军事专家警告:英国新一代挑战者 3 坦克还没服役就已过时
Britain’s Challenger 3 Next Generation Tank is Already Obsolete, Army Expert Warns
译文简介
这是前英国陆军军官、著名防务评论员斯图尔特·克劳福德中校最新评估报告提出的警示。
正文翻译

Britain’s Challenger 3 Next Generation Tank is Already Obsolete, Army Expert Warns
军事专家警告:英国挑战者 3 新一代坦克还没服役就已过时
The Challenger 3 main battle tank currently under development to equip the British Army may suffer from obsolescence before it even enters service, according to a recent assessment published by former British Army officer and prominent defence commentator Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford. Although questions have been widely raised regarding the sufficiency of the tank program, in particular its very small planned procurement numbers of 148 vehicles, Crawford’s assessment highlighted serious deficiencies with the capabilities of the vehicles themselves. The Challenger 3 has been developed as an enhanced derivative of the Challenger 2 that entered service in the 1990s, and “may represent the final iteration of a now obsolete design philosophy,” Crawford noted, adding that “current generation of Western main battle tanks, Leopard 2, M1A2 Abrams, and now CR3, are increasingly seen as too large, heavy, costly, and vulnerable to justify further development along traditional lines.”
英国陆军正在研发的"挑战者 3"主战坦克可能在服役前就已面临过时风险——这是前英国陆军军官、著名防务评论员斯图尔特·克劳福德中校最新评估报告提出的警示。尽管该坦克项目(尤其是仅计划采购 148 辆的极小规模)的合理性已广受质疑,但克劳福德的评估着重指出了坦克自身性能存在的严重缺陷。作为 1990 年代服役的"挑战者 2"坦克的升级版本,"挑战者 3 可能代表着已过时设计理念的终极形态",克劳福德特别强调:"当前西方主战坦克——豹 2、M1A2 艾布拉姆斯以及如今的 CR3——正因其体积庞大、重量超标、成本高昂且防护脆弱等缺陷,越来越难以证明延续传统发展路线的合理性。"
Threatening the survivability of the fleet, only 60 active protection systems are being procured to be shared by the vehicles which Crawford noted appears to pose considerable risks when considered the lessons learned from the Ukrainain theatre regarding the difficulties such vehicles face with survivability. Regarding mobility, Crawford observed: “The tank also retains the 1,200 hp engine of its predecessor, Challenger 2, criticised by Ukrainian operators as underpowered for its weight. If CR3 [Challenger 3] approaches 80 tonnes in full combat configuration, questions remain over its mobility and whether British Army recovery and bridging assets can handle it.”
威胁到车队生存能力的是,仅采购了 60 套主动防护系统供车队共享。克劳福德指出,考虑到从乌克兰战场吸取的教训——此类车辆在战场生存上面临的困境,这种做法似乎带来了相当大的风险。关于机动性,克劳福德评论道:"该坦克仍沿用其前身'挑战者 2'的 1200 马力发动机,乌克兰操作人员批评其动力与重量不匹配。若'挑战者 3'全战斗配置下接近 80 吨,其机动性及英军现有救援架桥设备能否应对仍存疑问。"
“The traditional three-crew turret layout is outdated when autoloaders and remote turrets are widely available,” Crawford added, noting that future tanks “are likely to follow Russia’s T-14 Armata model, with crews enclosed in armoured capsules within the hull. This approach reduces the vehicle’s profile and weight.” China’s new Type 100 main battle tank unveiled on September 3 was a notable example of this, and was designed to prioritise crew protection, lightness and high mobility with a design widely considered to have responded to the prevailing trends seen in the Ukrainian theatre. The Type 100’s example, even more so than the T-14, is expected to be followed by future tank designs.
"传统的三人炮塔布局在自动装弹机和遥控炮塔已广泛应用的当下显得过时,"克劳福德补充道,并指出未来的坦克"很可能会效仿俄罗斯 T-14'阿玛塔'的模式,将乘员密闭在车体内的装甲舱中。这种设计能显著降低坦克的外形轮廓和整体重量。"9 月 3 日亮相的中国新型 100 式主战坦克就是典型范例,其设计以乘员防护性、轻量化与高机动性为优先考量,被普遍认为顺应了乌克兰战场上呈现的主流趋势。比起 T-14,100 式的设计理念更有可能成为未来坦克的蓝本。
Crawford’s assessment highlighted the significant advantages which Soviet, Ukrainain and Russian tanks have had over their Western counterparts, observing: “There is a strong case for a shift towards smaller, lighter, and cheaper tanks in the 45–50 tonne range. Such vehicles could feature remote turrets, crews in protected hull compartments, balanced armour coverage, and extensive use of APS and counter-drone defences.” This weight range encompasses all currently service Soviet and Russian tanks, where Western tanks typically weigh between 70-80 tons. Crawford’s arguments regarding the vulnerability of Western tank designs has been strongly supported by observations of the performances of the American M1A1 Abrams and German Leopard 2 in the Ukrainian theatre. Both types began to take heavy losses almost as soon as they began to see combat, and by early June 2025 the Ukrainian Army was assessed to have lost 87 percent of the American sourced tanks with 27 of the 31 vehicles destroyed or captured, while most of the Leopard 2 fleet had been taken out as early as December 2023.
