Challenger 3

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,252
Reaction score
6,506
At present it looks unlikely if the Army will need a Challenger 2 replacement for the foreseeable
future. I got into hot water for suggesting that when and if we ever did, we should take a leaf out of the Australian or Canadian book and buy off the shelf.

What options are out there? What would people here like to see in an ideal world?
 
Very difficult to speculate because politics and economics will overwhelm any major defense budget decision for the foreseeable future. Also, IMHO the two main trends in armored vehicle modernization will be to keep the "outer shell" so to speak and modernize electronics, fire control and defensive systems (this will be a very active segment in the market)

Secondly, I believe China will be the driver of military technology. What I mean by that is the west will look to what the Chinese are doing (J-20 for example) and determine how their systems stack up and will not modernize until they see the need to counter a Chinese threat.

The problem with that is that is not the best way to plan as we see in the J-20 example that surprised everyone by flying years ahead of schedule. Playing catch-up is very very hard in the defense technology sector.
 
Thank you for these helpful and informative responses. I had not quite grasped how far away a
Challenger 2 replacement will be .

In the absence of a clear military threat using state of the art Main Battle tanks and given our current industrial setup, the only two Western countries with the necessary experience and reasons for developing a new MBT would seem to be the US and Israel. Japan fields a small number of MBTs, but these are mainly derived from Western models with major Japanese alterations.
 
With France, Germany, Poland, and Sweden all being well placed industrially and economically to provide tank forces to deal with a resurgent Russian threat this British taxpayer can think of better uses for my money than maintaining heavy armored forces.
A sensible solution would be to maintain a training cadre with NATO standard equipment that could be the basis of a regenerated 1 Armoured Division if the international situation warranted (a successor to Putin who achieves Third Reich levels of rearmament is the only one I can think of off the cuff).
 
Apparently there is to be a Challenger 3, I expected a rebuild of current vehicles and still no confirmation this is not the case. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57025266. Either way the inclusion of dedicated recce/cavalry roles would seem to suggest a more balanced redefinition of roles within motorised and mobile units. What's left of my old regiment is apparently being re roled in this manner, losing it's Challenger 2s. Technically this will be difficult but doable, more training facilities at the armoured training centre with more specialised training regimes available. This will cost more money though but you have to spend to save I suppose.
 
Last edited:
It's good that the U.K. will be retaining a tank force of some form and that this upgrade program will create jobs, what's unfortunate is that since it's just an upgrade of existing hulls there is no chance of any sort of export orders for Challenger 3.
 
Jim410 said:
It's good that the U.K. will be retaining a tank force of some form and that this upgrade program will create jobs, what's unfortunate is that since it's just an upgrade of existing hulls there is no chance of any sort of export orders for Challenger 3.
Click to expand...
Someone might pick up the retired hulls, and upgrade them, maybe Jordan would take them.
 
Last edited:
The first article seems to be rather desperately (understandably) trying to talk up what is now unarguably a fatally compromised program.
 
It does rather depend on where they are based and their mobility for deployment. I know some exercies have taken place in Poland and if there is any role for them on the European continent, that is where they will need to be stationed. Even in Germany, moving them to a relevant forward area would be too slow. Is there a place in NATO regions for this to happen? Unsure, the Poles themselves might want to deter that scenario. Within a structured NATO ORBAT, there is still a role for them and they can still make a good contribution to any defencive mission.
 
Indeed, but that was assuming that the (already much trimmed back) upgrade would not be totally hollowed out. Unfortunately it has.
 
On the topic of allowable upgrades, the engine has apparently been upgraded so I believe it safe to assume the the engine case now has a scarlet repaint. What? It makes Ferrari's faster.....

Seriously though, with the unitary ammunition I am assuming there is an extraction system for the spent case? Having used two piece ammo myself I'm pretty sure it will get slippery underfoot if that is left out. Even if the ammo is telescoping there will be waste.
 
Last edited:
Foo Fighter said:
On the topic of allowable upgrades, the engine has apparently been upgraded so I believe it safe to assume the the engine case now has a scarlet repaint. What? It makes Ferrari's faster.....

Seriously though, with the unitary ammunition I am assuming there is an extraction system for the spent case? Having used two piece ammo myself I'm pretty sure it will get slippery underfoot if that is left out. Even if the ammo is telescoping the will be waste.
Click to expand...

The 120mm smoothbore uses a combustible case. All that's left is a stub about three inches long after firing.

1648677780274.png
 
Thanks for that, well out of touch tbh. I am still concerned how that is managed inside the turret basket. Elf n safety would have a field day.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Thanks for that, well out of touch tbh. I am still concerned how that is managed inside the turret basket. Elf n safety would have a field day.
Click to expand...

In the M1, there's a basket under the breech where the stubs fall when they are ejected.
 
