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

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

RunningStrong wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 20:01
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.
I respectfully disagree. To use an example from Royal Navy which I am more aware of. Posters have proposed in the Navy Escort thread about reactivating HMS Monmouth - that is not realistic as it has been de-commissioned and weapos and sensors removed - it is too far down the line and would be vastly increased cost.

Instead I focus on wanting HMS Montrose, a similat T23 Frigate to HMS Monmouth and similarly neither had gone through LIFEX, but crucially still in active service in the Persian Gulf. Keeping HMS Montrose in service will cost - it will mean that the Royal Navy won't save on half of the (from memory) £100million that the planned scrapping of both Frigates early would have saved. To me spending that extra £50million for one extra escort is worth it, especially after what we saw in the T26 thread about defence questions House of Lords.

Now I used that example fro Royal Navy as I pay more attention to that side. But I believe it is a comparable situation with the Army. From what I know of those projects that you listed (Ajax, Boxer, MFP etc), they are all significant acquisition projects that will costs billions and take years to fully implement the acquisition.

I suspect that cancelling the scrapping of around 79 tanks will be far cheaper than those billion pound acquisitions. But more importantly I feel it is better to make that decision now before they ahve been scrapped rather than waiting until after they have been scrapped, where the reactivation costs will naturally be higher.

It's ok if you have a different opinion - but hopefully that explains why I think the most urgent decisions are to revere the planned capability cuts or at least postpone them. Specifically for the British Army once we have cut the number of MBT's down to 148, then I fear we are unlikely to ever increase the number of MBT's until far in the future when we come to retire and replace the Challenger 3's. I fear this would be effectively a permanent capability gap.

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 »

All of the above is important, but regarding the Challenger 3 upgrade, I think we should look at bringing addition vehicles up to that standard, but in a supplementary contract, with the earmarked Challenger 2s kept in storage until such time as they can be worked on.

One thing the conflict in Ukraine should do is bring the Replacement Mobile Fire programme together with the M270 upgrade to the top of the Priority list. These programmes should also be speeded up with both programmes delivering the first Regiment of each around 2025/26. I think if the right platform it chosen for the Mobile Fires replacement programme this could also replace a number of the 105 Light Guns. The remainder would be superseded by equipping the lighter Infantry units with 120mm Mortars, matching the capability the Boxer equipped Infantry Battalions should have.

Ajax has got to be sorted by the end of this year. Either we get al 520 odd Ajax variants on time and to the original budget or the programme is cancelled. No fudging things. One they are delivered we may want to look at modifying some fo the vehicles to carry out other tasks, but I believe the Boxer should be used for specialist roles such as a Medium Bridgelayer.

Unmanned ground combat vehicles should be pushed much further into he future. Current technology limits these to mainly glorifies Remote Control Vehicles with little if any AI. UGVs are the hardest unmanned platforms to give AI to and will end up being the most expensive give the complication any AI will have to face. So yes to "Mules", especially for light units, but no to any actual combat platforms.

I am still a very firm believer that Boxer can fill the roll of IFV if equipped with the appropriate unmanned remote weapon station, such as one carrying a 30 to 35mm Auto cannon ad at least two Fifth Generation ATGWs. For extreme terrain we should use a light BCT equipped with Viking as in the High North even an IFV like Warrior will struggle the same as a modern 8x8 like Boxer. But the benefits of reduced running, maintenance and training costs of a wheeled vehicle far out weight any small advantages a tracked platform may have in specific types of terrain. But losing a wheel or two to a mine/IED is better than a mission kill due to the loss of a track. For the cost of the 350 odd IFVs that would be needed for the two Heavy BCTs we could purchase both the same number of IFV Boxers plus many of the additional Boxers needed for specialist rolls. I would also like to see one Boxer equipped infantry unit in each Light BCT in addition to the Jackals and MRV(P) platforms.