克劳福德的评估凸显了苏联、乌克兰及俄罗斯坦克相较于西方同类型号的显著优势,他指出:"有充分理由转向 45 至 50 吨级更小、更轻且成本更低的坦克。此类战车可配备遥控炮塔、乘员位于防护性车体舱室、均衡的装甲覆盖,并广泛使用主动防护系统和反无人机防御系统。"这一重量范围涵盖了所有现役苏俄坦克,而西方坦克通常重达 70 至 80 吨。克劳福德关于西方坦克设计脆弱性的观点,从美制 M1A1 艾布拉姆斯和德制豹 2 在乌克兰战场的表现得到了有力佐证——两款坦克几乎投入战斗后便迅速遭受重大损失。截至 2025 年 6 月初,乌军评估损失了 87%的美援坦克(31 辆中有 27 辆被毁或缴获),而豹 2 坦克群早在 2023 年 12 月就已大部损失。
After summarising the program’s shortcomings, Crawford concludes: “That raises a strategic question: where does Britain go after Challenger 3? Some argue that with such limited numbers, the UK might be better leaving the tank business altogether. Others contend that a smaller, more affordable design could restore credible mass. NATO allies face similar dilemmas as they plan successors to Leopard 2, Abrams, and Leclerc.” He argues that joining the joint pan-European MARTE tank program could provide the best means forward, as “British firms could contribute to protection systems, optics, powertrains, and suspension, potentially securing both industrial participation and domestic manufacturing.” To make this argument, he reiterates that “Challenger 3 may serve as a capable stopgap, but it embodies a design philosophy already nearing obsolescence.”
在总结该计划的不足后,克劳福德得出结论:"这引发了一个战略性问题:英国在挑战者 3 之后该何去何从?有人认为,以如此有限的数量,英国或许应该彻底退出坦克业务。另一些人则主张,采用更小型、更经济的设计可以重建可信的规模优势。北约盟国在规划豹 2、艾布拉姆斯和勒克莱尔的继任者时也面临类似困境。"他提出加入泛欧洲 MARTE 联合坦克计划可能是最佳出路,因为"英国企业可以在防护系统、光学设备、动力总成和悬架方面作出贡献,既保障产业参与度,又能维持本土制造能力。"为佐证这一观点,他再次强调"挑战者 3 或许能作为有效的过渡方案,但其体现的设计理念已濒临过时。"
Beyond Europe possible alternatives not noted by Crawford could include joining the South Korean K3 program, as the K2 it is being developed to succeed is currently considered the most capable NATO-compatible main battle tank in the world setting a strong precedent for success. Japan and the United States, which are other leading potential partners, are not known to have taken similar steps towards developing new generations of main battle tanks.
除克劳福德未提及的欧洲替代方案外,另一个可能选择是加入韩国 K3 坦克项目。作为 K2 黑豹的继任者,K2 目前被公认为全球最具战斗力的北约标准主战坦克,这为 K3 的成功奠定了坚实基础。而同样具备合作潜力的日本与美国,迄今未见类似的新一代主战坦克研发动向。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 5 )
收藏
This is really poor form from me, but the reason I posted this wasn't actually about the article itself, but rather the news site on which it's posted, 'Military Watch Magazine', which has done a pretty exceptional job of taking an opinion piece written initially for the UKDJ and chopping out the nuance to create some clickbait.
这确实是我的失礼之处,但我发布这篇文章并非针对内容本身,而是针对刊登它的新闻网站"Military Watch Magazine"。该网站将一篇最初为 UKDJ 撰写的评论文章去除了所有微妙之处,加工成纯粹的点击诱饵,其手法堪称"出色"。
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-next-tank-may-be-last-of-the-old-breed/
'Britain's next tank may already be 'near-obsolescence' is the title from the UKDJ. The MWM takes this title and makes it 'Britain’s Challenger 3 Next Generation Tank is Already Obsolete, Army Expert Warns'. That's a pretty significant manipulation of what has been said. In fact, the initial UKDJ article actually states - 'this does not mean that the Challenger 3 will be a poor vehicle', merely that the philosophy under which it was designed is beginning to become dated.
