UK Defence Forum

The Armchair Soldier wrote:https://rbsl.com/capabilities/tracked-v ... hallenger2

RBSL website states the LEP Challengers will be known as Challenger 3. Not seen any British Army or government sources to suggest that’s what it’s name will be in service but it seems to be what RBSL is going with.

Isn't the 2040 OSD new too?

I wonder if this means contract negotiations have progressed and main gate passed.

Ron5 wrote:2040 OSD

tallies with what the US has been saying about their Abrams
- hence the Franco-German newbie will not be a slam dunk
- though realistically the only one that could have sourcing for some of it from here

The Armchair Soldier wrote:https://rbsl.com/capabilities/tracked-v ... hallenger2

Often mention in oral evidence by Tobias Ellwood, Chair Defence Select Committee.

Just speculation on my part, but I would think the MOD would have included an OSD in the requirements documents in order to ensure that their would be continued support through the life of vehicle. As we know Out Of service Dates are somewhat flexible, they are basically a planning tool and we know what happens to plans when they encounter Politics!

Behind the (breached) Telegraph Pay-Wall..more substance on the C2's with the new Digital camouflage, which I assume will make it onto the 'Challenger 3':

(Large image, so placed behind a spoiler tag)

So that's it then folks ,our ch3 upgrade will consist of a new paint job ,crack the champagne out lads we've cracked it .. tremendous ,lol , happy new year British army

Tea and Medals all round!!!

Little J wrote:Tea and Medals all round!!

Prefer tea and biscuits

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/digi ... -539d0fkqz

‘Digi camouflage’ makes tanks more difficult to see

A new type of camouflage with multiple patterns has made it 80 per cent more difficult to spot tanks compared with the “bog-standard” designs used before, trials have shown.

The army has been studying if a design called the “multi-coloured digital camouflage five” (MCDC 5) can cut detection rates for tanks in the field.

The design, which uses an array of squares that resemble scrambled pixels on a digital screen, has been shown to make it harder for trained soldiers to spot tanks, cutting detection rates to 20 per cent of what they were before.

The army has been conducting a project called “Hide, Deceive, Survive”, run by the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU). The trials have been done at the army’s tank training range in Bovington, Dorset, and have been described as a “big win” by Lieutenant Colonel Rob Page, commanding officer of the ATDU, who said that the army, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and the Tank Museum had collaborated on the project, with some ideas sent in via social media. He told The Daily Telegraph: “Young soldiers with fresh ideas, combined with experienced instructors and professionals have attacked it in a different way.”

Major Charlie Brunskill said that confusing an enemy soldier or drone for even a few seconds could make a huge difference in active combat and said: “If I can delay that targeting cycle, that’s a win . . . Once an anti-tank team shows itself and goes through that cycle, if I can add three more seconds to that I can perhaps get a shot off first.”

Camouflage is designed to confuse the enemy’s eye, both to make a soldier or vehicle blend into their background and to make it harder to distinguish their exact shape and position. Patterns with large shapes tend to work best at long distances while smaller patterns work best at close range.

Armed forces around the world have in recent years been moving away from camouflage designs that mimic the shapes of nature to designs that look more like computer-generated or pixilated patterns, finding that they work at both long and close range and make objects harder to detect and identify.

Camouflage on tanks is largely ineffective at less than 300 metres because it would be easily visible however it is painted. At more than 1,000 metres, camouflage is largely unnecessary as even an unpainted vehicle would blend into its surroundings.

Most engagements involving tanks take place between 300 and 1,000 metres, however. The new digitally-inspired design has been devised to be most effective at this range.

Some anti-tank technology relies on artificial intelligence to identify its targets by their visual or thermal signatures. Paint schemes that use a wide range of colours from across the spectrum can fool these into thinking a tank is another type of vehicle or are in a slightly different location. Moving away from a “boring standard Nato green” can also have a psychological effect, said David Wiley, curator of the Tank Museum, adding: “Never underestimate the impact of heavy armour: what it looks like and what its presence is.”

Lieutenant Colonel Page said that the new designs had already proved popular across the army’s cavalry regiments.

