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

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

RBSL HOLDS GROUNDBREAKING EVENT FOR NEW CHALLENGER 3 TURRET TEST RIG
RBSL has formally started construction on a Challenger 3 turret test rig at its Telford site, following a groundbreaking ceremony attended by members of RBSL, British Army, DE&S and Mark Pritchard – local MP for The Wrekin.
Image
https://www.rbsl.com/news-and-events/ne ... t-test-rig

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

sol wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 21:34 MoD is procuring 15 DM11 drill rounds and 15 DM63 drill round from RBSL

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W01/766247290
Turret testing
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 22:19 At best we are simply going to produce other peoples designs and possibly maintain a supporting infrastructure.
When we still had the 'establishments' the industry produced the designs and much of the rest was done 'in-house'. So the chain is getting somewhat stretched, but the ability to do rapid retro-fits (among other things) is getting better
SD67 wrote: 02 Dec 2021, 05:41 That’s a new tank then
Interesting to see if Germany/ France will go ahead with theirs... or start to upgrade what they have plenty quick
SD67 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 12:52 What are Poland and Italy doing next? It just doesn’t seem a priority
Now we know what Poland is going to do. Luckily for Ukraine, they left Oplot (production rate 3 per year) as is and upgraded their other tanks instead.
RunningStrong wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 12:33 there appears to be "tailoring" to the CR3 spec, but yes it's fundamentally the same system.

Good to see some sense has prevailed in sharing systems across platforms.
Agree. At least reverses the situation from the days of British tanks crossing the border into Kuwait/ Irak and the tanks being able to see further ahead than their supporting recce wagons.
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)

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

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

Post by sol »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 08 Mar 2022, 08:54 Interesting to see if Germany/ France will go ahead with theirs... or start to upgrade what they have plenty quick
France is already upgrading their Leclercs and Germany is producing Leo A7Vs for their army. Still work on MGCS will continue, at least by France.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 08 Mar 2022, 08:54 Now we know what Poland is going to do.
Poland is replacing T-72 with Abrams but it still need to find replacement for PT-91 and Leos. It could be in the form of additional Abrams or something else, like K2PL which is still in the game. This will be decided later.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

sol wrote: 08 Mar 2022, 10:47 France is already upgrading their Leclercs and Germany is producing Leo A7Vs for their army. Still work on MGCS will continue, at least by France.
Yes, Scorpion is well on its way and Germany bought back 200 of their own Leo 4s... likely to be Leo6+ when they will enter service
... the 7Verbessert version might now take precedence on the production line(?)
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)

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 »

A little bit of fun.

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 »

Yes both France and Germany are continuing their incremental improvements in their Army's from upgraded Tanks to improved infantry kit. They are not moving fast but they are moving and there are results to be physically seen. We on the other hand are currently producing mountains of Power Point presentation on the latest great idea to come down form those in charge, where they repeatedly try to find the best solutions to a situation where funding no where meets what is needed to achieve the mission statements. How many reshuffled and reorganisations has the British Army had over the last few decades, and how many of those have produced anything but a reduction in numbers of personnel and equipment but not the promised improvements as they are superseded the next great plan. A always the reductions happen overnight whereas the improvements take years if not decades.

Challenger 3 falls into this category at present and will remain there until the upgraded Tanks start to enter service or are even put through testing. I truely hope recent events see the number of Challenger 3s upgraded increased. It would only require a moderate increase inthe programmes budget and the benefits to the Army would be significant, having either a better attrition reserve, the polite name for a war reserve, or the ability to maintain three Armoured Regiments. Challenger 3 must not be seen as a one off exercise either. We have made the mistake of not incrementally upgrading out AFVs for many years and that has got to stop. A spiral development programme for all new platforms, Boxer, Ajax and Challenger 3 must be put in place and maintained. The first two have plenty of growth potential or at least the first does. WE need to use these platforms to develop and bring into service vehicles that fill many long standing capability gaps that must now be filled if the Army's combat formations are to be valid going forward.

