British army (maybe) getting a new MBT?

I hear the US Army has something like 6000 Abrams tanks in their inventory, despite only wanting around 2000. They apparently keep buying tanks at the behest of congress when they would prefer to use those funds elsewhere. Perhaps the US could donate a couple thousand to the UK or anyone else in NATO that wants new toys. Are the Europeans ok with DU armor and projectiles?
 
Last edited:
I doubt they'd go with the M1, tbh. If they didn't choose it before, why go that way now?
 
BAE does a lot of work on the Abrams, but I think a Challenger 3 is the most likely outcome.

You mean a full new vehicle? Budget...

I see a full upgrade, tbh: new gun, fire control, engine (?), suspension...
 
At the current rate of European defense spending I wouldn't be surprised if this new tank is another CGI rendering.
 
Sounds more like a BAE 'wish list' than a real proposal. I mean come on, after taking the axe to defense spending so recently how could the British Government justify an expensive project like that just for the Army? An given the current state of defense spending in Europe who do they think is going to 'buy in' as a partner and give it the necessary economies of scale to make it past even initial development. As for using the Armata as an excuse, that's pretty lame.

Firstly the Russians, despite all the press releases still haven't worked all the kinks out of the design yet and then they've got to come up with the money they need to build it in significant numbers while at the same time dealing with the other massive obsolescence issues they are face across the board with all their other high end military weapon systems. (Maybe they could do it when oil prices were at their historical peak but not now and not for the foreseeable future.)

And that's not to mention coming up with a scenario where British armored units go head to head with Russian ones in the absence of the full support from their NATO Allies - as far as I am aware the Armata is not ocean going.
 
Last edited:
UK MoD's Army 2020 cut British Army armor down to three brigades. I think that's a pretty clear indication of priorities. Nothing wrong with Challenger 2 anyway. Btw, how likely do you all think that there will be a joint EU project in next gen armor?
 
UK MoD's Army 2020 cut British Army armor down to three brigades. I think that's a pretty clear indication of priorities.

But still need those 3. And wasn't that issued after the "Armada scare"?

Nothing wrong with Challenger 2 anyway.

Apart from (at least) an old rifled gun that can't fire the more modern versions of APFSDS, overweight issues...

Btw, how likely do you all think that there will be a joint EU project in next gen armor?

Doubtfull, tbh. The french are still developing the Leclerc, the germans are transforming the Leopard 2 beyong recognition, and the rest don't have the $$$ or armies to think about a new tank...
 
Ya know it always seems like the UK has the kit India wants.
Our carrier is crap.....the UK has the nifty new QE class.
Our air defence vessels are not that great, the UK has the Daring class.
Our subs are deathtraps, the UK builds excellent astute classes after a few incidents to start with.

It would be great if the UK could build us a 21st century chobham protected challenger III instead of T90 related horror
 
Ya know it always seems like the UK has the kit India wants.
Our carrier is crap.....the UK has the nifty new QE class.
Our air defence vessels are not that great, the UK has the Daring class.
Our subs are deathtraps, the UK builds excellent astute classes after a few incidents to start with.

It would be great if the UK could build us a 21st century chobham protected challenger III instead of T90 related horror

Imho, India's problem isn't technology, but systemic corruption... that ruins every program at every level...
 
Well…the L7/M68 105mm was such a winner that the Brits are probably reluctant to admit that the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore is the way to go. Thought the Chinese or Russians had some tank they're developing with a 140mm gun on it.
 
Well…the L7/M68 105mm was such a winner that the Brits are probably reluctant to admit that the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore is the way to go. Thought the Chinese or Russians had some tank they're developing with a 140mm gun on it.

Bet you've heard it will be very very cheap and produced en masse.
 
But still need those 3. And wasn't that issued after the "Armada scare"?



Apart from (at least) an old rifled gun that can't fire the more modern versions of APFSDS, overweight issues...



Doubtfull, tbh. The french are still developing the Leclerc, the germans are transforming the Leopard 2 beyong recognition, and the rest don't have the $$$ or armies to think about a new tank...

The French and Germans are supposed to be looking at a joint MBT, for what that's worth (hopefully it won't be the 21st century MBT-70).
 
Well…the L7/M68 105mm was such a winner that the Brits are probably reluctant to admit that the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore is the way to go. Thought the Chinese or Russians had some tank they're developing with a 140mm gun on it.

The Chinese supposedly had a 140mm tank gun they were working on back in the 2000's, but nothing's been seen or heard of it since then; the only company seriously looking at a 140mm is Rheinmetall (what a surprise).
 
I hear the US Army has something like 6000 Abrams tanks in their inventory, despite only wanting around 2000. They apparently keep buying tanks at the behest of congress when they would prefer to use those funds elsewhere. Perhaps the US could donate a couple thousand to the UK or anyone else in NATO that wants new toys. Are the Europeans ok with DU armor and projectiles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operators

Steve,

Not sure what you are specifically referring to.

Per the attached over 10,000 were made.

There are 6,000 approx in US Army service with another approx. 500 in USMC. They are split between M1A1 & M1A2 variants.

The Army is not saying they only want 2000 M1s.

They recognize the M1 fleet needs to be rebuilt/refurbished. The force structure going forward can easily absorb 4500 of those M1s.

Don't forget when they say Army they ae also talking ARNG.
 
Steve,

Not sure what you are specifically referring to.

I've seen articles for several years now about how the Army leadership has decided that they already have plenty of tanks and would rather spend their budgets upgrading older models or preferably buying other things. (a HMMWV replacement comes to mind) Yet Congress disagrees and specifically funds continued procurement of tanks.

It is essentially the same thing Congress likes to pull with the battleships with the Navy, and the A-10 with the Air Force.

Now I fully appreciate getting a hard on for the kind of big guns that tanks, battleships and A-10s supply, but it also seems unlikely that legislators would know better than the military about what kind of kit they should be buying.

Below is an example of what I'm talking about.

Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno agreed with Manchin.

"We are still having to procure systems we don't need," Odierno said, adding that the Army spends "hundreds of millions of dollars on tanks that we simply don't have the structure for anymore."

For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II.

Each time, Congress has pushed back. In December, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that funded $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades.

The Army and the Marine Corps currently have about 9,000 Abrams tanks in their inventories. The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that the Army doesn't need more tanks.

Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force.
"When we are talking about tight budgets a couple of hundred million dollars is a lot of money," Odierno said.

"There are lots of people that have looked at procurement reform. And the one thing that has been frustrating to me is as the chief of staff of the Army is how little authority and responsibility that I have in the procurement process. I have a say in requirements, to some extent, but I have very little say."

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said that there needs to be clarity on the chain of command when it comes to procurement.

"There are too many people involved in the process," Greenert said. "If I say 'I need a thing' ... there are a whole lot of people telling us 'no, this is what you really need.'"

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html
 
You can always give a few.Give each Baltic nation a brigade worth of heavies etc... Yeah,it's freebies,but it's cheaper being the arsenal of democracy than the one doing the dying.And it's not like you are going to spend money.It's about making good use of bad at the time investment.
 
Back
Top