But back to Challenger 3, in an ideal world I would like to see three Regiments of this platform, each with three instead of four Squadrons as well as an attrition reserve. This could form the core of a third Heavy BCT or act as a reserve to reinforce the Two Heavy BCTs or even the Light BCTs, the Deep Fires Recce BCT, or Ranger Regiment with individual Troops or Squadrons where needed. Unless we develop a direct fire support variant of Boxer, Challenger 3 will be the Army's only platform for that role.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
SD67

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: Now I used that example fro Royal Navy as I pay more attention to that side. But I believe it is a comparable situation with the Army. From what I know of those projects that you listed (Ajax, Boxer, MFP etc), they are all significant acquisition projects that will costs billions and take years to fully implement the acquisition.
It's not usually a good approach to try and draw direct comparisons across disciplines. For the purposes of Montrose's current duties she could easily be replaced by an OPV, significantly saving costs in employing a fighting ship for considerably more benign duties.

Main battle tanks don't have the same "downgrade" option, so we have to keep spending money on a capability that provides little function in leave time. That's not intended as a criticism.

And the more money spent on bringing those additional platforms upto spec (and the manning, the REME, the training facilities, the spares, the logistics support) the more we continue to build our headline capability on sand, as the foundations we need to project the MBT force are shakie at best.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 21:54 It's not usually a good approach to try and draw direct comparisons across disciplines. For the purposes of Montrose's current duties she could easily be replaced by an OPV, significantly saving costs in employing a fighting ship for considerably more benign duties.
It would appear that the RN don't agree with your assessment of the potential threat in the Gulf as Montrose could easily have been replaced with an OPV with the availability of five B2 Rivers.

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 good video form The Chieftain regarding whether the Tank is Dead or not. He puts forward a good arguement for retaining tanks and seem to go against parts of the British Army's Future Soldier doctrine and the idea of keeping the enemy at a distance and relying on precision fires to deal with enemy armour etc. rather than Armoured forces and direct fire.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Phil Rzanahoria

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Boris said today that they plan to give Poland Tanks to back fill what they are giving to Ukrain, where the hell are these tanks coming from it’s not like we have hundreds to spare.

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 »

Makes absolute zero sense with the poles buying Abrams, surely a couple of spare Abrams from the yanks stock pile would be better than sacrificing any of our challengers. :wtf:

Maybe its like when ever ship is a battleship in the papers.
What I said in the Ukraine thread

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 »

Boris said he was going to send tanks but didn't say who would be operating them. It would make sense for us to send a Challenger 2 Regiment to Poland to support the Poles and allow them to transfer a PT-91 regiment to Ukraine.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

An interesting tweet from Gabriele:


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 »

But we were told in no uncertain terms that only 148 would be upgraded.
Balls :(

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 4):
JensyLord JimJdamwargame_insomniac

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Apr 2022, 17:57 It would make sense for us to send a Challenger 2 Regiment to Poland to support the Poles and allow them to transfer a PT-91 regiment to Ukraine.
Poland is sending their T-72M1 tanks to Ukraine, not PT-91. T-72M1 was supposed to be replaced with Abrams, while replacement of the PT-91, and eventually Leo 2PL, should be decided later, with either more Abrams or K2PL or something else.

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 »

That makes a bit more sense than us giving Poland Challenger tanks :think:
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
jedibeeftrix

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Curtiss-Wright is selected to provide aiming and stabilization system for CR3


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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Wonder how many shared components we're seeing with AJAX?

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 »

With Curtiss Wright being an American company does the proposed system have any ancestry in UK i.e. Challenger 2 or German i.e. Leopard systems?

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 »

tomuk wrote: 04 May 2022, 20:45 With Curtiss Wright being an American company does the proposed system have any ancestry in UK i.e. Challenger 2 or German i.e. Leopard systems?
The particular arm that deals with turret control is Swiss.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

mr.fred wrote: 04 May 2022, 22:40 The particular arm that deals with turret control is Swiss.
They do have a subsidary in the UK but it deals with other things
.
Who built the gun control/ stabilisation system for CR2? I had always assumed that it was a solid state system under development at the time for fitting to CR1. But I am not so sure now.

