a much needed revisiting of the Future Soldier programme.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacScimitar54Digger22

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »



Same system is used by Boxer

Post Reply