英国下一代坦克可能已"濒临过时",这是 UKDJ 的原标题。而 MWM(《军事观察》杂志)将其篡改为"英国陆军专家警告:挑战者 3 新一代坦克已经落伍"。这种对原意的扭曲堪称恶意操作。事实上,UKDJ 原文明确表示——"这并不意味着挑战者 3 会是一款糟糕的作战车辆",只是其设计理念正逐渐显得过时。
I've noticed this a lot with this particular site - they will blatantly lie and give out misinformation to negatively attack certain subjects. Here's an article from the MWM about the Royal Navy's new destroyers:
我多次注意到这家媒体的惯用手法——他们公然散布谎言和虚假信息,以此抹黑特定对象。这里还有 MWM 关于皇家海军新型驱逐舰的报道:(后续内容未提供翻译)
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/plans-clarified-britain-type83-destroyer
The Type 83 will reportedly continue to be heavily focused on air defence duties, and lack the versatility of AEGIS destroyers fielded by the United States, Japan and South Korea, or by Chinese, Russian and North Korean ships which use similar multi-role vertical launch systems. The warship class will instead continue to rely on the European Mk.41 system and the Aster-30 surface-to-air missile, which is significantly less costly than its American counterparts the SM-3 and SM-6. It is expected that the ships will be able to contribute to ballistic missile defence efforts, which is something the Type 45 Class cannot do. The new warships will also integrate the Sea Ceptor and CAMM-ER missiles for short and medium range air defence. An inability to carry ballistic or cruise missiles will leave the ships highly restricted in land-attack or anti-shipping roles. The new destroyer class is reportedly being designed to be able to integrate directed energy weapons, which is expected to significantly influence the design of its power generation and management systems.
据报道,83 型驱逐舰将继续以防空任务为核心,但缺乏美国、日本和韩国部署的宙斯盾驱逐舰的多功能性,也不具备中国、俄罗斯和朝鲜舰船采用类似多用途垂直发射系统的能力。该级战舰将继续依赖欧洲的 Mk.41 系统和 Aster-30 防空导弹,其成本显著低于美国的 SM-3 和 SM-6 导弹。预计这些舰艇将能够参与弹道导弹防御任务,这是 45 型驱逐舰无法实现的。新型战舰还将整合海受体(Sea Ceptor)和 CAMM-ER 导弹,用于中短程防空。由于无法携带弹道导弹或巡航导弹,该级舰艇在对地攻击或反舰任务中将受到极大限制。据报道,新型驱逐舰的设计将考虑集成定向能武器,这预计会显著影响其发电和管理系统的设计。
Anyone with a general knowledge of military marine systems will see some major issues in that paragraph, but I'll bold them just in case.
但凡对海军军事系统稍有了解的人,都会发现这段描述存在明显问题。为求明确,我将着重指出以下几点:
- We know the ship is intended to carry a variety of anti-shipping weapons. Notably, these include the Stratus LO and Stratus RS cruise missiles, as well as potentially fitting American Conventional Prompt Strike systems to these ships. Naval Strike Missiles are also fairly likely to be fitted, given the RN does use them, though they may be reserved for the frigate force. Hence, it seems very weird to claim that the ship isn't planned to have a multirole capability, and even weirder to go on claiming it will have an 'inability to carry ballistic or cruise missiles'.
- 众所周知,该舰计划搭载多种反舰武器系统。尤为值得注意的是,其中包括"层云"低可观测型(Stratus LO)与"层云"快速打击型(Stratus RS)巡航导弹,甚至可能配备美制"常规快速打击"(CPS)系统。鉴于英国皇家海军已列装该装备,"海军打击导弹"(NSM)极有可能成为选配方案——尽管更可能优先配属给护卫舰编队。因此,所谓"该舰未规划多任务能力"的论断显得极其荒谬,而断言其"无法携带弹道导弹或巡航导弹"更是荒诞至极。
- The Mk41 system is American, and the Type 45 can contribute to BMD - this was proven both in 2013, when the ship was involved in the exoatmospheric tracking of two medium-range ballistic missiles and in 2024 when the ship intercepted a Houthi ballistic missile. French ships using similar (slightly inferior) systems engaged three more, as did Italians. Work is currently underway to improve this capability, alongside adding 24 more missiles to the destroyers - a fact that has yet to be mentioned in any article the MWM has made on the Type 45.