He said: “This has created a buzz in the armoured community because it has shown that really low level innovation can have a massive impact.”

I can already see the owners of paint booths in the many establishments in Essex lining up to submit bids to carry out the work.

So low observable tanks, not stealth tanks lol would of been interesting if there was data on thermal reduction signature as u.a.v,s can have infrared cameras

seaspear wrote:So low observable tanks, not stealth tanks lol would of been interesting if there was data on thermal reduction signature as u.a.v,s can have infrared cameras

They did mention the paint had different thermal properties, so I assume it works in the infra red spectrum much like it does in the visual spectrum. Not making it "invisible" but making it difficult to identify. Maybe!
A question though, is this paint scheme to be used in conjunction with the Barracuda camouflage or instead of?

If I remember correctly it was stated in evidence to the Defence Committee that they couldn't afford to paint the Challengers in WFM at a cost of £30,000 each. So how are they going to afford what must be an even more expensive paint job? Mind you it cold explain the enthusiasm of the crews, at least they will then look the part!

I have included from Warzone an article about the U.S army work on masking thermal signature with 'paint'
it does show a picture of a soviet-era vehicle in infrared would have been of interest seeing if the before and after Challenger update in the same

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... mal-optics
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ers-tanks/

“Observer status is being granted to the U.K. for the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System program,” an MoD official in London said.

Makes sense - realistically it's almost inevitable we collaborate with either Europe or the US. We don't have the political backing to support the MBTs in service we already have and don't really have any international market share worth defending.

Become totally ineffective!

Defiance wrote:Makes sense - realistically it's almost inevitable we collaborate with either Europe or the US. We don't have the political backing to support the MBTs in service we already have and don't really have any international market share worth defending.

Just an observer status. Doubt there's the money for a 'Euro Tank'.

BlueD954 wrote: money for a 'Euro Tank'.

... in due course
- let's extend our existing ones in the mean time

Exactly, the "Euro Tank" is a ways off and could possibly be a replacement for the Challenger 3s, but France and Germany are not going to be in any rush to replace their Leopards and Leclercs until the late 2030s early 2040s really.

BlueD954 wrote:Just an observer status. Doubt there's the money for a 'Euro Tank'.

I am aware, I meant it made sense that we would want to understand their program requirements when planning what we may intend to do

Defiance wrote:made sense that we would want to understand their program requirements

and at the same time I am sure that we won't be too far away from the US prgrm, trying to set rqrmnts for the Abrams successor. They know how difficult that will be (hence what will emerge will not be a 'direct' successor), but they will work through the "Carmel track" for us.

It doesn't hurt to look. Given how bad the LeClerc is, I hope the Germans take the lead.

jimthelad wrote:It doesn't hurt to look. Given how bad the LeClerc is, I hope the Germans take the lead.

They will, the more 'obscure' artillery project will probs have the French leading.

What I can't understand is for what purpose did they (the new joint company) put a LeClerc turret on a Leo2
... it does have an autoloader and if they (we ) go for the bigger gun, I hear having the autolodder becomes a must, rather than an option

The French would have insisted they have the pretty bit on top. As a result they have combined the worst bits of both tanks!!! 130mm CR3 for me please and then lets have a serious look at what the US is doing for 15yrs time.

jimthelad wrote:The French would have insisted they have the pretty bit on top. As a result they have combined the worst bits of both tanks!!! 130mm CR3 for me please and then lets have a serious look at what the US is doing for 15yrs time.

Agreed. Never before have the three nations managed to agree on a tank design which suits all of our requirements. I certainly don't see that changing now, especially given that the UK would be joining as a late participant, a passenger effectively, if it were to eventually join the programme.

Now this may be undeserved scepticism at this early stage, but then only thing I can see UK participation in the Eurotank programme leading to will be the induction of an imperfect design that we will have had little say over and thus won't be particularly well optimised to our requirements/doctrine, it will arrive years late, will be massively overbudget and will have done little to benefit our ailing AV industry.

I can see it being like Typhoon, but worse...