FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[ArmChairCivvy]

TUSK was not the first time the M1s were uparmoured (rather than the generational evolution: A1, A2...). I wonder what happened to these hulls:

"Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union the FST-2 and FST-3 were considered threats beyond the capabilities of NATO tanks of that time, including the M1A1 and Leopard 2. The M1A1HA (heavy armor) upgrade was introduced at a cost of around $1 billion due to the threat posed by the theoretical FST-2. Beginning in 1988, there were 1,328 M1A1HA tanks manufactured and another 834 with increased armor protection (M1A1HA+).21 However, the Soviet Union fell in 1991 without producing either the FST-2 or the FST-3."

[Lugzy]

I can't really add to what as already been said by members , but in my opinion finding a challenger 2 replacement is the best option , as Gab pointed out the amount of money (£500m-£700m) which is going to be used in doing very minimum upgrades will not keep the challenger 2 viable for the next few decades as I see it , seems just to be a waste tbh .
The challenger 2 as served us well but it's time to look to the future , if keeping a MBT capability is seen as a part of our Land warfare strategy going forward then we must look to which vehicle can fore fill this role , is the modest upgrade to challenger 2 going to achieve this I'd say no , and I wonder how much more money would have to put into further upgrades down the road ,
If a replacement is considered my option would be the Leopard 2a7 in my opinion it's available and in production , and a world beater ,
waiting around or a-summing we might join in the possible German-French partnership for a future MBT sets alarm bells off , I can see the political bs causing delay after delay as arguments about whos doing what , which company gets which part of the workshare , then there's the question about what capabilities each partners military want to incorporate into the design , then there's the cost , and the question,, can we afford to wait ? Don't get me wrong the UK could bring a lot to the table in any partnership buts it's a gamble and a uncertain time frame .
If the UK rethinks and decides they want to do a proper upgrade program including main gun , turret , etc etc then maybe we could afford to wait , but I'm talking a full rebuild , and this wouldn't be cheap .

[ArmChairCivvy]

maybe we could afford to wait , but I'm talking a full rebuild , and this wouldn't be cheap .

There is a middleway (and cheap! as long as it is clearly understood to be a stop-gap):
1. Keep a proportion of the Ch2 fleet as fire support
2. upgrade the rest with a tank-killer solution that has been kept current, see below:

"Jordan's [...] Development and Design Bureau (Kaddb) revealed the new Falcon turret at Idex 2001. The turret is designed to reduce he frontal profile as much as possible (although, it should be known that the smaller the frontal profile of the turret, the larger the sides will be), as well as weight, and is an upgrade option for Arab M60 Patton tanks and Jordan’s own Challengers (Al Husseins). The two man turret crew (the driver is still in the hull) is seated in the turret basket, reducing the required amount of protection in the front. By reducing the front turret profile and moving the position of the crew Kaddb radically decreased the armored volume of the turret reducing weight just as dramatically. However, moving the crew into the turret basket results in disallowing the tank commander from a good panoramic view – in essence, he’s commanding the tank based on computers. Furthermore, the Falcon turret’s autoloader only holds eleven rounds (with plans to increase to sixteen), compared to the forty rounds held by the M1 Abrams34 – the Falcon turret is wedded to Ruag’s 120mm compact tank gun (CTG), which weighs 2,600kg"

[ArmChairCivvy]

I don't know if anyone remembers "Jordan's" Challies? They were the order for Iran (500+ mind you!), so much improved that the work eventually gave us the Ch2. But ... come revolution in Iran... the tanks were rerouted to Jordan.

[whitelancer]

The Jordanian Challies were Shir 1s,which they called Khalid, basically a modified Chieftain with some elements, notably the engine that were to be part of Shir 2. It was from the Shir 2 that Challenger 1 was derived. Interestingly Shir 2 was quite a bit bigger than Challenger, in particular its width. It had to be shrunk somewhat to be compatible with operations in Europe.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thx Whitelancer, had forgotten that it was a two stage approach... happy ending anyway; otherwise the British army would still be driving around in marginally improved Chieftains. The deposed Shah having been the Sugar Daddy for Chally.

[arfah]

..................

[RetroSicotte]

As expected then, Government only wants the CR2's to exist so that he can say we have tanks, with absolutely no care given to whether they are actually capable vehicles or not. So long as he can check that box off to claim it's there.

Also, note this line:

As it stands, the manufacture and costs of a new main battle tank make it unlikely that the Army would seek this option.

For gods sake, Cameron. We don't have an AFV industry. Give up pretending we do and just buy them from someone else.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

I believe the appropriate response to this news would be 'bugger'...


Still they continue to bury their hands in the sand about the future of MBTs in the British Army. Now i am a strong proponent of Challenger even still but i have always, always been uneasy about the suggestion that it would never be replaced and it would seem now, more than ever, it is necessary to do so...

The old theories about the impending obsolscence of heavy armour have been thoroughly debunked and if we want to play at the highest levels of operation we need a new machine ourselves. The Army cannot afford to end its heavy armour legacy with the Chally 2 – certainly not whilst there is no sufficient alternative concept in place if the thought of abandoning heavy armour is to even be considered acceptable at all.

Plus, i still can’t understand as to how they can justify labelling a new tank - either and off the shelf solution (commercial or modified to UK requirements) or a completely new in-house design - as being 'too costly' when we seem to be looking at spending close to £1 billion removing and replacing old electronics!!!

