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

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

What is wrong with the current installation of a RWS in front of the Gunner's hatch? surely such an arrangement could be done with the Challenger 3, maybe even upping the gun to a M2 .50cal.? I think leaving the current new Commander's and Gunner's sights well alone is what should be done.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 12 May 2022, 03:40 What is wrong with the current installation of a RWS in front of the Gunner's hatch? surely such an arrangement could be done with the Challenger 3, maybe even upping the gun to a M2 .50cal.? I think leaving the current new Commander's and Gunner's sights well alone is what should be done.
It's a completely different turret for a start...

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 12 May 2022, 03:40 What is wrong with the current installation of a RWS in front of the Gunner's hatch? surely such an arrangement could be done with the Challenger 3, maybe even upping the gun to a M2 .50cal.? I think leaving the current new Commander's and Gunner's sights well alone is what should be done.
Wouldn't that block commander sight view field quite significantly, considering that it would be placed almost in front of it?

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 »

Ok but the existing RWS has little or no impact on the turret it is installed on bar some wiring so put it somewhere else on the turret os it doesn't impact the view from the Commander's sight, or at least minimises it. The Challenger 3 cannot be the only MBT that cannot install a RWS surely?

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

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

Post by leonard »

There's allways the possibility to have the RWS in the back like where KMW Leopard 2 A7+ has it ???
These users liked the author leonard for the post:
Lord Jim

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

If you can see it you can hit it. Top attack MPAW just need to overfly, with that bloody umbrella sticking up it makes for a very nice target. If you are that exposed and needs RWS then your infantry screen is not doing it's job.
These users liked the author jimthelad for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

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 »

RunningStrong wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 20:01 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

Prioritise recce-strike
... as we do not have all the elements of it for now
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 »

Prioritise new Artillery platforms follows by filly the gaps in the Boxer capability requirements for the Mechanised Infantry units. Saying that Challenger 3 is going to give us two Regiments of cutting edge Main Battle Tanks, plus a few spares. We must ensure it has the right amount of consumables to match its potential thoguh.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 21 May 2022, 21:34
RunningStrong wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 20:01 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

Prioritise recce-strike
... as we do not have all the elements of it for now
Apologies to RunningStrong, as the second para was my comment to his quoted, which appears as the first para in the text
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 »

The war in Ukraine is highlighting the fact that we have serious capability gaps across the Army as well as just as serious capacity issues. The Current EP is now out of date and I believe the number of Challenger 2s to be upgraded to Challenger 3 standard needs to be increased, not by alot, but we should aim for three reduces strength Regiments to spearhead three Heavy BCTs that would from a square 3rd (UK) Division when combines with the Deep Fires BCT. Each Regiment would have a Headquarters and three Squadrons of fourteen Tanks for a total of forty four as against the current fifty six. To compensate each Armoured Regiment would have a full fourteen strong Recce Squadron included.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

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

Post by Rentaghost »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 May 2022, 04:58 The war in Ukraine is highlighting the fact that we have serious capability gaps across the Army as well as just as serious capacity issues. The Current EP is now out of date and I believe the number of Challenger 2s to be upgraded to Challenger 3 standard needs to be increased, not by alot, but we should aim for three reduces strength Regiments to spearhead three Heavy BCTs that would from a square 3rd (UK) Division when combines with the Deep Fires BCT. Each Regiment would have a Headquarters and three Squadrons of fourteen Tanks for a total of forty four as against the current fifty six. To compensate each Armoured Regiment would have a full fourteen strong Recce Squadron included.
Each Heavy BCT has a whole Recce regiment attached. What use is the additional Recce Squadron to the armoured regiment?

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 »

Rentaghost wrote: 25 May 2022, 11:34 Each Heavy BCT has a whole Recce regiment attached. What use is the additional Recce Squadron to the armoured regiment?

A you point out, using the old tables for how many of what in a "regiment" can make us go around in circles. The 3+1 (the latter, known as of old the Div Arty, is not a bad idea at all).

But as always: how many MBTs overall.how are they going to be used (and deployed, for that matter, before they can be put to use).
... all 'tables' point to 2 MBT formations having 2 rgmnts of artillery, to back them up. As for the recce: Warriors (for now!?) for the heavier parts and Jackals 'sniffing around' ahead of them

Oh boy... is t time to give up and come back in 5 yrs ... to see if the mess has been sortted out?
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 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Oh well, staying clear of these "end quote" marks did not work well ... so apologies again, for the statement and the comment on it appearing within the same box.
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 »

In my world we would end up with three Heavy (Mechanised) BCTs each with a Armoured Cavalry regiment with Challenger 3s and Ajax as I mentioned above, two Mechanised Infantry Battalions in Boxer, a Combined Support Regiment with Engineering, Signals and EW and an Artillery Regiments with three Batteries of say Archer 155mm SP Guns and one Battery of HIMARS. The Combined Support Regiment would come from various Regiments and Battalion at Divisional level, as would the HIMARS Battery. The Armoured and Infatry units would have integral SPAAA based on a Boxer chassis.

These three BCT plus the Deep Strike BCT would make up 3rd (UK) Division, with the latter BCT equipped with two Regiments of Ajax and Two Regiments of upgrades M270 GMLRS. This formation would be permanently forward deployed in Germany or western Poland along with 3rd Divisions Headquarters and one of the Heavy BCTs. The latter would also provide the forces in the Baltic on rotation with the two UK based Heavy BCT.