For Challenger 3 in addition to the planned improvements I would be looking at a new Power Pack of at least 1500bhp as well as a gun launched long range ATGM similar to what the Israeli Army has introduced. We need to also ensure that the more conventional ammunition for the new 120mm L55 smoothbore is keep up to date and relevant. None of the above have to be standalone bespoke UK projects though and partners will be out there. Boxer is also in this category but this is where Ajax runs into trouble. Hopefully this will be the last UK only platform the Army purchases, but being as it is one of the services core AFVs, meaning and developing it is going to be more costly then either Boxer or the Challenger 3. A small hope is the development of new ammunition with the French for the CT40 Auto Cannon, and possible adoption of a widely used ATGW for any overwatch version or even fitting said weapon to the standard Turreted Recce Version.

This is one of the reasons why I do not really want to se the Army try to find a new tracked AFV. This would be bringing a forth key platform into service, greatly stretching the funding required to support the Army's AFV fleet. Boxer can keep up with the Challenger 3 in all likely terrain types and exceed its mobility on some. As long as its firepower is increase it can do the IFV role, whilst not adding much if anything to the maintenance and operations budgets.

Done correctly the Challenger 3 programme could give the British Army a cutting edge Main Battle Tank that could last to the latter half of the 2040s at least. But in doing so the Army is going to have to break many of its bad habits and learn many new good ones. One can hope at least.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

First steel cut for challenger 3 turret :-

https://des.mod.uk/challenger-3-steel-cut/

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Good news that work has started at last.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

I keep having this nagging idea that we can do some kind of JV with Poland in the land domain. Even if it means we're the minority partner. We've had two big wins in Poland - NAREW (CAMM) and MIECZNIK (T31). How about completing the triangle

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

I take it the Challenger 3 will still be using Chobham Armour?

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 »

Jdam wrote: 25 Mar 2022, 17:05 I take it the Challenger 3 will still be using Chobham Armour?
I don't think so. Challenger 2 didn't.

It will be a Chobham derived system, most likely. I did see the name mentioned somewhere but can't find it on a cursory search. Certainly most reporting notes that a new armour system is part of the upgrade.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

It was Dorchester (2nd generation Chobham) what I was wondering if we were getting 3rd gen for the Challenger 3 turret of or it Dorchester again.

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 »

whatever its actual name is the Challenger 3 is said to be getting 3rd Generation Chobham Armour and not just on the new turret.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Jdam

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 »

I believe its called Epsom armour. Yes described as 3rd generation.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Jdam

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

Thanks for the info :thumbup:
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
wargame_insomniac

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

It's fair to expect that captured Javelins and N.L.A.WS will be assessed in making anti tank weapons,that may be used against a Challenger in future conflicts or can Javelin defeat trophy?

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 »

Sources close to the program mention that the tank will have unparalleled survivability thanks to a newly designed ‘EPSOM’ and ‘FARNHAM’ armour, which will be layered with a brand new Active Protection System.
https://www.defence-and-security.com/fe ... s-8732290/

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Might seem a stupid question but is only having 148 tanks going to do anything going forward for uk army , after Ukraine war ? ,, Can't make my mind up if tanks contribute for the UK army with such small negligible numbers that not even relevant or they still needed in UK army after lessons from Ukraine ,I can't answer that myself tbh , above my pay grade for a good answer, cheers
These users liked the author inch for the post:
SW1

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

inch wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 09:55 Might seem a stupid question but is only having 148 tanks going to do anything going forward for uk army , after Ukraine war ? ,, Can't make my mind up if tanks contribute for the UK army with such small negligible numbers that not even relevant or they still needed in UK army after lessons from Ukraine ,I can't answer that myself tbh , above my pay grade for a good answer, cheers
I’d add two further questions to that with such a small force what’s the career progression and long term training knowledge experience like in the force will it lead to retention issues.