[Cooper]

Just a question of priorities, keep it going for another decade or so, then when all the other required Army vehicles have been replaced, put in an order for a couple of hundred 'off the shelf' tanks from the Germans I suppose.

[shark bait]

The army has a lot of vehicle requirements coming up, as well as the ongoing ajax and warrior so they have to prioritise.
Building our own tank is difficult because twenty years down the line we will be in the exact same situation down the line, operating a small unique type, struggling to get the right investment. Buying another tank type also makes little sense because it will only be credible for 10 or so years until the next gen tanks start arriving and therefore is money wasted.

I think the best thing we can do is make do with the current equipment and then start a joint program for a next generation tank.

Really, what good are tanks when they are all stored on an island anyway? They are no threat to any one unless one of the home nation decides to go feral. This maybe some what overzealous, but the only reason we would need masses of tanks would be to invade Russia and I don't think we are going to be doing that alone.

If the army are prioritising a rapidly deployable Mechanised Infantry Vehicle and setting a new tank back a decade, I think that is reasonable. Sure it will be a MBT capability break, but building a different capability in the interim. Unfortunate we can no longer have it all, and the powers that be will need to prioritise.

[marktigger]

Our tanks have lead the way into Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq twice have been transported there by sea. Tanks make perfect sense despite what the Moron machine would have you believe. They provide a level of protection for their crews far in excess of what can be airlifted and can remain on station longer than an apache or ground attack aircraft. And in terms of killing other tanks protable ATGM's aren't there yet and the tank is the better option.
Its demise has been predicted since the 1960's and gurus who have pushed this idea have been wrong at every turn. The last major defence reviews have fallen into this armoured forces are a thing of the past idea because that argument reinforces their desire to save money. Tanks and armoured warfare are expensive. And the belief that all wars in the future will be like afghanistan is another misguided idea. Who knows what the next war will be like Ukraine wrong footed everyone as much as 911 did. Whilst we have been pouring money into theatre specfic MRAPS for afghanistan the Russians rebuilt their armoured vehicle fleet it will be interesting given current events to see if british troops in foxhounds end up trying to face down russina troops in T80's & BMP's

[ArmChairCivvy]

Whilst we have been pouring money into theatre specfic MRAPS for afghanistan the Russians rebuilt their armoured vehicle fleet

True, but with special reference to Ukraine, the new lessons have been indirect fire, smart munitions and plenty of drones for timely and directed (offensive) use of arty/ rocketry
... not that the idea is new, just using it to good effect

[ArmChairCivvy]

Forgot this one (as the other side in Ukraine did not have any notably effective systems to be jammed); it has now been deployed to Syria

"The Krasukha-4 is a broad-band multifunctional jamming system designed to neutralise Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) spy satellites such as the US Lacrosse/Onyx series, airborne surveillance radars and radar-guided ordinance at ranges between 150km to 300km. The system is reported to be able to cause damage to the enemy’s EW systems and communications. The Krasukha-4 system works by creating powerful jamming at the fundamental radar frequencies and other radio-emitting sources.

Lt General Hodges, the commander of US Army Forces Europe, commented that Russia had demonstrated a high level of offensive EW proficiency against Ukrainian forces in Donbas using a first foreign deployment of the Krasukha-4 system."

[marktigger]

Whilst we have been pouring money into theatre specfic MRAPS for afghanistan the Russians rebuilt their armoured vehicle fleet

True, but with special reference to Ukraine, the new lessons have been indirect fire, smart munitions and plenty of drones for timely and directed (offensive) use of arty/ rocketry
... not that the idea is new, just using it to good effect

Drones are not he panacea everyone thinks! our Artillery has been run down. It has always been the major support element in any war but the mentality of Light Gun is all thats needed has lead to the rundown of the AS90 fleet.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I could not agree more
... esp. when the LG does not have smart munitions;
or, if it did, there would be no room for HE left. So the bang for the buck would be less than non-existent (lots of buck, but no bang)

[shark bait]

Our tanks have lead the way into Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq twice have been transported there by sea

And now our aircraft lead the way. We wont put anything on the ground unless we have air dominance.

[marktigger]

that could be really tricky if we have to confront the russians especially after we butchered our GBAD to create light gun regts for bug hunts

[shark bait]

that could be really tricky if we have to confront the russians especially after we butchered our GBAD to create light gun regts for bug hunts

yeah it would be tricky, but so would storming the Russian border with tanks.
There is still a place for tanks, but I cant see us using them as a first strike any more.

[The Armchair Soldier]

An excellent video here by the Poles showing the recent Dragon 15 exercise involving lots of British armour. There's some awesome scenes with Challenger 2s advancing alongside German Leopard 2s. I can't be the only one here that appreciates such awesome sights.

[mr.fred]

I'd like it better if it didn't cut between scenes so much.
It's always instructive to see how the Challengers are left wallowing in the wake of the Leopards which are going so much faster.
More here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ksR54xoYkM

[Tinman]

I'd like it better if it didn't cut between scenes so much.
It's always instructive to see how the Challengers are left wallowing in the wake of the Leopards which are going so much faster.
More here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ksR54xoYkM

Has the leopard been in Tank V Tank?

Protection wins.

[mr.fred]

Tinman,

What sounds like metal, but isn't?

[Tinman]

I take it Leo hasn't had a Tank vs Tank engagement then?


Thought not.

[Tiny Toy]

Can we have less e-peen and more constructive discussion please? TIA