This is how I would like to see the Army move to by the first quarter of teh next decade. Will it happen, not a chance, we will be lucky to have what is currently planned unless there is a further uptake in funding for the MoD's Equipment plan and an increase in personnel, oh well.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacbobp

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

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

Post by leonard »

In light of the experience of the war in Ukraine I have to ask was that a mandatory requirement for the new RBSL Challenger 3 MTB to have its turret roof heavy armored like in the Greek and Spanish Army's Leopard 2 versions tanks????

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 »

leonard wrote: 30 May 2022, 16:17 I have to ask was that a mandatory requirement for the new RBSL Challenger 3 MTB to have its turret roof heavy armored
I'd rather ask about APS, and what field of regard will the system have.
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)

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

Given the way armoured vehicles have been done over in Ukraine we need every Ch2 upgraded that are still in existence. 150 is a joke.

Not interested in any bollocks about where is the money coming from either.

The army hasn't taken ownership of a new armoured vehicle for a decade to my mind, besides a dozen Ajax variants that are shite.

Now Warrior is gone they need to go big on Boxer too.

It's time to cut the crap.

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 »

Luke jones wrote: 30 May 2022, 17:58 Now Warrior is gone they need to go big on Boxer too.
Yes, agree with the conclusion.

Warrior not gone though. From AI to Heavy Cavalry, I believe.
- will be pretend 'Ajaxes' and I would bet for much longer than 2025 ... wasn't that when the IFV role was to come to an end?
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)

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:14
Luke jones wrote: 30 May 2022, 17:58 Now Warrior is gone they need to go big on Boxer too.
Yes, agree with the conclusion.

Warrior not gone though. From AI to Heavy Cavalry, I believe.
- will be pretend 'Ajaxes' and I would bet for much longer than 2025 ... wasn't that when the IFV role was to come to an end?
Yeah they will go on abit longer. Won't get upgraded of course. Looks like that ship has sailed.

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 »

Luke jones wrote: 30 May 2022, 19:16 Yeah they will go on abit longer. Won't get upgraded of course.

Takes my thoughts back to the initial roll-out plan (for Ajax):
Each Rgmnt (5 at the time, I think) getting one sqdrn of heavies and staying with two of the lighter platforms
- is it now Ajax with the other heavies and all those other platforms actually serving with the LIGHT BCTs?
Yeah they will go on abit longer.
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 »

Without hearing anything else, I am assuming nothing will be do to the Warrior whan tey are moved to the "Recce" role.

I cannot under stand why we have not already expanded the Challenger 3 contract to cover sufficient vehicles for three Regiments even if we only stand up two and keep the rest as reserves/replacements. They are a finite source, there will be nowhere to go to , to ask for some more once the balloon goes up and things may be over before Rheinmetall could scrape a few more form any Challenger 2s that haven't been turned into spades and forks.

Bower is the future of the British Army's AFV fleet, I just hope for once that maximise the utility and capability of a platform instead of leaving it for a couple of decades before doing any such work.

The Government needs to wake up and smell the coffee, place orders to replace kit donated to Ukraine which we still use, AKA, all those lovely IATW and MANPADS.
It also has to speed up its transformation, bring forward teh multitude of programmes that at preaent are simply listed as teh beginning of the 2030s.
For almost every Capability gap we have there is a solution already in production somewhere. We cannot hold thing up because it is desirable to have a manufacturing base for said items. Rheinmetall are setting up sites and creating jobs due to Challenger 3 and Boxer so that is that box ticked, so fo r example unless we pick the RCH155, ther is no real reason to build teh AS-90s successor in teh UK if we could get it quicker through overseas manufacture.
We need to focus resources much more on the near and medium term, whilst keeping an eye on thigs further afield. Let other departments spend their resources on programmes like Ai, once they have got a mroe mature level of product then the MoD can inject funding to make it Soldier proof, especially not having the AI make the Squaddies feel inadequate!!

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

I do think MBT tanks are done for.

The bigger cannon and ever increasing armor is basically a lost proposition against ATGMs and APS.

A drone vehicle IFV with a 50mm and Spike is what I want working alone side SPA.
These users liked the author sunstersun for the post:
Zero Gravitas

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 »

sunstersun wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 17:04 I do think MBT tanks are done for.

The bigger cannon and ever increasing armor is basically a lost proposition against ATGMs and APS.
Is that based on the first month of the war in Ukraine with the battle for Kiev?

Or based on the last month of the war in Ukraine with the battle for Donbass?

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

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

Post by sunstersun »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 17:44
sunstersun wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 17:04 I do think MBT tanks are done for.

The bigger cannon and ever increasing armor is basically a lost proposition against ATGMs and APS.
Is that based on the first month of the war in Ukraine with the battle for Kiev?

Or based on the last month of the war in Ukraine with the battle for Donbass?
It's based on common sense?

Why a large cannon when missiles are longer range?

Why armor if APS is your only realistic chance against ATGMS?

Bradleys took out more tanks than Abrams did in Desert Storm. This is just a natural evolution.

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 »

The armour on even the latest Russian Tanks does not really compare to the latest composite armour that will be fitted to the Challenger 3 together with its add on applique armour package. And an APS and a fire direction sensor and any ATGW team could be in a world of hurt. Even looking at the Challenger 2 in Iraq. Some took multiple ATW and RPD hits and we are talking dozens of hits here and were still operational. If you look at the Challenger 3 turret the roof is actually sloped and this will be retained on the Challenger 3 Turret. The Challenger 3 will not be invulnerable but it will be a difficult target to actually knock out.

Post Reply