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

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

sunstersun wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 17:46
It's based on common sense?

Why a large cannon when missiles are longer range?
Because cannon is faster and each shot is smaller, cheaper and less affected by APS
Why armor if APS is your only realistic chance against ATGMS?
Because ATGMs aren’t the only things you’re armouring against.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Lord Jim

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 17:57 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.

No one is suggesting a metal sheet only against small arms. It's gotta be able to stop low end AT weapons and RPG's like the Bradley can.

The cost benefit analysis of the MBT has completely changed with ATGMS. The Composite armour would be worth not much against NLAW, Javelin or Spike. APS is the only chance. If we're talking about fire support, then SPA separately in combined arms and a chain gun is better than a cannon on a MBT.

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 »

Challenger 2 has survived hits form weapons similar to what youhave listed and carried on fighting. Western composite armour is saaid to be far superior that its Russian Equivalent, with even better protection once the passive applique armour is fitted. I did say similar systems though, Russia has a ATGW equal to the Javelin, and this is what caused problems for the Israeli Merkava 3&4 in south Lebanon, when the Israelis used poor tactics initally.

Moving forward the aim of most western armies is to fully network their formations greatly reducing the time between an enemy being identified and said enemy being prosecuted. The question is , will Russian or Chinese formation be able to keep up the same tempo as western style forces?

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 »

One way to look at it is naval combat.

WW2 we still had gunner teams meant to sink ships.

Now its missiles vs missiles defense.

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 »

sunstersun wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 18:13 The cost benefit analysis of the MBT has completely changed with ATGMS.
It didn't when ATGW were introduced, nor when they were used en masse in the Yom Kippur war.
The tank has been declared obsolete on a regular basis since they were introduced in the first place. The tank evolves along with its threats, but so far it hasn't been a complete revision.
sunstersun wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 18:53 One way to look at it is naval combat.

WW2 we still had gunner teams meant to sink ships.

Now its missiles vs missiles defense.
The environment ships operate in is substantially different to that which tanks work in, and what kills a tank is somewhat different to what kills a warship.

A very good point I've seen made is that the move from horse cavalry to mechanised units wasn't down to opposition weaponry making cavalry impossible, but the mechanised units being able to do what horse cavalry did, but better. Similarly with the naval example, carriers and missile-armed ships could do what battleships did (deliver warheads to target) but better.
sunstersun wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 18:13 No one is suggesting a metal sheet only against small arms. It's gotta be able to stop low end AT weapons and RPG's like the Bradley can.
That's still a substantial amount of armour. Then consider that if you reduce the maximum armour protection you have then you open yourself up to the enemy countering with a much quicker to service system. For example, a less optimised gun shell is less vulnerable to APS-style defences. A stouter APFSDS or even full-bore shell will bull through APS and still get through your reduced armour, and this shell is travelling three to six times faster than an ATGM. On top of this, engagement ranges are dictated by terrain more than weapon ranges, further distancing land warfare from naval. Chances are that you will detect your target within gun ranges rather than where your missiles are at an advantage.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacLord Jim

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

So just watching the youtube clip on Ex Hedge hog in Estonia where the UK has 30 Challenger 2 and 60 Warrior also seen in the clip is AS-90's and Bulldogs

Also interesting was quit a few Challengers had RWS fitted

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

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

Post by leonard »

A little German engineering humour apply to the Challenger 2 MBT (the rendering bellow is just for little fun time )

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

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

Post by Clive F »

Just been reading about the new German Panther. Any thoughts on getting a production line set up here to replace Challenger?

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

The French will not be happy with this first the Germans buy F-35 and then they launch a new MBT hoping the steal the market things are not going well in Euro land

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 »

Clive F wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 09:18 Just been reading about the new German Panther. Any thoughts on getting a production line set up here to replace Challenger?
Seems like a silly idea. Challenger with upgrades will serve out for another twenty years from this point, at which stage I would expect very different automotive systems and consequently hull design.
We shouldn’t get in the habit of changing horses in mid stream.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post (total 2):
Timmymagicwargame_insomniac

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 »

Why not, Rheinmetall are still in the developmental stage for the Challenger 3 and the KF-51 is their new product and maybe we could get a good deal to be the launch customer? Surely it would be worth looking into at the very least.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

At this stage the KF-51 is a new 130mm turret on a Leopard 2 hull maybe at bast we could fit this 130mm turret on the Challenger hull

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 18:09 Why not, Rheinmetall are still in the developmental stage for the Challenger 3 and the KF-51 is their new product and maybe we could get a good deal to be the launch customer? Surely it would be worth looking into at the very least.
I'd hazard that the KF-51 is at the same place that CR3 was two, three years ago.
Changing horses in mid stream. We should not be doing it.

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 18:37 At this stage the KF-51 is a new 130mm turret on a Leopard 2 hull maybe at bast we could fit this 130mm turret on the Challenger hull
Lord Jim wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 18:09 Why not, Rheinmetall are still in the developmental stage for the Challenger 3 and the KF-51 is their new product and maybe we could get a good deal to be the launch customer? Surely it would be worth looking into at the very least.
So going from one unique gun to another. No one else is using it, there is no indication than anyone else will use it. Even the MGCS might end with different gun, if 140mm is chosen. So from one logistic issue to another. No to mentioned that changing gun now would increase costs and disrupt work already done and all contracts signed so far. Gun is not even in serial production nor is it ammo. Is it even fully operational or still in testing phase?

