RBSL Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:05 Everything is still about in year spending, so timescales and total cost seem to be secondary priorities. In the same timescales you could expect to develop a whole new design. Would it be cheaper to just install teh turret form the latest Leopard 2 A7V. May not have the same protection levels but they should be enough to do the job.
And retire UK turret design and integration for another 20 years? Ideal!

sol
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:05 In the same timescales you could expect to develop a whole new design.
MGCS is in developing for almost a decade and still not a single prototype is produced.
Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:05 Would it be cheaper to just install teh turret form the latest Leopard 2 A7V.
Would it be? Leo 2 does have larger turret basket, and neither it or Abrams turrets could fit into CR2 hull. And it is larger in general which could impact overall performances. So it would require optimizations, at least to be able to just fit, and probably electronics would need to be optimized too for British Army requirements. I doubt it would cost much less, especially if you want to produce them in UK.

Basically, first batch of CR3 should arrive in 2027, so in 6 years. Maybe even earlier. If it end as good as expected it would be worth it. Also in this way UK will be able to increase number of tanks if needed and even tho there is very little chance for it, there will be capability for that. And it will also get experienced engineers and workers too.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6407
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:32
Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:05 Everything is still about in year spending, so timescales and total cost seem to be secondary priorities. In the same timescales you could expect to develop a whole new design. Would it be cheaper to just install teh turret form the latest Leopard 2 A7V. May not have the same protection levels but they should be enough to do the job.
And retire UK turret design and integration for another 20 years? Ideal!
Even with the current contracts, the UK based AFV manufacturing capability is on life support. What are the long term plans for the GD and Rheinmetall sites? At best we are simply going to produce other peoples designs and possibly maintain a supporting infrastructure. But I cannot see the UK designing and building in house designs unless industry covers the costs which is very doubtful. Are Rheinmetall going to move their design office to the UK? Is GD?

Partnerships are likely the only way forward that maintains any resemblance of an IFV manufacturing capability, but for any chance for these to occur they need to be backed by large orders from the MoD that are funded. Said funding also needs to be at a level where the programmes can be run at an efficient rate, contrary to most existing ones. Programmes must deliver on time and on budget. This will likely mean designs will need to be more mature before they are submitted against MoD requests. this means a more evolutionary approach. We should spend what R&D funding we have in areas that will make a difference and that really means Aerospace not Ground or even Naval. We are a low tier producer of AFVs and have been for decades.

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

Why would the UK cut all of its R&D money into single project like tempest. We put plenty of money into R&D for subs, aircraft carriers, anti submarine frigates, radars and other sensors. Yes armoured vehicle procurement has been a complete shit show but it can be put right. Rheinmetall could well move design to the UK if it feels there are more export opportunities from a German government that applies a huge amount of scrutiny on anything exported to the middle East.

Online
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 22:19 . Are Rheinmetall going to move their design office to the UK? Is GD?
GD design office is in South Wales, UK.
RBSL is effectively the design office of RLS, with RDUK more a shop window.
KMW/KNDS have WFEL as the design office in UK.
Supacat and Pearson also have long running design offices for high quality products.
Thales I'm unaware of having a UK presence on Bushmaster.

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

UK armoured vehicle manufacturing is arguably in a much better position now than shipbuilding was in the early noughties. Last Trafalgar class was 1991 and last T23 was 2002. We still managed to do Astute and T26. Not ideal but it can be done. MRVP should be a doddle to do indigenously. Supacat could evolve the Jackal platform, Babcock could prime it. Cummins build engines in Lancashire that would be suitable.

Remember we have a successful commercial vehicle industry to leverage off. JCB are the largest manufacturer of tracked vehicles in europe. How difficult would it really be to do a new build hull for CR3, I mean it’s already getting a new turret and electronic architecture. That’s a new tank then

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6407
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

All of the above are paper thin and mainly there to simply support existing programmes not to develop new ones which the parent companies will do in the US, Spain Germany or where ever. It is also the case that it is not economically viable to support at the most one design house on the size and frequency of orders for the British Army. With JCB we have a world leader in the production of plan machinery but that is a world away for designing and producing a Main Battle Tank, even just its hull. MRV(P) could have provided additional work to an existing company, but that programme has stalled, if not dies quietly which is a great shame.

As for the future after the current contracts, well their will be support contracts from the UK and the manufacturing sites could be scaled back and still act as sub contractors for their parent companies with a bit of luck. If GD or Rheinmetall have a future platform that is a runaway success one of the UK sites could become a second manufacturing base of sales in Europe. But the only thing that is going to keep the manufacture of land platforms at the scale we are now at with Ajax, Boxer and Challenger 3 is for the UK Government to decide all AFVs used by the Armed services are to be manufactured in teh UK from the ground up, like they have done with Warships, and even then we will need no more than two manufacturing sites.

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

All good points, I still think it could be done if there were a will. MRVP should be a doddle for UK industry, and you build up from there. There are potential partners out there. What are Poland and Italy doing next? It just doesn’t seem a priority

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 02 Dec 2021, 04:16
Lord Jim wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 22:19 . Are Rheinmetall going to move their design office to the UK? Is GD?
GD design office is in South Wales, UK.
For the whole of Europe? or just their forklift division? :lol:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 12:52 All good points, I still think it could be done if there were a will. MRVP should be a doddle for UK industry, and you build up from there. There are potential partners out there. What are Poland and Italy doing next? It just doesn’t seem a priority
Needs money they don't got :(

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

I’m pretty sure that the budget for Boxer and Ajax between them would have been enough to do a UK equivalent of Project Scorpion. Still might be

sol
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

MoD is procuring 15 DM11 drill rounds and 15 DM63 drill round from RBSL

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W01/766247290

Post Reply