Ta mate, we had completely combustible bag charges similar to naval guns. I suppose it would be too much to expect that sort of tech for the new gun. A completely combustible case.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Ta mate, we had completely combustible bag charges similar to naval guns. I suppose it would be too much to expect that sort of tech for the new gun. A completely combustible case.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to reconcile bag charges with the latest generations of long-rod penetrators, which extend almost all the way to the base of the case, buried in the propellant charge.
 
Sorry, not bag charges per se, just a completely combustible charge case. It should be possible imo.
 
Last edited:
des.mod.uk

£20 million contract awarded by DE&S marks big steps towards Challenger 3 missile protection system - Defence Equipment & Support

We have awarded a £20 million contract to secure the hardware for the next phase of tests on a cutting-edge new rocket and missile protection system for Britain’s Challenger 3 tanks.
des.mod.uk des.mod.uk
www.joint-forces.com

British Army Challenger 3 Trophy APS Contract | Joint Forces News

£20 million Trophy APS (Active Protection System) contract marks big steps towards Challenger 3 (CR3) missile protection system.
www.joint-forces.com www.joint-forces.com
https://twitter.com/x/status/1679486480828481537
View: https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1679486480828481537
 
Foo Fighter said:
Ta mate, we had completely combustible bag charges similar to naval guns. I suppose it would be too much to expect that sort of tech for the new gun. A completely combustible case.
Click to expand...
The downside is just how fragile current combustible-case rounds are. Even the partially-combustible case currently used in Abrams et al is notably ... delicate to load into the tank. Most crews find some cloth to drape over the loader's hatch to protect the side of the case from the steel hatch ring as ammo is passed down into the turret.

And of course the joys of a separated case head if you are trying to unload the gun without firing it. Loader needs to stay on the ball to avoid that!

All this is per LtCol Nicholas Moran, The Chieftain.
 
Just to note that Challenger 3 will be getting a 1,500hp engine upgrade as well....

Insight: The UK's Challenger 3 tank programme gets ready for service in 2025 | Shephard

Initially planned for service entry between 2027 and 2030, the British Army's first Challenger 3 tanks remain on track for accelerated delivery in 2025. Shephard Defence Insight provides full technical details and a programme update for this vital UK armoured capability.
www.shephardmedia.com
 
Last edited:
im wondering why this thread is still in the alternative history/speculation section, as the Challenger 3 prototype has already been built.
 
This thread is open for discussion of other options than Challengers so I would like to keep it.. Am happy for Challenger stuff to continue here too.

I admit to being less sure than I used to be about going down the Abrams or Leopard route. For all their problems Challengers allow the UK to develop its own approaches and often we do things better than we think.

I am hoping lessons learnt in Ukraine will help this process.
 
uk 75 said:
This thread is open for discussion of other options than Challengers so I would like to keep it.. Am happy for Challenger stuff to continue here too.

I admit to being less sure than I used to be about going down the Abrams or Leopard route. For all their problems Challengers allow the UK to develop its own approaches and often we do things better than we think.

I am hoping lessons learnt in Ukraine will help this process.
Click to expand...

Okay, here's one from out of left field. Acknowledge that the Challenger 3 programme is an in-service upgrade, not a true 'replacement'. Drop it and, instead, join Poland as a partner in the European production K2 Black Panther tanks. South Korea is willing to re-deliver K2s from ROK Army stocks (unsurprisingly, in light of Korean demographics). Poland is taking advantage of this opportunity. Why not have Whitehall follow suit?

Have ex-ROK K2s replace the Royal Tank Regiment's remaining Challenger 2 fleet. As the 'C2s' are phased out of British service, donate them to Ukraine. Then, create a Euro-built 'K2UK' option to full British Army requirements to replace and/or upgrade ex-ROK K2s in RTR service.

In one fell swoop, the UK gets near-immediate replacements for RTR 'Chally' 2s and a place in a major European MBT production programme. No disappointing upgrade upsets. No L55A1CR3 liability. No potential Bundestag bullsh!t. No future-faffing over KF51s. No MGCS morass. (Sorry, practising my alliteration)

The only real downside I can see is a confusing designation and that name. Replacing the C2 with a K2 just sounds odd ... and I can't see any hue of Panther tank ever serving in the Royal Tank Regiment!

All right. Red warning flag raised, let the live fire commence :D
 
K2 is relatively poorly protected isn't it?

I'd say update all the Challengers to CR3 standard as a stop-gap, plus either join EMBT or start work on a domestic replacement.
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
This thread is open for discussion of other options than Challengers so I would like to keep it.. Am happy for Challenger stuff to continue here too.

I admit to being less sure than I used to be about going down the Abrams or Leopard route. For all their problems Challengers allow the UK to develop its own approaches and often we do things better than we think.

I am hoping lessons learnt in Ukraine will help this process.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the actual designs which entered service were always below the capability of the engineers themselves but they rarely had the say or the ressources to do something closer to what they wanted. But the UK approaches in Challengers did not even yield mere tradeoffs, they just obtained net inferior systems.