If properly done, CR3 will be a great tank, with very potent 120mm L55A1 gun which should be able to deal with all threats currently and in near future. Trying to switch to 130mm would only increase costs and delay whole project of tank replacement for years and could seriously impact on the Army capability.
These users liked the author sol for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacTempest414

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

sol wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 20:29 could seriously impact on the Army capability.
You could argue that a fleet of just 148 Challenger 3, isn't really a serious capability to begin with.

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 »

Cooper wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 06:23
sol wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 20:29 could seriously impact on the Army capability.
You could argue that a fleet of just 148 Challenger 3, isn't really a serious capability to begin with.
True, but it is completely unrelated to anything I posted. Or maybe someone believe that if the Army decide to cancel current upgrade and go with either 130mm gun or with a new tank it would mean more than just 148 tanks, considering increase of the costs.

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 »

Of course the KF-51 demonstrator is fitted with the 130mm. What is to say it cannot take the 120mm L55 and be easily upgradeable to teh 130mm whenever ay operator decides to head in that direction. The biggest advantage of the KF-52 is that it is a NEW platform, not an upgrade to a long serving platform forty thirty to forty years old.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 21:45 Of course the KF-51 demonstrator is fitted with the 130mm. What is to say it cannot take the 120mm L55 and be easily upgradeable to teh 130mm whenever ay operator decides to head in that direction. The biggest advantage of the KF-52 is that it is a NEW platform, not an upgrade to a long serving platform forty thirty to forty years old.
Looks like a Leopard 2 hull under there, and of course CR2 is only 20-30 years old by comparison.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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: 15 Jun 2022, 21:45 The biggest advantage of the KF-52 is that it is a NEW platform, not an upgrade to a long serving platform forty thirty to forty years old.
mr.fred wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 23:05 Looks like a Leopard 2 hull under there, and of course CR2 is only 20-30 years old by comparison.
As @mr.fred mentioned, it is upgraded Leopard 2A4 hull (which is even older than CR2) with a new turret. And CR3 will have upgraded CR2 hull and new turret. So .... not much difference there.

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 »

I agree, But as I see it, even if the FV-51's hull is based on the Latest Leopard 2 version that is not really an issue, That is know to have a very good Engine and Transmission, and I am sure the armour and any upgrade package are the latest available. The key capabilities for a MBT that really matter ae all in the Turret as well as the protection level of the latter. IF the KF-51's turret has been designed with ample room for growth such as a 130mm gun, then it most likely has advantages over other MBTs who are still based, hull and turret on older designs. Of course Challenger 3 is different but whilst it is basically getting a new turret, it is not having is power pack upgraded. The opportunity should have been taken to increase this to at least 1500bhp. Never the less the Army will be getting a substantial capability upgrade with the Challenger 2 though as always the MoD has lessened the value of this good news by cutting our MBT strength by a third.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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: 16 Jun 2022, 17:59 Engine and Transmission, and I am sure the armour and any upgrade package are the latest available.
Yes, compared to CR3, which will only get new engine, new transmission, 3rd generation of Hydrogas suspension, new modular armour, enhanced hull protection, new thermal sights ... Sure they could increase engine to 1500hp in CR3, but everything that will be upgraded/added is, as you said, "latest available".

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Jun 2022, 17:59 I agree, But as I see it, even if the FV-51's hull is based on the Latest Leopard 2 version that is not really an issue, That is know to have a very good Engine and Transmission, and I am sure the armour and any upgrade package are the latest available. The key capabilities for a MBT that really matter ae all in the Turret as well as the protection level of the latter. IF the KF-51's turret has been designed with ample room for growth such as a 130mm gun, then it most likely has advantages over other MBTs who are still based, hull and turret on older designs. Of course Challenger 3 is different but whilst it is basically getting a new turret, it is not having is power pack upgraded. The opportunity should have been taken to increase this to at least 1500bhp. Never the less the Army will be getting a substantial capability upgrade with the Challenger 2 though as always the MoD has lessened the value of this good news by cutting our MBT strength by a third.
The existing power pack is my main concern re Challenger 3 upgrade.

It's three big plus points over Challneger 2 are the 120mm smoothbore gun with NATO standard ammo, upgraded armour, and updated systems and sensors. But the Challenger 2 was never the quickest of MBT, and unless the other upgrades save weight, I fear the Challenger 3 will be slower still without an improved power pack..

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 »

sol wrote: 16 Jun 2022, 21:22
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Jun 2022, 17:59 Engine and Transmission, and I am sure the armour and any upgrade package are the latest available.
Yes, compared to CR3, which will only get new engine, new transmission, 3rd generation of Hydrogas suspension, new modular armour, enhanced hull protection, new thermal sights ... Sure they could increase engine to 1500hp in CR3, but everything that will be upgraded/added is, as you said, "latest available".
Is that confirmed that it will get new engine? I don't remember seeing that in the various press releases and articles about the upgrade to Challnger 3. Thanks

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

If I'm remembering rightly, it was an unfunded separate project.
These users liked the author Little J for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Great video on youtube of the John Cockerill turret upgrade of the Leopard 1 using there 3105 105mm turret they claim the integration took 1 day and all they needed to do was make a new adaptor ring for the bearing and a new power cable and gives the Leopard 1 a two man turret with a 12 round auto loader and fire on the move

Post Reply