Challenger #3 to have smooth-bore ??

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

I was reading a wary comparison between UK's Challenger #2 and Rus Armata tanks, noticed a mention that C#3 would be switched from 'rifled' to 'smooth-bore'. Expected introduction ~2030...

Okay, the UK's C#2 is unusual among MBTs for its 'rifled' gun. Something to do with preferred munitions, whose spin-stabilised payload still 'does needful' rather well.

But, as I understand it, these may be countered by reactive (ERA) armour, and the payload to beat such ERA does much better if un-spun...

Also, IIRC, potential 'smart' munitions with terminal guidance or autonomous top-down attack mode would prefer un-spun...

And, yes, 'smooth' gives commonality, economies of production with most NATO and US MBTs / artillery...
{ 'Logistics, Logistics, Logistics...' }

Is this a fair assessment ??

[Nathan45]

I'd guess that given how few 3s will be deployed the value of a wider variety of ammo types is simply not a worth having a unique ammo type in the NATO supply chain anymore. I've also heard (don't know) that smoothbore ammo types are improving in variety as well. Just my guess

[Cihatari]

Changing to Rheinmetall L55A1, so yes, commonality with the rest of Nato.

[Pdf27]

They've been trying to do it for nearly 20 years now!

[Bernard Woolley]

They've been trying to do it for nearly 20 years now!

Even longer than that from what I’ve read. IIRC, there were discussions back in the ‘80s regarding the army’s new tank having a smooth bore. The army was keen on keeping HESH capability and there were not the sort of advanced 120mm smoothbore rounds that there are today. The end of the CW also reduced the argument for NATO commonality. Had the CW not ended when it did then CR2 might have had the same gun as the Abrams and Leo2. Again, IIRC, Simon Dunstan mentions it in his Osprey book on CR2.

We have known for a while that whatever the upgrade to CR2 was going to look like, it was going to include an L55 smoothbore gun. The army is getting CR3 because from what I’ve read, it was just too difficult technically to update the ammo storage in the current turret (at least one CR2 was fitted with the L55 gun).

[Craiglxviii]

Now we just need to tack another 600-700 onto the purchase order.

[Belushi TD]

Now we just need to tack another 600-700 onto the purchase order.

I think you dropped a decimal there....


Belushi TD

[Craiglxviii]

Now we just need to tack another 600-700 onto the purchase order.

I think you dropped a decimal there....


Belushi TD

Oh no, if we can get a tank force of around 1000 I’d be quite happy.

[Zen9]

Now we just need to tack another 600-700 onto the purchase order.

As per Alan B'stard "we'll finally get Britain back on her knees"
Aid:"don't you mean feet sir?"
AB: "one step at a time lad!"

[Belushi TD]

Now we just need to tack another 600-700 onto the purchase order.

I think you dropped a decimal there....


Belushi TD

Oh no, if we can get a tank force of around 1000 I’d be quite happy.

Then you DEFINITELY dropped a decimal.

6,000 to 7,000 sounds a LOT better to me!

Belushi TD

[Drunknsubmrnr]

Am I correct in thinking that Challenger 3 has not actually been funded at this point?

[Johnnie Lyle]

I think you dropped a decimal there....


Belushi TD

Oh no, if we can get a tank force of around 1000 I’d be quite happy.

Then you DEFINITELY dropped a decimal.

6,000 to 7,000 sounds a LOT better to me!

Belushi TD

The UK is an island power. Spend that level of money on the Navy and Air Force.

[Craiglxviii]

Am I correct in thinking that Challenger 3 has not actually been funded at this point?

I believe it passed Main Gate not too long ago.

[Drunknsubmrnr]

Are there multiple upgrade programs for the Challenger 2?

Check figure 5 on page 20.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 232033.pdf

[Craiglxviii]

Are there multiple upgrade programs for the Challenger 2?

Check figure 5 on page 20.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 232033.pdf

Yes, Chally2 is slated for an interim upgrade too.

[Drunknsubmrnr]

Looks like it’s “funded for but not with”. Along with an awful lot else.

[Craiglxviii]

Looks like it’s “funded for but not with”. Along with an awful lot else.

Yes, the National Audit Office has identified £17bn of unfounded priority defence programme spending.