It’s well past the concept stage. Signing a contract for delivery means they’ve been permitted to produce the armour at scale, having proved they can manufacture it and integrate it on a prototype vehicle.
The articles say:
initial integration trials conducted in 2023
i.e. they’ve already built one with DSTL’s armour and the customer (UK MoD) are happy that RBSL can fulfil the contract in accordance with DSTL’s design.
But be aware this is the EPSOM external armour, not the FARNHAM internal armour.
Well
Depends on what we take for what. Do we take Chobham on the Cr2 as an external armour and Dorchester (DL1) as internal, or do we take Chobham as internal and Dorchester (DL2) as external?
The stupid thing is, both internal and external armour was refered to as Chobham and Dorchester (DL1 and DL2).
And based on Wikipedia (i know i know, but its better than none)
It was Jon Hawkes from Janes that reported at IAV last year that the modular armour package was the one designated Epsom. x.com
“Modular armour” typically refers to external armour packages that can be easily removed and scaled to operational threats, rather than being integral to the vehicle’s hull or turret.
So was just following what’s been presented by defence journalists.
But possible with the new turret that everything is modular, and there’s little to no integral armour besides the steel citadel. This is the approach taken with Israel’s Merkava and Japan’s Type 10. Thus Epsom and Farnham would both be a range of scalable external armour packs and significant departure from the CR3 tech demonstrator.
In general though. Whenever EPSOM (or is it Farnham?) is tested then could we basically just see Dorchester level 3 kits like it’s level 2 progenitors?
Vehicle Systems International Division, will discuss #Challenger3: Delivering an upgraded Main Battle Tank #capability and bridging to the next generation combat system."