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 »

mr.fred wrote: 04 May 2022, 22:40
tomuk wrote: 04 May 2022, 20:45 With Curtiss Wright being an American company does the proposed system have any ancestry in UK i.e. Challenger 2 or German i.e. Leopard systems?
The particular arm that deals with turret control is Swiss.
Ah the former SIG who now specialize in packaging but used to make all sorts of things including SIG Sauer firearms and railway bogies including those used by BR Mk4 coach and the tilting ones on Virgin Pendolinos.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

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

Post by leonard »

Question for all who has any info is the adoption of a RWS even considered on the Challenger 3 MBT here for comparison the FN Herstal RWS who will be adopted in the future Leclere XLR of the French Army ???

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

leonard wrote: 11 May 2022, 13:45 Question for all who has any info is the adoption of a RWS even considered on the Challenger 3 MBT here for comparison the FN Herstal RWS who will be adopted in the future Leclere XLR of the French Army ???
I'd be surprised if it wasn't considered as a fitment option. The CR3 uses the same independent Commander's sight as AJAX, so the interface and swap for the Kongsberg unit should be relatively straightforward and understood technically.

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

RunningStrong wrote: 11 May 2022, 14:15 I'd be surprised if it wasn't considered as a fitment option. The CR3 uses the same independent Commander's sight as AJAX, so the interface and swap for the Kongsberg unit should be relatively straightforward and understood technically.
But wouldn't that mean that Commander sight would also be removed? Sure, he would be able to use RWS sights but is it of the same quality and would provide same capability? Wouldn't something the Main Sensor Slaved Armament, like the one for Lynx IFV, be a better option for this?



It would be able to keep its original commander sight and add RWS, and it would solve issue of RWS reducing commander sight vision field.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 11 May 2022, 17:32
RunningStrong wrote: 11 May 2022, 14:15 I'd be surprised if it wasn't considered as a fitment option. The CR3 uses the same independent Commander's sight as AJAX, so the interface and swap for the Kongsberg unit should be relatively straightforward and understood technically.
But wouldn't that mean that Commander sight would also be removed? Sure, he would be able to use RWS sights but is it of the same quality and would provide same capability? Wouldn't something the Main Sensor Slaved Armament, like the one for Lynx IFV, be a better option for this?



It would be able to keep its original commander sight and add RWS, and it would solve issue of RWS reducing commander sight vision field.
How are you assuming that sight is as good as the Commander's sight on CR3, or better than the Thales Kongsberg sights on the Protector? Is it limited to the 7.62MG or 50cal and 40GMG?

The Gunner still maintains the full optical capability slaved to the gun, but in circumstances where you're like to fit a RWS to a MBT it's incredibly unlikely you're engaging to the full range of the main gun.

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

RunningStrong wrote: 11 May 2022, 20:01 How are you assuming that sight is as good as the Commander's sight on CR3, or better than the Thales Kongsberg sights on the Protector? Is it limited to the 7.62MG or 50cal and 40GMG?
I am not assume anything, I am just asking if sights on Kongsberg RSW are as or nearly as good as commander Thales sight, as I don't know.
RunningStrong wrote: 11 May 2022, 20:01 The Gunner still maintains the full optical capability slaved to the gun, but in circumstances where you're like to fit a RWS to a MBT it's incredibly unlikely you're engaging to the full range of the main gun.
But wouldn't be better if you keep can keep both commander sight and add RWS? At least that is what Leclere and Leo 2 are doing. Switching commander sight for RWS does not sound good to me.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 11 May 2022, 20:13 But wouldn't be better if you keep can keep both commander sight and add RWS? At least that is what Leclere and Leo 2 are doing. Switching commander sight for RWS does not sound good to me.
That depends on CONUSE.

The fitment of a RWS on top of the CMDR sight will make the turret taller. Not a good thing in conventional operations. In counter -insurgency operations where RWS have typically been installed on MBT, then you're less concerned about the height of the MBT. So you can mount the RWS higher. Which in turn gives you improved look-down angles for close-in engagements and in some cases better look-up angles depending on what's mounted in the RWS.

So whilst I get your point about not losing the CMDR "hunter" sight, at the same time it's not needed to the same extent when operating in the counter-insurgency role.

Post Reply