- Mk41 是美国系统,45 型驱逐舰具备弹道导弹防御能力——这一点在 2013 年该舰参与两枚中程弹道导弹的大气层外追踪任务时已得到验证,2024 年该舰成功拦截胡塞武装弹道导弹时再次证实。使用类似(略逊色)系统的法国舰艇拦截了三枚,意大利舰艇亦有斩获。目前正开展能力升级工作,同时为驱逐舰增配 24 枚导弹——这一事实从未出现在 MWM 任何关于 45 型驱逐舰的报道中。
Here's another article, this time about the Type 26 frigate. It claims:
另一篇关于 26 型护卫舰的文章声称:
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/limited-versatility-firepower-type026-compare
Type 26 frigates are significantly more versatile than the Type 45, as while the older destroyers’ 48 vertical launch cells can carry only surface-to-air missiles, and even with these lack an anti-ballistic missile capability, the Type 26 integrates 24 cells for Tomahawk cruise missiles and 12 cells for surface-to-air missiles. The lack of multipurpose launch cells, however, leaves the Type 26 considerably behind the cutting edge
26 型护卫舰比 45 型驱逐舰功能全面得多:老式驱逐舰的 48 个垂直发射单元仅能装载防空导弹且不具备反导能力,而 26 型配备 24 个战斧巡航导弹发射单元和 12 个防空导弹发射单元。但多用途发射单元的缺失使其显著落后于前沿水平
The Tomahawk launchers it mentions are literally Mk41 multipurpose launch cells. The article also handily ignores the ship's main role as an anti-submarine frigate, basing its entire assessment on 'It only has X amount of weapons therefore it must be shit'.
文中所指的"战斧"发射器实质上就是 Mk41 多用途垂直发射单元。该文章还刻意忽视了该舰作为反潜护卫舰的核心使命,其全部评价依据仅是"它只配备了 X 数量的武器,所以肯定很垃圾"这套逻辑。
They also have a great article on Trident, in which they claim:
他们还有一篇关于三叉戟导弹的"精彩"文章,其中断言:
Ultimately Britain's nuclear arsenal remains the only one in the world which is unable to be utilised independently without permission from a foreign power.
归根结底,英国核武库仍是全球唯一需要外国许可才能独立使用的核力量。
Their justification for said assertion? The systems are designed, built and maintained in the US, and the US could always turn off the GPS. Despite that fact that British engineers were involved in the design of the missile, British engineers built the warheads used on our missiles and that the missiles don't need GPS to function.
这番论断的依据?导弹系统由美国设计、建造和维护,且美国随时可以关闭 GPS。尽管事实是:英国工程师参与了导弹设计,英国工程师制造了本国导弹的核弹头,而且这些导弹根本不依赖 GPS 运作。
Smooth_Imagination
Yep, the future tank needs way more active kinetic protection against drones and to be lighter.
确实,未来的坦克需要更强的主动动能防护来应对无人机威胁,同时还要更轻量化。
MrZakalwe
I'd agree- 20 years ago a functional and efficient hardkill APS was a dream while I suspect as precision increases, that arms race is only just beginning.
我同意——20 年前,一个功能完善且高效的有源硬杀伤主动防护系统还是梦想,但我猜测,随着精度的提升,这场军备竞赛才刚刚开始。
If they get good, we're back to chucking shells or rods of tungsten again.
如果它们表现优异,我们就又得重新投掷钨合金炮弹或穿甲弹了。
Astandsforataxia69
Are these the same experts who screamed that "the f35 is a money pit"? and the second you dug deeper it had the same guys going "ROSSIYA XAXAXAXAX"
这些专家和当初高喊"F35 是烧钱无底洞"的是同一批人吗?结果深挖下去发现这帮人转眼就在喊"俄罗斯哈哈哈"?
smokehouse03
It's more Britain has multiple AFVs in dev hell and can't produce them or ammo, or anything really in any actual numbers. Britain is Bulgaria without London, it is a second rate power gutted by years of austerity. Still it sends a carrier around the world (reliant on the US in nearly every aspect lMao) larping as a world power rather than a regional one.
问题更多在于英国有多款装甲战车陷于研发困境,既无法量产装备,也生产不出足量弹药,实质上什么都造不出像样的数量。没有伦敦的英国就跟保加利亚无异,这个二流强国已被多年紧缩政策掏空。可它仍派航母全球巡弋(几乎每个环节都得靠美国撑腰,笑死),硬要扮演世界强国而非地区大国的角色。
The challenger is just another symptom and has been for awhile now.