The other being if our logistical lines were being attacked like we have seen in Ukraine how long would we be able to support and sustain there deployment before we give up for lighter logistical forces.

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 »

During the Cold War it used to be said that the British Army's logistics in Germany would run out in less than 72hrs of full on conflict. Logistics is one area we need substantial improvement including re establishing a decent war reserve, something we have always really failed to do as it was one of the first places savings were made.

We also need additional kit for training, not just logistics but improved simulation. Ideally we should have a all arms Battlegroup Simulator set up to improve the readiness of the BCTs, which will be cheaper than actual live exercises, these still being required with a Brigade being deployed somewhere at short notice on an annual basis.

As for the Challenger 3, there is definitely a role for it in the British Army moving forward. APS like Trophy can engage top attack ATGW as they have the elevation to do so, but I will have to double check on the sensors though. Russian APS is more fixed and has great difficulty in dealing with weapons like Javelin, and even NLAW.

The Russians seem to be having big issues with their AFV in the way they are organised and how they are using them. Their key weapon is still their Artillery, and locating and neutralising this has to be the key capability the British Army needs to develop as well as having far greater air and missile defence.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

I still hope that Treasury allocates additional money on Defence Spending.

If they do, one of the first things I hope they do for the army is reverse the cut in tanks and upgrade as many of the 227 Challenger 2's as possible. 148 tanks just feels too few.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Dahedd

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 14:10 I still hope that Treasury allocates additional money on Defence Spending.

If they do, one of the first things I hope they do for the army is reverse the cut in tanks and upgrade as many of the 227 Challenger 2's as possible. 148 tanks just feels too few.
The government might feel they have an optics problem in any defence increase, our increases if any will be going to be filling in the gabs and reversing cuts made by the government, not really a good look for them. Upgrading all our Challenger, buying the original 5 E-7, new anti ship missile and keeping our mine sweepers would seem like a must right now but like I said hardly going to generate a lot of headlines. :|
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

Jdam wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 15:40
wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 14:10 I still hope that Treasury allocates additional money on Defence Spending.

If they do, one of the first things I hope they do for the army is reverse the cut in tanks and upgrade as many of the 227 Challenger 2's as possible. 148 tanks just feels too few.
The government might feel they have an optics problem in any defence increase, our increases if any will be going to be filling in the gabs and reversing cuts made by the government, not really a good look for them. Upgrading all our Challenger, buying the original 5 E-7, new anti ship missile and keeping our mine sweepers would seem like a must right now but like I said hardly going to generate a lot of headlines. :|
Could agree with all of those - whilst I might want another 20*F35, I recognise that would be a big up font expense with additional costs for crew and maintenance. Whereas reversing all those cust you have listed should be a relatively small cost to reverse - it always felt as penny pinching to accept those specific capability gaps.

For the E7 Wedgetails in particular we should be able to pick up commercial new build Boeing 737NG real cheap now because the worldwide aviation market has been decimated by firstly Covid and then Russian invasion of Ukraine and the accompanying flight sanctions.

From a Royal Navy perspective I would add keeping HMS Montrose active and reactivating HMS Bulwark, and if we have sufficient crew keeping HMS Talent / Triumph active for longer.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 14:10 I still hope that Treasury allocates additional money on Defence Spending.

If they do, one of the first things I hope they do for the army is reverse the cut in tanks and upgrade as many of the 227 Challenger 2's as possible. 148 tanks just feels too few.
I hope they don't.

We still have AJAX to be fielded, only limited BOXER variants, Mobile Fires programme to kick off, 105 also needs replacement, MRV-P part 1 and 2 revitalised, bringing autonomous and remotely operated ground vehicles into service, and a lack of ATGM Overwatch platform. And a cancelled IFV programme.

So hopefully we'll replace the FV432, Pinzgauer, WMIK, UOR, AS90, CVR(T), HET and Warrior before we focus too much on additional MBT.

Post Reply