The Abrams or Leo routes were still better than the Challenger 2 route. The latter was moot because it only sold to a client state and then the industry making it was completely gutted. At least the Leopard agreement would have given British industry a chance to survive independently of national orders by participating in the Leoben group. Rheinmetall may still have pulled the plug in the 2010s regardless due to lack of sufficient orders, but it was an opportunity at least. And it would have greatly facilitated British army modernization efforts in the long run.


Apophenia said:
Okay, here's one from out of left field. Acknowledge that the Challenger 3 programme is an in-service upgrade, not a true 'replacement'. Drop it and, instead, join Poland as a partner in the European production K2 Black Panther tanks. South Korea is willing to re-deliver K2s from ROK Army stocks (unsurprisingly, in light of Korean demographics). Poland is taking advantage of this opportunity. Why not have Whitehall follow suit?

Have ex-ROK K2s replace the Royal Tank Regiment's remaining Challenger 2 fleet. As the 'C2s' are phased out of British service, donate them to Ukraine. Then, create a Euro-built 'K2UK' option to full British Army requirements to replace and/or upgrade ex-ROK K2s in RTR service.

In one fell swoop, the UK gets near-immediate replacements for RTR 'Chally' 2s and a place in a major European MBT production programme. No disappointing upgrade upsets. No L55A1CR3 liability. No potential Bundestag bullsh!t. No future-faffing over KF51s. No MGCS morass. (Sorry, practising my alliteration)

The only real downside I can see is a confusing designation and that name. Replacing the C2 with a K2 just sounds odd ... and I can't see any hue of Panther tank ever serving in the Royal Tank Regiment!

All right. Red warning flag raised, let the live fire commence :D
Click to expand...
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
K2 is relatively poorly protected isn't it?

I'd say update all the Challengers to CR3 standard as a stop-gap, plus either join EMBT or start work on a domestic replacement.
Click to expand...
I do agree that the CR3 programme in principle was not really needed since the UK wouldn't have spent or waited notably more than buying off-the-shelf, but the K2 is not an amazing choice due to its poor armor distribution and I don't see the nervousness about the Bundestag. Even the Polish drama over Leo 2 and love of K2 is strictly due to PiS-era shenanigans (Korea happily footing much of the bill to ensure further orders and get in the European market and calculated anti-german propaganda for domestic consumption) A Leo 2 buy would have been the UK's to fail, not Germany's.

The UK doesn't even need to join KF-51 or MGCS, since all they would have had to buy in the 2020s would be Leopard 2A7Vs or M1A2 SEP v3. Unless the government suddenly wants to rebuild the domestic industry it destroyed in the 90s and 2000s, they can just wait for a future tank to be ready, no need to join a complicated program.
 
From 1949 to 1991 the need to equip our standing forces in West Germany with a substantial number of armoured vehicles, especially tanks, gave British industry a reasonable customer.

As the UK focussed more on operations out of area the type of vehicles we needed kept changing. Tanks were still needed, but in much smaller numbers than before 1991.

However events in Ukraine turn out it is hard to see the UK trying to rival leading European armies in deploying armoured formations. We lack the numbers of people and the economic industrial base.

That said, Challenger exists and has certain features which suit a country only operating a small number of tanks. It is cheaper to operate than Abrams and more rugged than Leopard.
 
What we've seen with Leo and Abrams is even licensed production is under export control to the level that gifting for free in emergency conditions is still subject to approval. The Ukraine War exposes a lot of such things...

We also see the only Leo2 production is in Greece and not much capacity for expansion.
While much scrabbling around for 'spare' Leo2, to the point of old rusty Spanish tanks that may take years to refurbish.

So UK production of Leo or other has always been a cover for closing down an independent 'rival'. If anything it's a sop to the many British people who went to Germany after the UK allowed it's heavy armour industry to close....and who are vital to the current German Tank industry....due to a lack of Germans wanting to get involved (see German population crisis).

I'd hold off involvement in Polish politics if one doesn't grasp both the serious problems they have (cultural) and their sound military assessments.

Note that Norwegian trials showed little difference between K2 and Leo2. That K2 was cheaper and Leo2 chosen for other political (European) reasons. Even if that will cost Norway more.....and probably arrive late.

Dismissing Challenger 2 or UK design and manufacturing may suit foreign interests and certainly fits certain political positions.

But loss of such jobs and capability is not actually in UK interests.

I would note a lot of the defunct industry is in a position to be revived if the will is there.

Perhaps the predictions of a future war may provide the motivation.
 
1705957373295.png
This is not about political positions, it's about the fact the Army itself was not happy about the choice.

"Closing down an independent rival"-but it did close even without Leo 2 being chosen. If anything, the Greek plant argument shows that foreign Leo 2 production plants would still operate, since the hellenic factory remains open.

Also seriously, comparing free export to a Ukraine at war with peacetime sales to the UK, a long-time NATO ally?

I'm sorry, but while it is indeed not in UK interest to gut the industry...it happened, and the governments decided it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom