British Army News and Discussion

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member

It appears the British tradition of rifled tank guns is being put to rest with the Challenger 3 upgrade, with them adopting the smoothbore L55A1 from Rheinmetall.
Does anyone know whether they will be newly build tanks, or if it is going to the current chassis of the Challenger that will get some rust removal, new wiring and refitted with the new modifications?
Existing hull, angle grinder, new turret, screw driver, done.

The announcement is a bit vague on details, but "upgraded suspension" and "upgraded engine" were referred to, as well as sensor improvements. It'll do until the next gen of tanks are around and it's cheaper than new build M1's I guess. Just should have been signed off ten years ago.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Is there a way of integrating the LMM missile onto the Apache and army variant of the wildcat surely it must have have land applications aswell. Maybe compliment the Jagm as a alternative to rockets.
Already done on the Wildcat by appearances:


No reference to Apache in terms of integration however.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Existing hull, angle grinder, new turret, screw driver, done.
I'm very interested by the Active Protection System. Granted there are many different types available, some more comprohensive than others. However, I wasn't expecting that on the basis it would be seen as an "optional extra", so it's encouraging to be included.
 

Chaldry

New Member
Existing hull, angle grinder, new turret, screw driver, done.
Cool, same treatment as when the Danish Leopards were upgraded to the A7 variant. The reason I asked was due to "upgraded protection" from the article but it doesn't go into any detail what that means exactly. Rheinmetall's APS maybe?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Cool, same treatment as when the Danish Leopards were upgraded to the A7 variant. The reason I asked was due to "upgraded protection" from the article but it doesn't go into any detail what that means exactly. Rheinmetall's APS maybe?
APS is definitely referenced :


"As part of the Challenger 3's layered protection, the fleet will also be the first to receive the best active protection system (APS) allowing it to recognise incoming threats and neutralise them. The tank will undergo full electromagnetic testing to ensure it is survivable in the most demanding of sensor saturated battlefields. "


It's kinda tempting to go with taking that as a badly worded confirmation that we are talking Rheinmetall's APS - and they are pretty much running the show.

I'll await something with a less fluffy feel to it for more information.

It looks like a healthy set of upgrades.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
It's kinda tempting to go with taking that as a badly worded confirmation that we are talking Rheinmetall's APS - and they are pretty much running the show.
Rheinmetall has not advanced its own APS to a high enough TRL to actually start fielding it, and the best evidence for that is that Germany itself has preferred a foreign APS. Usually it's the government's job to advance its own industry. If the RAP was ready, it would likely be used by Germany.

As for why RAP isn't ready yet, we don't know. Either internal delays, or none wants to fund its development.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
well, re-reading that announcement more closely, it looks like they're evaluating choices and haven't made a down-select as yet.


" the fleet will also be the first to receive the best active protection system (APS) allowing it to recognise incoming threats and neutralise them.

So, I'll go with "TBD" on that one - Strikeshield is in trials with the US right now, under a development contract so I'd imagine if that goes well, it'd be a strong contender.

I'd guess something MOTS is more likely however.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Right now, Trophy is the highest TRL. Rafael has also presented some strong points against the current use of anti-KE APS, despite IMI and Rafael demonstrating successful test-range interceptions about 15 years ago.

But if the British choose to go with Trophy as an ad-hoc solution, it may not be a very good solution. On the Merkava 4M it was integrated seamlessly. But on the Leopard and Abrams it looks very bulky and unwieldy. The primary metric here is the level of modularity of the platform and its turret.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Right now, Trophy is the highest TRL. Rafael has also presented some strong points against the current use of anti-KE APS, despite IMI and Rafael demonstrating successful test-range interceptions about 15 years ago.

But if the British choose to go with Trophy as an ad-hoc solution, it may not be a very good solution. On the Merkava 4M it was integrated seamlessly. But on the Leopard and Abrams it looks very bulky and unwieldy. The primary metric here is the level of modularity of the platform and its turret.
I understand the installation we’ve seen on Abrams so far is only for testing purposes. The operational systems are supposed to be more streamlined and better integrated into the turret.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
I understand the installation we’ve seen on Abrams so far is only for testing purposes. The operational systems are supposed to be more streamlined and better integrated into the turret.
Based on images we have seen of it in European deployment.
I think that the bulky form is the final form. Early artist concept images that showed a more integrated form, I think failed to materialize due to the number of changes needed to be done to the A2 Turret. I mean it had the phased array Radar panels in the frontal armored plate. The countermeasure launcher was in the middle of the turret. It just wasn’t realistic.
That is not a knock against Abrams it’s one of the MBT that can easily hold the top tank of the world trophy (Not knocking any other Modern MBT either, it’s just that right now most of the Tanks you can name are pretty much tied and it becomes a question of your perspective on what you feel is more relevant a feature vs the others). But it seems likely Merkava 4’s modular armor in particular the side armor of the turret was used to host the system.
9779E35D-91CB-4597-8C04-C0A370DC4FBE.png
This slide image source Merkava Mk 4 Tank - Fighting-Vehicles.com
DDE4EEAF-8ECA-47FB-A3F8-A78A3E385EDD.jpeg
image Source File:Merkeva Mk 4M - Israeli Tanks 2019-04-21 IZE-42.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

The above image Slide the armor of the Merkava 4 Turret in exploded view. The two frontal armor sections we see on 4M but the side sections are where the Trophy system lives. As seen in the second image. It seems like they cut into the spaces of the sides to house a lot of the machinery. Abrams Turret wasn’t designed in that manor. Most modern NATO tanks have been extensively modified with new kit and armor modifications not to the degree here where in the turret was totally replaced
Though it does have side armor it’s not in that configuration of large sections that could easily be swapped out like that. Only a handful of modern tanks are built like that Leclerc I think could do that, Leopard Revolution too. But it generally would need a new armor system and or Turret for a tank of Abrams design era.
As such the most convenient solution thus far was it seems to mount the system along the side racks. As an external module. This allowed the system the space for its automatic loader, radars, launcher and the like. It means that at least in theory more Abrams can also be retrofit with the system fairly rapidly. Considering the Number of the type available or stored that’s a good advantage. Although a heavy one. It makes a already heavy tank, “chunkier”.

This makes things interesting for the Challanger. Challanger II turret has to be replaced for this upgrade. If that’s the case than depending on build an APS added to the system could be more streamlined into the new turret. If the final architecture resembles the current Challanger than the side mounted system would make sense. If they give the armor package a total overhaul then more integrated. The Artists concepts for Rheinmetall's Challanger II redux make me think bolt on as it “ looks” like the old turret, Yet that’s subjective and not based on the final product.
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What is this information based on?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to Australia’s ‘operational’ vehicles.

This came from discussions with Army on their planned fitout for the M1A2 SEPv3 tanks that are incoming… Confirmed by DTR Magazine.


I agree it’s unlikely the variants fitted to US Army M1A2 SEPv2 tanks will change their installation significantly.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Bit more information on the APS - seems there's a program been running since 2017 I wasn't aware of:



Bit of a home connection as one of Leonardo's offices is just up the road from me. Looks like it's a systems integration effort, using off the shelf components like sensor and effectors.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Well Donatello was busy fixing April’s IPhone and Michelangelo was sewer surfing. Cowabunga.

But yes they did the integration work on Abrams as a partnership.
Given that history I expect “Dumbo ears” 2.0 for Challenger. Of course the MOD is doing this ala cart’ So it could end up being just about any APS.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Hooboy:


I'm wondering if this is the usual "not really, no" defence reporting or are we on track for "most useless procurement processes 2021" here ?
Regarding the noise point, I can't comment on other countries but hasn't it been quite normal for personnel in British armoured vehicles to need to wear headphones with mics due to the noise from the engines? Testing hearing would make sense to make sure they were working properly. The point of concern would be if the headphones weren't effective. The article is silent on that.

On the rest, I guess either those are issues that have been resolved or will need to be before the vehicle can be accepted.
 
Top