"挑战者"坦克不过是这一顽疾的最新表现,而且这症状已持续相当久了。
Mediocre_Painting263
Ultimately, the continental vs expeditionary debate is still going on.
归根结底,大陆军与远征军的争论仍在持续。
Britain can't decide if it wants to be global, or continental. And its desperate attempts to do both, has meant it can do neither. Britain could be a global power, but we'd hate to see how expensive it is. Our strategic priorities aren't balanced, and we have grand ambitions, with poor budgets.
英国始终无法在全球化与大陆化之间做出抉择。它同时追求两者的绝望尝试,导致两头落空。英国本可成为全球性强权,但没人愿目睹那需要付出的高昂代价。我们的战略重点失衡,野心勃勃却预算拮据。
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/v8media/research/facilities/policy/StrategicDefenceReview2025.pdf
That little presentation quite nicely wraps it up.
这场简短的演讲完美地总结了症结所在。
Whenever you point this out to people though,
每当你向人们指出这一点时,
You either get ideological arguments that Britain is an island and, thus, needs a strong & global navy (despite our oceans being pretty safe from naval threats, and Britain being a solid century away from policing the seven seas again)
你要么会听到这样的意识形态论调:英国是个岛国,因此需要一支强大的全球性海军(尽管我们的海洋基本不受海军威胁,而且英国距离再次 policing 七大洋还差着整整一个世纪)
Or someone who just screams "Quality over quantity!".
要么就是有人只会高喊"质量胜过数量!"
jellobowlshifter
He says this tank is still a tank?
他说这玩意儿能算坦克?
VoidsHeart45
Just like the challenger 2 the challenger 3 will enter service already obsolete for its competition. Just like the challenger 2 it will be a good tank for when it was designed but is expensive, won’t be produced in large amounts and will enter service far later than it should have. When every other country is fielding next generation tanks with unmanned turrets and novel systems the challenger 3 will have finally caught up to the past generation.
与挑战者 2 型坦克如出一辙,挑战者 3 型坦克在服役时就将落后于竞争对手。就像挑战者 2 型一样,它作为设计时代的产物或许性能优良,但造价高昂、产量有限且服役时间远远滞后。当其他国家纷纷列装配备无人炮塔和新型系统的下一代坦克时,挑战者 3 型才终于追平了上一代的技术水平。
jellobowlshifter
But that's okay because when would it ever deploy?
但这无关紧要——它何曾有机会真正投入实战呢?
speedyundeadhittite
It's OK, our friends in the middle east will buy a couple of thousands and let them rust, saving our industries. In turn, they will continue selling is petrol.
没关系,我们的中东朋友们会买上几千辆然后让它们生锈,这样就能保住我们的工业。作为交换,他们会继续卖给我们石油。
larper00
So let me get this straight, the Brits are wanking off to their new shiny tank that approaches 80 tons (LMao) that will be produced in limited numbers (if at all) with its main innovation being a new (old) gun that gives no edge in the modern battlefield, but looks good on war thunder arcade servers.
让我捋一捋——英国人正对着他们那辆接近 80 吨重(笑死)的闪亮新坦克自嗨,这玩意产量极其有限(如果有的话),其主要创新是门毫无现代战场优势的(老式)新炮,也就只能在战争雷霆街机服务器里装装逼。
Meanwhile UK continues to LARP as a global superpower with its shit head elite and some unemployed NAFO degenerates singing rule Britannia while its navy barely projects power outside north atlantic (trying to poke PLAN LMaoOO), its army/air force is unable to even be committed to a post war peacekeeping operation in Ukraine (even with allied NATO involvement, coalition of the willing my ass) without daddy USA scaring the Russians.
与此同时,英国还在 COSPLAY 全球超级大国——脑残精英领着群失业的 NAFO 废青高唱《不列颠万岁》,可他们海军的力量投送连北大西洋都出不去(还想挑衅解放军海军哈哈哈),陆军/空军要是没有美国爸爸吓唬俄罗斯人,连在乌克兰战后维和行动里露个脸都做不到(就算有北约盟军参与,去他妈的志愿联盟)。
Lastly the political scene has devolved to choosing between record low approval Starmer and Farage (LOL) with its economy in tatters that if you would remove the services heavy economy of London you would think you are in third world shit hole.
最后看政坛——只能在支持率历史新低的斯塔默和法拉奇(哈哈哈)之间比烂,经济烂到如果把伦敦的服务业经济拿掉,你会以为自己活在第三世界粪坑。